Could ST2.1 just be the original ST2? In this piece by the DJC, the suggestion is yes.

Light rail extensions to Tacoma and Lynnwood are back on the table after the Sound Transit board in a surprise move voted yesterday to include the transit portion of Proposition 1 as one of three options for a package that could go on the November ballot.
Sound Transit has been drafting two stripped-down versions of the transit portion of Proposition 1, which was defeated by voters last November. Both versions would be a lot cheaper and take less time to build.
But neither of them included light rail to Snohomish County, and yesterday Snohomish County Executive Aaron Reardon asked the board to put last year’s plan back into contention.
The stripped-down plans “leave North King County with no fast, reliable connections to Seattle,” Lynnwood City Council President Loren Simmonds said in public testimony.

Holy crap. So my post this morning could be a real question for the board. Not everyone on the board is happy with the idea though:

King County Council President Julia Patterson said the two new draft plans, which rely on a major increase in Sounder commuter rail service between Seattle and Tacoma, are contingent on getting an agreement with BNSF Railway that is far from assured.
“Shouldn’t we have another plan waiting in the wings?” Patterson asked.
But only one board member — Everett councilmember Paul Roberts — voted against proceeding.
“There are too many unanswered questions,” Roberts said. “I feel we’re running down the street trying to get dressed.”

6 Replies to “Prop 1 ST2 in November?”

  1. I can’t follow that link.

    Did you watch the meeting? I might have to, just to see what the DJC is talking about (or was this not during the board meeting)?

    I would only be excited about a prop. 1-sized package if we still got to Northgate and Downtown Bellevue by 2020. Even if that did happen, ST would probably find it more difficult to market the plan since most focus will be on the final completion date (2028?).

  2. I would love the regular ST2 package again. It was the best option at the time, and it still is.

    Hell, it’s been the best option since the 1950s.

  3. rizzuhjj,

    The marketing problems were mostly because ST didn’t lay out what would open when. They just didn’t do it. No nice, graphical representation.

    If there’s one thing they need to do, it’s stop wasting money on five thousand copies of the rider news brochure, and start spending that money on well designed documents laying out dates and costs for each project so that it’s harder for the other side to frame the debate.

    A giant list does not do the job! Color code a map.

  4. Yes, that would help ben but the build out time line still seems glacial, especially for mostly surface rail routes and even a color coded map will still be facing that.

    You know and I know and most people who read this blog know why things take 12 years but I often wonder if some phasing of plans might help sell projects more. A sort of “build from the ends” strategy – start work in Lynnwood or Fife or Redmond (assuming approval) rather than the current line.

    A weird thought, I know.

  5. Well the bigger ST2 vs. ST2 “light” would be preferable in my mind.

    The only two concerns I have are:
    1) Getting central link to Northgate ASAP. Ideally this could open around the same time as the convention place to montlake segment.
    2) Getting East link up and running at least in part as quickly as possible. This needs to be phased so downtown to Bellevue happens as quickly as possible. Same thing with Bellevue to Microsoft.

    So ST2 with ST2.1 timelines for reaching Northgate and Bellevue.

    Of course the big question is would the original ST2 pass?

  6. ST 2 is not entirely the same plan since the 1950s. Or the same as Forward Thrust. The old plans called for Heavy Rail which is operationally much different (100% exclusive right of way for one).
    The 1950s plan called for the rail line in the north corridor to follow the freeway north as the most logical choice (while Forward Thrust was going to Renton and Kenmore). Transit oriented development was not a concern; it was facilitating long distance commuting.
    While the mode is slightly different, you are generally correct in asserting the plan is materially the same as the 1950s- facilitate urban edge land development and long distance commutes to central business districts.
    The primary problem now is that a light rail mode that includes surface portions and therefore is slower than a bus on a freeway (albeit more reliable) is that it’s ability to attract those sprawl-to-job-center-commutes is diluted. And it’s 8,000 per hour per direction capacity is extremely underutilized. Think about.
    And no thanks, I’ll pass on the Sound-Transit-is-a-perfect-government- structure-and-always-makes-perfect-plans and-only-puts-things-before-voters-that -must-be-adopted-or-we’re-all-going-to regret-it Kool-Aid.

Comments are closed.