The reconstituted STB Editorial Board is beginning its endorsement process for the general election. We have the information we need on Seattle City Council races, Move Seattle, and the Community Transit measure, and are looking at some races outside Seattle. If there are any you’re afraid we’re going to miss, please say so in the comments.

As always, we are solely interested in the relevance of a candidate and office to land use and transit.

14 Replies to “Call for Endorsements”

  1. I’d be interested in endorsements for Thurston County races to see how they fee about bringing Thurston into the Sound Transit district.

    1. As a point of information, sure, why not.

      But as we’re counting the votes for ST3, we want to keep the average Thurston County voter as far away from the ST district as possible, until Olympia liberates us from our chains of common tax rates across subareas. Until then, there should definitely be interagency partnerships to extend ST Express buses, and perhaps Sounder as well – but nothing more.

  2. Shoreline City Council races. Decisions by suburban cities have always affected regional land use and transportation. With increased investments in transit and transportation infrastructure, there is an increased regional interest in the decisions made by cities outside Seattle.

  3. Please consider endorsing for Mercer Island City Council. There will be a lot of issues discussed and negotiated over the next couple of years related to East Link implementation, and there is generally a fairly clear divide between candidates for the contested positions on transit and land use issues.

    1. I’m not sure how useful that would be. As you say the divides are generally pretty obvious. Moreover, even the better candidates are likely going to be demanding things that run counter to STB positions. [Even a nuanced position on I-90 tolling is political suicide.]

      While it’s not completely valid as a litmus test, a good first approximation is to eliminate anyone who claims to be a “lifelong MI resident” as a qualification. [Yes, I’m perfectly aware that doing so eliminates at least one good candidate, so that’s _not_ the metric I’ll be using].

  4. Mukilteo City Council candidate Nicole Thomsen, running against Steve Schmalz. Nicole works for Seattle/King County public health on the intersection between health and housing and brings a perspective we don’t often get at the local suburban level. She’s an inclusive decision maker, progressive, and will be just awesome. She serves on our planning commission where she always reminds us to think about all users of the transportation system, and to consider diversity and those voices that aren’t always heard. Her opponent has been critical of the CT ballot measure, opposed Sound Transit investments and opposes bike lane infrastructure investments in our city.

    1. I have a much different perspective of Councilmember Schmalz. I live in Old Town Mukilteo within walking distance to the Mukilteo Ferry and Sound Transit Sounder Station. Steve has always been a strong advocate of transportation and safety improvements. However, he’s never been a proponent of wasting taxpayer dollars in favor of pretend transportation improvements.

      Steve was one of the few strong supporters of the Mukilteo Park and Ride Plus WSDOT mobility grant I wrote in 2013. Since that time and under the management of CT, they have eliminated the component of the plan that would have provided Ferry/ST commuter parking at the Park and Ride location, and, have also decided not to have the busses pick up commuters in the park and ride lot. Instead, morning commuters will have to cross SR-525 to get on a bus thereby creating a safety and additional congestion problem on SR-525. I’m now opposed to the very Park and Ride that I helped jumpstart. I can hardly fault Steve if he’s opposed to the CT ballot measure after seeing how they’ve compromised the Mukilteo Park and Ride.

      Steve was also opposed to the $8.3 million Sound Transit bridge/2nd platform in Mukilteo when the best argument ST could come up with for doing it was because they “Promised Mukilteo”. Any benefit to Mukilteo went away when the city decided it wasn’t feasible to connect the ST overpass to a city overpass crossing the remaining tracks. The existing track switches on both sides of the ST station eliminate the necessity for the $8.3 million taxpayer expense.

      Not sure what bike lane “infrastructure investments in our city” Steve is opposed to unless his position against the “road diet” alternative is being mischaracterized. Steve is in favor of the separate pedestrian/bike bridge that was funded from a WSDOT mobility grant and then awarded back to WSDOT. The “road diet” alternative will take away one of the two lanes which currently eases congestion of offloading ferry traffic through Mukilteo’s waterfront area in favor of turning that vehicle lane into a pedestrian and bike lane. The separate bridge that Steve supports doesn’t increase traffic congestion at Mukilteo’s waterfront like the “road diet” alternative does.

      I guess Mayor Gregerson and Steve’s council opponent must be in favor of increasing congestion in Mukilteo and decreasing safety.

Comments are closed.