Dow Constantine is Sound Transit’s “Preferred Candidate” for CEO

100 Replies to “Dow Constantine is Sound Transit’s “Preferred Candidate” for CEO”

1. Yikes.

2. Greased. Nothing we can do about it now.

   COI or not, he is just the wrong person for the job. ST needs solid technical leadership and a focus on cost control, not a politician who is adept at horse trading.

   I suspect Dow will try to get WSLE committed before the full extent of the budget shortfall becomes clear. And that he will try to “partner” with the city/county to get his new civic campus built, and along with it our lousy transfers.

   But hey, we are all just along for the ride now.

   1. I’m pretty discouraged about it.

      I can only hope that he’s smart enough to surround himself with a team that has technical depth about running transit as a day-to-day service. Day-to-day service issues will dominate his time. It’s not like chairing a board.

      In today’s highly political climate, it also does not bode well for FTA support. A less political hire would get better FTA support.

      It’s pretty egotistical to make oneself in charge after being the Board chair. It’s a stunning perspective that someone who thinks that they have the right experience for this job when they haven’t done it before.

      And his role in the rash of unreasonably long disruptions, the failure of many vertical devices and the horrific project opening day delays is observable. He let these problems develop.

      1. I think Mestas has already been doing a good job as leader of Megaproject Delivery, heading a newly formed Capital Delivery Department and bringing back monthly reporting (although, the reporting is likely required for TIFIA loans so it’s unclear how much credit to give there). They still need to hire Deputy CEOs for the other implementation-focused jobs, so maybe Dow will do well with that?

      2. Mestas is despised within the agency. She’s got zero experience with transit and long linear design& construction. And reportedly rules like an autocrat. Morale is low and going lower with this news.

      3. Sad to hear that.

      4. This from Wikipedia about the still unopened LAX Peoplemover, which was the “qualification” that was touted in the Mestas hire:

         “The line was initially planned to open in 2023, but as of July 2024, it is scheduled to open in January 2026. An arbitrator found that LAWA was responsible for nearly two years of delays by failing to take steps to integrate the APM with its communications network and the delayed construction of the Metro Rail’s LAX/Metro Transit Center station. As a result, the airport and city agreed to pay an additional $600 million in change orders to the contractors.”

3. Can someone at STB draft a piece on the feasibility of Ballard to UW using the monorail authority since Ballard to downtown likely isn’t opening before 2050.

   1. I’ve seen this request a few times, now. Based on state law (https://app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=35.95a&full=true) the monorail authority given by the state is explicitly limited to building monorails. But, it allowed for property tax levies (no limit) and an MVET of up to 2.5%. It seems to me that the legislature would have to amend the monorail authority to be a general transit authority, but cities already have general transit authority.

      In 2022, the legislature authorized “Enhanced Service Zones” for grade-separated rail construction, allowing a special additional MVET up to 1.5% and an unlimited commercial parking tax. The North King Subarea is expected to generate about $2.26B in MVET income from 2017 through 2046, with a 1.1% MVET from 2017 to 2028, and a 0.8% MVET from 2029 to 2046. So, an additional MVET of 1.5% in Seattle might generate a $few billion over 20 years. It’s hard to say exactly what that could actually buy us with Sound Transit’s urban construction costs nearing $1B/mile.

      1. “It’s hard to say exactly what that could actually buy us with Sound Transit’s urban construction costs nearing $1B/mile.”

         We are way past that! West Seattle Link is already at at least $6.7B for 4.1 miles. That’s $1.6B per mile. And it’s not yet fully designed — meaning that it will likely go higher.

   2. There has long been disagreement whether the “no light rail” provision is enforceable, since it doesn’t define light rail. The provision was added at the request of monorail supporters who didn’t like Link. It’s doubtful the legislature cared/cares whether it’s light rail or not. In the end it depends on how a judge would rule if it ends up in a lawsuit.

   3. Ballard to UW or Ballard to downtown? Ballard to downtown light rail is presently scheduled to open 2039 and yes I’m holding my breath so candidate “C” best make it happen.

      Regardless of the light rail timeline and to your most excellent point, its time to push for reverting bus Route 40 back into a trolley route for Ballard to downtown. Route 44 as well for Ballard to UW. Both routes need to eliminate street parking in favor of dedicated public transit lanes or preferably track. And yes I hear the screeches of the car-dependent… “every street three lanes wide should have two of those lanes dedicated to storing my jalopy”.

      Interesting RCW 35.95A.010 is explicitly for monorail technology. Seems it could be used for trolleys as long as trolley track is considered guideway given Definition (5) “Public monorail transportation facilities” means a transportation system that utilizes train cars running on a guideway, … must be more to the RCW.

      1. I would bet my mortgage on Ballard does not have light rail in 2039. I have my doubts about 2050.

      2. I agree with you mdnative. ST schedules often say December 31, 2039 for Ballard Link opening by the way.

         ST still proposes the opening dates determined at the end of the realignment back in about 2021. That’s before the cash flow issues (greatly increased costs for West Seattle and reduced expectations of FTA funding) came to light.

         Finally, the greatly increased costs of West Seattle Link combined with lower ridership projections in the EIS process have a multiplying downward effect on FTA funding scores — even if we had a transit favorable New Starts program administration. I suspect that the cost per rider has jumped by a factor of at least 4 (300% more). The numbers are now so high that it’s embarrassing. Even if the Ballard Link numbers are good enough for FTA funds, I don’t see FTA funding much for West Seattle so the higher costs will need to be paid for with local funds (taken from Ballard Link’s allocated local share).

      3. There is insufficient money to build Ballard-Downtown as planned by ST from SoDo north. Ever; the taxes will never “catch up” to the spiraling costs. A downsized automated Light Metro that only travels between Smith Cove and Westlake might be afforded, if the stations are downsized to three-smaller-car trains, like Skytrain. It should use third-rail pickup for smaller tunnel diameter; thought it’s rare, third-rail can be overhead, allowing safety on stowed-operation shared trackage though it looks weird. A third rail shoe on the roof of a Light Metro car would not be high enough to interfere with the pantograph-feed wires on The Spine, even in DSTT1.

      4. P.S. I recognize that I’m arguing essentially what Daniel was three years ago. If he hadn’t been so supercilious abouf “transit nerds” he’d still be here and making the contrarian contribution,

4. This article misses one crucial point: the members of the Sound Transit board of directors are appointed by the county executives of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The King County Executive alone appoints half of the board members, so he effectively appointed himself CEO. The whole thing is ludicrous.

   To say the least, I’m not not feeling hopeful for the near future of Link.

   1. I think that point has been covered well in previous articles on the subject, and I mention the conflict of interest issues.

      But yes, it will be very interesting to see how Dow leads ST. I think we can expect construction of only the “minimum operable segments” for both WSLE and BLE, and the CID North/South pairing instead of the advocate-preferred 4/5th Ave & Midtown pairing. I think Dow will push for using the ESZ authority in Seattle to finish WSLE & BLE “on time” (aka the realigned unaffordable schedule). Meanwhile, projects that don’t contribute to a political legacy (like Stride, ST Express, and Sounder) will fall by the wayside.

   2. Is there any path to potentially reforming the board’s structure? Or does that depend too much on the people who get their jobs from the current structure?

      1. I think it would require action by the state. There have been attempts in the past, but they tend to go nowhere. Folks assume this is some sort of attempt to destroy transit and it falls victim to the same overly-simplistic “you are either for us or against us” rhetoric.

5. Emailed my board members. The problem is, these folks are politicians, and see the election of a career politician with no transit operations or planning experience as a feature, not a bug. A clear blindspot, not being able to see that winning elections and sitting on boards vs CEO are two distinctly different skillsets.

   I’m particularly disappointed in Balducci and Mello, who I generally respect, so quickly falling in line.

   1. Cam Solomon,

      Don’t blame the politicians here. Blame Sound Transit. Sound Transit is a fucking zombie that can’t to killed…. or even altered in any real way. I’m guessing Ryan Mello hates the damn thing. He must get so much “I hate Sound Transit” email! But what are his options here?

      I’ve known Marty Campbell his entire political career. Smart guy. Positive guy. He’s always been a huge supporter of “The Mighty Eastside” in Tacoma . The dude was a big part of getting Xi Jinping (Yeah, that guy!) to speak at Lincoln High School. Marty is such a fighter…. a scrapper…..and he’s been part of lots of good things in Pierce County! But he wants nothing to do with Sound Transit. Why take on fights you’re not going to win?

      Anybody who voted yes on ST3 has nobody to blame but themselves,

      1. Oh, FFS, tacomee. “Sound Transit” is “the politicians”.
         The clueless flacks who attend the neighborhood “engagement workshops” are not “Sound Transit”. The contractors designing the stations, power supplies and bus intercepts are not Sound Transit. The operators of the rail vehicles and buses emphatically not “Sound Transit”. These folks are all flunkies.

         “Sound Transit” is the board and the first and maybe second tier of managers.

      2. Tom Terrific

         I learned long ago not to carry water for politicians, something “The Urbanist”, “The Stranger” and other Leftwing outfits do all the time here in the PNW. (it’s way worse in Portland).

         I’m not the least bit surprised about what Sound Transit morphed into. I’d like another “ST4” vote after the Federal government pulls what ever funding it going to pull, turning over operations for finished ST projects to local transit outfits and killing off the rest regional light rail (that isn’t going to get built anyway). Maybe we decide an a community to fund express bus service with some of the ST tax money?

         The economic and political environment changed but transit advocates carry on like Ruth Fisher is still alive.

6. History will be unkind when this decision plays out. Much of the agency’s current struggles lay at Dow’s feet. The politically driven plan content. The executive dysfunction and leadership turnover. The decision paralysis. The cost and scope growth. Under his leadership this board has attempted to solve every ST3 project challenge by adding scope instead of making tough choices. The record is clear, and patterns like these almost never self correct. The board really missed an opportunity to break a dismal cycle. So disappointing.

   1. I agree completely. They really need someone new, someone with a fresh (transit-oriented) perspective. Someone who won’t assume that previous decisions were the best ones. Unfortunately we will have the opposite.

   2. You are so correct! ST should have elected Board Members and financial accountability for the public funds. We need a restructure of Sound Transit.

      1. I agree. I know there are always issues when it comes to an elected board but the structure now is a mess. The board is made up of elected officials but they all have other jobs (for which they will be judged). The mayor of Seattle can do a fantastic job with his role on the board but if he doesn’t handle the police in the city (or even the snowplows) he is gone. Thus you have elected officials with an extremely important role (handling billions in funding) and yet it is basically a side gig.

         The members of the board aren’t appointed either. That would be a reasonable approach. The elected officials could put their head of transit or transportation on the board. Or even just people they feel are appropriate for the job (in the way that judges are appointed).

         Now, when they actually have the opportunity to appoint someone as a counter-weight to this messed-up process they appoint one of their own! It is ridiculous. Will the board members pay a political price for this? No! Because again, it is just a side-gig. When election time comes around no one will pay attention to Sound Transit, even though they are responsible for a massive budget.

      2. Miss P,

         I agreed! Back in 2016 at the ST3 vote we should have had an elected board.

         It’s way too late for that now I’m afraid.

         I guess the worst part of it Seattle voters are real slow learners. Seattle just voted yes to I-35, giving control of hundreds of millions in tax revenue to “house our neighbors” an unelected, self-selected group who’s planning “social housing” (whatever that means). Give it 5 years and 200 million down the drain…

         Never give your taxes to unelected leaders. Never.

      3. ““social housing” (whatever that means)”

         The measure says what it means. People can stay in it for life regardless of their income changes. The higher their income, the less subsidy they get, down to zero. I think there’s a ceiling above costs, so if they pay close to 100% rent, some of it subsidizes lower-income residents. In cities like Vienna, a third of total housing is like this. It was built historically as the city expanded rapidly and to rebuild after WWII. Ideally it should be available for everyone who wants it. Seattle’s measure supports only a small number of units, but it’s first step. Not doing it or anything else means things will continue to get worse.

         By the way, German states have a rent control policy that complements this. Unsubsidized housing can go up every year for inflation, maintenance, and a steady modest profit, but they can’t make a killing when it’s an owners’ market. The policy is statewide, so developers can’t leap across municipal boundaries to avoid it. But they still build, because some profit is better than no profit.

         The two policies could go hand in hand.

      4. Mike Orr,

         1-35 is even a worse turd that the ST3 vote was. Both give millions (or billons) to these unelected boards in the name of “mass transit!” or “light rail!” or “social housing!” Voters who disapprove are branded as “anti-housing” or “anti-transit” . If 1-35 gave the money to the Seattle Housing Authority I’d guess they’d build some housing? But “House Our Neighbors” ? Never heard of them building a damn thing. This isn’t Vienna or Germany and US real estate doesn’t work that way.

         The ST3 vote was to fund this whole list of light rail projects…. some of them were really good ideas, like an urban subway for Seattle. But as rail pushed into the hinterlands… these projects are not good ideas. Second tunnel? Bad idea. West Seattle? Bad idea. Hour and half light rail trip from downtown Tacoma to Downtown Seattle? Bad idea.

         Looking at Dow running Sound Transit…. you can’t be surprised that a unelected board, mostly members appointed by him, voting Dow in as Grand Poobah making $650,000 a year? What can you (or any other voter to be fair) do about this? Dow just scored his retirement plan, but for public riding mass transit? Bad idea.

         You broke it, you bought it.

      5. I have serious doubt that an elected board would prevent its chair from resigning and becoming the CEO. While it would reduce a county executive from the power that they have, I could see it still happening.

         My question is whether King County’s ethics law is applicable to Sound Transit. The law is summarized here:

         “King County Code Title 3(.04)(.035) – Detailed provisions limiting former employees and former members of county boards, commissions, and committees from engaging in certain activities within one year of terminating service to the county.”

         (https://mrsc.org/explore-topics/personnel/ethics/codes-of-ethics#leavingoffice)

         Because Constantine officially represents/ serves King County on the ST Board, he appears to need to wait a year before he can take a job with ST.

         Surely they have already looked into it and determined a loophole. That however doesn’t prevent a very public inquiry on the matter. Surely some King County resident will be filing charges to do just that.

      6. Ross, that would be a different “Mayor of Seattle”, wouldn’t it?

      7. Ross, that would be a different “Mayor of Seattle”, wouldn’t it?

         I should have written “mayor” because the situation is generic. But yes, Mayor McGinn was completely caught off guard when he was suddenly tasked with a crisis in the department every mayor in the country would say was his most important: the police. He was like a deer in the headlights. The point being that these are the things for which the mayor is judged. Only a tiny portion of the population pays attention to role they play on the board. Not only that, but there is every incentive for an elected official to just kick the can down the road. Rethinking ST3 would upset a lot of people. In contrast if you just keep muddling along and hoping that things get better you may very well run out the clock and have a completely new job (or be retired) by the time things collapse.

      8. Board reform could happen but I’d say it shouldn’t be making it an elected board, I’ve seen too many issues crop up from elected boards when i lived in Denver.

         I’d rather see something similar to what Vancouver, BC does where Translink has two separate boards, the Board of Directors and Mayors Council. The Mayors Council is comprised of all the Greater Vancouver Mayors, the Chief of the Tsawwassen First Nation, and the elected representative of Electoral Area “A” (which represents UBC and other endowment lands in Vancouver). This board is focused primarily on the macro planning of transit in Greater Vancouver. Where they often will build out master plans for future capital projects and infrastructure upgrades (like the Granville Station escalator upgrade that happened a few years ago for instance).

         Translink Board of Directors on the other hand is created from a shortlist of people curated by an independent screening panel with input on nominations from multiple groups

         – Greater Vancouver Gateway Society
         – Organization of Chartered Professional Accountants of British Columbia
         – Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation
         – Minister Responsible for TransLink (BC Ministry of Transportation)
         – Greater Vancouver Board of Trade

         Which is sent to the Mayor’s Council to narrow down the list and elect people to the board when a seat is vacated. This gives local leaders some say, but allows them to not be stretched thin on the work they already do as municipal mayors, and allows experts to be on the board who know the ins and outs of infrastructure and operations planning. Both boards exist together in a symbiotic relationship, where they each need the other to succeed but also have the ability to cover each other’s weaknesses. Seattle could benefit from a similar model.

         https://www.translink.ca/about-us/about-translink/governance-model

7. this is very unfortunate and reeks of corruption.

8. This is very disappointing yet unsurprising. I can’t wait for the full scale push to start WSLE, fall short on budgets, deliver less than was promised later than promised and leave Ballard/Interbay/Lower Queen Anne/South Lake Union all holding their breath for the foreseeable future.

   Like Lazarus said – we are just along for the ride now…

9. Yes the “optics” are terrible, but I’m mostly sorry the future of ST is now secured permanently as a real estate and political project instead of a transit agency or urban mass transit system. The board structure ensures ST will maintain its political commitment to distribute capital spending and real estate subsidies throughout the region, and this is a way to make sure that never changes.

10. So many good comments. It is rare that the folks commenting on this blog all seem to agree. That is how bad this is.

    1. Yeah it seems like a terrible choice. It’s not only bad from a skills perspective, but Dow was the architect of the elimination of transfers at CID in favor of using his expensive new county complex with the 3D deep mole maze underneath.

       For any logical transit advocate he appears to care very little about riders in his meddling with good systems planning. He also appears to support spending precious transit money to achieve other things that make rider travel time and convenience worse . (Surely ST3 would not have passed if what the projects have become were made clear in 2016.) And most comments here are from people that want transit to be better in some way (even with differences in opinion) as a top priority.

    2. One hope: Dow could hire a very experienced transit expert who knows operations as a deputy; they have already hired a capital delivery expert. Joni Earl did not know transit; she kept things together and ST built south-first Link. She hired Ron Tober, to help with the transit side. ST3 is a disaster; it will be obvious to the Board soon.

       1. Yes – one of the primary TAG recommendations was to split the Chief Systems Officer role into three roles – Expansion Delivery, Service Delivery, and System Quality. Terri Mestas was hired to fill the role of Chief Expansion Delivery Officer, but ST is still looking for a Chief Service Delivery Officer. Perhaps Dow will help find a good one once he’s CEO of ST full-time.

       2. Dow could hire a very experienced transit expert who knows operations as a deputy

          Maybe, but it is unlikely that Dow will defer to their expertise. Just imagine they hire someone with transit expertise and that person questions the value of West Seattle Link. You can bet your ass the first thing Dow will say is “That question is settled”.

       3. How can the question be settled if there is not enough funding to cover the higher cost? Trump will not help. ST3 is Dow’s baby. There was reportedly an post Covid update to the ST3 ridership modeling; can that be kept from view?

11. I didn’t know that there was a 1995 light rail plan vote that would’ve basically built out ST 2 + half of ST 3 by 2010 that failed by 3%.
    That on top of Monorail project cancellation (after what, 3 approval votes?) and forward thrust failing (twice) is just really sad. How much better transit could be right now if any of those 3 projects were actually implemented.
    It would be cool to get an article summarizing all the different transit initiatives in Seattle history and why they failed.

    1. The 1995 plan would have been at grade except through what was then the bus tunnel. Voters took a look at that and said no.

       1. @Ian @Quasimodo

          I was never able to find the original 1995 plan diagrams. If y’all are able to find it perhaps an article could be written on it.

       2. It is sort of shocking there is no digital record I can find of what was in the first RTA ballot measure! I’ll keep looking.

       3. RTA Resolution No. 40, featuring a draft Regional Transit System Master Plan, revised October 1994: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/1994/Reso%20R1994-40.pdf

          RTA Resolution No. 53, calling for a special election on March 14, 1995: https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/1995/Reso%20R1995-53.pdf

       4. Wikipedia has a summary:

          In October 1994, the RTA Board adopted its master plan for regional transit that would be sent to county councils for ratification and placement as a ballot measure. The plan, with a construction cost of approximately $6.77 billion (equivalent to $12.4 billion in 2023 dollars),[46] was described as the largest public works project in Seattle’s history. It included 69 miles (111 km) of light rail service that would be completed within 16 years with lines that would connect Downtown Seattle to Lynnwood in the north, Bellevue and Redmond to the east, and Tacoma to the south.[66][67] The plan also called for a shorter timeline to launch a commuter rail system, which would use an existing 81 miles (130 km) of freight tracks from Lakewood to Everett, and an express bus network with eight routes.[66][67] It was approved by the three county councils by December, with the divided Snohomish County Council narrowly voting 3–2 in favor due to the lack of light rail service to Everett in the first phase of the plan.[68] A $2.5 million (equivalent to $4.57 million in 2023 dollars)[46] demonstration of commuter rail service on the Tacoma–Seattle–Everett corridor during peak hours and for Tacoma Dome events was operated by the RTA in early 1995 as part of preparations for the ballot measure.[69][70]

          The RTA ballot measure would only require a simple majority to pass and was part of a special election on March 14, 1995.[67]

          [End Quote] It then goes on to why they think it failed. There are a number of references that might go into more details. A lot of them are Seattle Times articles and I was able to find the article but you need an archive account (not a regular Seattle Times account) to view them (apparently) so I gave up. Anyway, something you might look at.

          I though Seattle Transit kept their history as well but that stuff moves around a lot and is often hard to track down.

       5. SounderBruce’s summary on Wikipedia is great, but a lot of his citations are archived articles that are difficult (or impossible) to access now.

       6. https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/building-system/history-voter-approved-plans

          https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/documents-reports/sound-move-ten-year-regional-plan

          Nathan gives the direct links to some of the documents.

    2. The plan that failed had both transit and highways because the legislature wanted to leverage the transit vote to get the highways passed. When it failed, there was a belief that the highways sank it, so the next measure was transit only.

       People want freeway expansions but they don’t want to pay for them, or at least they get sticker shock at the huge price tag. So the legislature passes highway measures without a public vote, while transit packages require a vote.

       1. Yes, this. The “roads” in “roads and transit” sunk the proposal. You had the same opposition from the anti-tax folks but you also had opposition from groups like the Sierra Club. It was the type of proposal that probably could have passed through a legislative body but had no chance at the ballot box.

       2. 1995 and 2007 were two different stories.

       3. That’s not right. As I remember it the 1995 plan was already defeated before a combined highways and transit package was proposed. ST came back in 1996 to pass a slimmed down Sound Move, which combined a started light rail investment with commuter rail and regional express buses to provide ST service in all subareas. Only after that was there discussion about a regional transportation improvement district (RTID) that would combine an ST phase 2 with road investments, and after key groups opposed a combined package both ST2 and RTID came back to voters separately (and only ST2 passed).

       4. (Agreeing with Eddiew).

       5. OK, yeah, I got confused. The 1995 plan was the first proposal. It failed. To quote Wikipedia, the defeat was also attributed to low turnout, especially among younger voters, due to the timing of the election in a non-presidential year.[62][76]. So they had another vote (this time during the general election) and it passed. The main change was how they ran the campaign, not what people were voting on.

          The Roads and Transit proposal wasn’t until 2007. It also failed. The “roads” part of it contributed to its failure but this was also not a general election. The standalone “transit” part of the measure went to voters in 2008 (a general election year) and it passed.

          ST3 passed in a general election year. So the record for general-election ballot proposals is 3-0. The record for off-year ballot proposals is 0-2. I don’t think this is a coincidence.

       6. Political analysists have noted that conservatives tend to vote in every election, liberals only in presidential elections. So conservatives use their outsized influence in midterm and off-season elections to block tax increases, to primary moderate candidates, and to pursue culture-war issues. Liberals are missing in action, and throwing away their democratic opportunity to influence things. By “conservative” and “liberal” I mean everybody past the center line, not just the extremes. That’s why the election date makes so much difference in whether a transit measure passes, or an anti-tax measure, or an anti/pro-fossil-fuels measure.

          Analysists also say part of the reason liberals vote less is they’re more likely to be poor, juggling multiple jobs, or single parents, so they have less time/energy to do things not related to their immediate survival. But also there’s more of a belief among liberals that their vote doesn’t matter.

       7. That dynamic used to be true. It was much less true in the last election. There has been a pretty substantial shift in the less engaged voters moving red. At least nationally. It may have been less pronounced in Washington, and the Puget Sound region.

       8. The liberal turnout was particularly low compared to elections since 2008. Washington’s total turnout was low too. So in 2024, more liberals didn’t vote in even a presidential election. It would have probably flipped the results if they did. Not in Washington, which is so lopsidedly D, but nationally.

       9. The November election each year is the general election; it is preceded by a primary election. Special elections are sometimes held in the spring; school votes are usually held in February. Genearal elections in presidential years tend to have the highest turnout; turnout in the odd years tend to have the lowest turnout. Dow chose April 2014 for the TBD election. Spring elections have the lowest turnouts.

       10. Analysts also say part of the reason liberals vote less is they’re more likely to be poor, juggling multiple jobs, or single parents, so they have less time/energy to do things not related to their immediate survival.

           Yes, exactly. More people tend to vote in a general election and the vote tends to lean more to the left. Even on election night you tend to see this. The people who vote way ahead of time tend to be more conservative. Races that seem to be leaning towards the right will slowly switch over several days as people who voted at the last second (because they were busy with other stuff) got their vote counted.

           Both the left and right is aware of this. Eyman tended to be busier on off-year elections. Major levies tended to be during the general election (when it was possible).

       11. My point was, nationally more poor and lower-middle-class people voted for Republicans last election than in previous elections. So traditional patterns are shifting.

       12. My point was, nationally more poor and lower-middle-class people voted for Republicans last election than in previous elections. So traditional patterns are shifting.

           Or Trump was better at rallying his low/middle income voters than Harris. Or voter suppression worked really well this time. There are a number of different theories as to why Trump did better with the low/middle income voters than typical.

           But if Republicans really believed that they can now win the low and middle class vote, why are they trying so hard to suppress the vote?

       13. This is getting Off Topic, please.

    3. The 1995 proposal was before the 2000 financial meltdown and concerns about Ship Canal crossing construction risks. The 1995 package might have had those too, and since it was so much larger, there might have been other budget shortfalls too that might have been harder to overcome. We’ll never know because the full 1995 project never got to EIS or design or final costing.

       The monorail had structural financial problems. It depended mostly on an MVET tax, but an Eyman intiative cut those down to minimum. It wasn’t going to accept bus transfers because it depended on that revenue. So I, a rail fan who would have loved to ride it, would have instead ridden the bus under the track to avoid paying double fare for monorail+bus trips. Most of my trips would have been monorail+bus, because the monorail only went to downtown and West Seattle and didn’t reach anywhere else.

       But wait, there’s more. The monorail technology was limited to 35 mph. In the end they wanted to single-track it to save money. Both of those would have lengthened travel times and limited frequency. I think the frequency was going to be 20 minutes. But a city area really needs 5-10 minute frequency to maximize mobility, ridership, mode share, and to make transfers more acceptable. In the end they could only afford to build half the line (I forget which half).

       That all was what led to the monorail succumbing to the fourth kill vote after surviving three of them. The problems just became too much, and the promise too little.

12. I with so much insider dealings, it might be time to consider an outsider for the KC executive position https://electjohnwilson.com/statement-on-dow-constantines-appointment-as-sound-transit-ceo/

13. Constantine had a board stacked in his favor (including Balducci and Zahilay) for support, and is pushing a “transit-oriented” redevelopment of the KC Administration building in what is basically an underhanded, sweetheart deal for his real-estate buddies.
    Corrupt bargaining, and an inherent conflict of interests. At this point, the State DOT ought to take a closer look at what’s going on.
    This is what happens when voters don’t pay attention.

    1. “redevelopment of the KC Administration building in what is basically an underhanded, sweetheart deal for his real-estate buddies”

       It’s also about getting the demolishment/redevelopment costs off King County’s books and onto Sound Transit’s. That’s a big benefit to the county and its budget.

       When Dow becomes ST CEO, the shoe may be on the the other foot. Then it will be him worrying about ST’s budget. I don’t expect it will change his priorities since he’s so dug into them, but it might create some counterpressures he’ll have to deal with.

       1. Note that the Seattle public safety building block has been an empty pit for almost 20 years. The county campus can be developed with one transit tunnel and one station, PSS; it does not a second tunnel or second station.

14. If STB ever does get an interview with Candidate C, would you get Erica Barnett to do it? She isn’t afraid to speak truth to power.

    1. Erica C Barnett is indeed excellent but would likely post an interview on her own site, PubliCola

    2. Erica used to write for STB but she hasn’t for years, so I’m not sure how willing she’d be to do so now. She’s a transit/urbanist fan in her own right, so she asks the same kinds of questions STB authors do even if the articles get published elsewhere. She seems to be part owner or have a major stake in Publicola, which gets wider readership than STB does and helps her income base.

       Still, it wouldn’t hurt to suggest an interview to her, and collaborate on potential questions. Some of the older editors know her; I don’t. I’ve just read and respected her work for decades ever since she was with the Stranger.

       But that speaking truth to power may not be as straightforward as you think. We’ve had a couple recent interviews with ST officials or boardmembers, and there’s a tradeoff between telling them they’re going in the wrong direction, or asking them questions we know they won’t answer (against their agency’s direction or the board’s positions), or antagonizing them or ST so they won’t talk to us further or give us information or consider our ideas. So it may be easier to tell them off as a constituent rather than as a reporter. And we tell them off all the time in articles without interviewing them, and they read them, or at least some of their colleagues or staff read them. It’s not like the agencies or governments don’t know what we’re saying. They just rarely follow our advice, because they have other factors they’re valuing too.

       1. The previous STB regime were best buds with Scott Kubly, mastermind of the second tunnel (but never putting it out for public comment). Despite folks like me constantly asking on open threads to reach out, they never did. At least get Candidate C on the record, even if all you can say is Dow blew us off, which is damning in and of itself.

    3. Erica C Barnett is also on KUOW’s “Week in Review” panel sometimes, Fridays at noon and 7pm. There you can hear her informal responses to the issues of the week. She often mentions transit, density, renters’ needs, etc, because those are her personal interests.

    4. Erica’s articles in STB.

    5. Would difference would Ms. Barnett make? Dow is so well schooled at avoiding conflict in interviews, he’d just babble a bunch of canned answers. There’s no “gotcha!” moment with a polished pol like Dow.

15. A couple questions for the group.

    1. Besides Dow, were there any qualified candidates for the job? Julie Timm was completely in over her head, right? Sound Transit’s CEO problem might be that anybody smart enough to do the job is smart enough to say “no thank you”.

    2. What’s the impact on Sound Transit losing all it’s Federal funding? I’m guessing that the potential loss of Fed money may have chased off candidates not named Dow. Trump may have a really tough job impossible.

    1. 1. I was impressed with Timm’s commitment to rider experience issues. She went to Pioneer Square station during one of the earlier maintenance periods when all north and south trains terminated there (so there was a universal transfer to continue further), so she could see the crowding and 30-40 minute waits and talk with passengers. She also generally made some recommendations on improving passengers’ experiences and I think got some things accomplished. It had only a minor effect but it’s a step in the right direction, and if she’d stayed longer maybe she’d have been about to turn ST around more. But she really wanted to get back to her family on the East Coast.

       As to her being over her head, I don’t think she was worse than other CEOs.

       2. This is getting off the topic of Dow and CEO selection, so let’s move it to an open thread soon. But if ST loses all federal grants and fixed-guideway funding then, without the grants all ST3 projects would probably stop. I think all of them depend on grants or other supplemental sources for full funding. If ST has only local funds to fall back on, then I think it would have to choose a few smallish projects and defer the rest.

       The fixed-guideway subsidy is some kind of tax break or subsidy for routes that are technically fixed (rail, trolleybus). I don’t know how much it is or what impact it would have. Metro said in the 2010s when it was deciding whether to renew the trolleybus fleet or dieselize all of it, that trolleybuses have higher operating costs than diesel buses, but with the subsidy their net costs fall below diesel buses. So that dynamic would reverse for Metro. Of course, that’s with 2010s fuel prices and maintenance costs, and before the county/state committed to a zero-emissions transition., and when battery-bus technology was in its infancy. I assume there would be some impact to Link or Sounder, but whether it would be enough to cause significant cuts, I don’t know. ST has tons of money if it cancels a Link expansion project or two.

       1. Mike Orr,

          I know it might be off topic…. but I do believe Federal funding, or the lack of it, played a big role in who even applied for the CEO job. Dow might have been the only legit candidate? . These are dark days for mass transit… the kind of experienced, dynamic person Sound Transit needed might have looked the money woes and political landscape and took early retirement. I mean most people who are ready to run Sound Transit are already over 50.

       2. I don’t see a direct relationship between federal funding and CEO candidates. The funding loss is national, not ST specific, so it’s not like they’ll have other agencies to go to. They’ll have to go to any agency with diminishing prospects, or change careers. Even if the FTA is selective about which states/cities it will consider giving grants to, the total prospects would probably diminish.

          You could say Dow was more motivated because he’s local and has so much involvement with ST that it wouldn’t matter to him as much as to somebody from out of state, but I’m not sure that means much. There were other candiates, presumably out-of-state, although we don’t know who.

       3. > without the grants all ST3 projects would probably stop

          Small mercies.

    2. “Julie Timm was completely in over her head, right?”
       She did fine, she was competent at her job and was working towards fixing various issues at the agency. Again, the reason she left was due to personal family in relation to a family member back in Virginia. She also mentioned how rough Seattle winters were for her. The dark n grey dreariness of Seattle in winter can really suck here if you aren’t used to it.

       Dealing with a sick or elderly family member who are on the other side of the country is not a pleasant or fun thing to deal with as an adult. My father dealt with it when he was in Guardianship of his own mother. Traveling multiple times a year to Northwesr Florida to visit her and to handle her various legal affairs and issues on her behalf till she passed away. That kind of stuff gets to you and drains you mentally when having to juggle a job and your own family at home.

       1. I didn’t move to Chicago or Canada in the 2000s or 2010s partly because I knew I’d need to help an elderly disabled relative more in the future, and I didn’t want to do it long-distance or travel a lot. The future arrived in 2022.

       2. If you look at Julie Timm’s LinkedIn profile, you will not see a public sector job that she stayed for more than four years and three months. In her 25+ year entire history she hasn’t dated anywhere longer than seven.

          While her stated intentions are noble, her employment history is one of mostly short duration jobs with 9 different employers. This suggests this is a pattern. It’s understandable to change jobs often for a low skill career, but not an executive career like hers.

          And if she was needing to take care of relatives, why is she now “Director of Mobility” for a large engineering firm? It sounds like a demanding job.

       3. A lot of people nowadays switch jobs every few years, including at the top levels.

          Is Timm still living where she said she would? We don’t need to second-guess how much time her specific family needs, the demands of this specific job, whether it gives her sufficient time for her family needs, all from the other side of the country of a city we have no contact with and a firm and its tasks we have no knowledge of.

       4. Al that is a bizarre take. Any successful executive I know has jumped around from org to org – that’s how they climb to become a successful executive, with broad experience & capabilities.

       5. Timm’s LinkedIn profile indicates she did actually take time off to tend to family matters, and recently returned work in the private sector.

       6. I can’t believe anybody who supports transit is supporting Julie Timm. She ran ST for what? 16 months, did close to nothing and took a $350K severance package when she left. As a transit supporter, I demand better. Who cares about her family? Nobody gave me a $350,000 severance package when I lost my parents. She took the damn job, she needed to suck it up.

          Jesus, put down the pom poms and quit being a cheerleader for poor performance.

          And this why Dow is now the man of the hour at Sound Transit. Maybe he’s not the greatest thing since sliced bread, but he’s not going to bail in 16 months. The ST board has better things to do than the constant personnel hunt for a new CEO. So they picked their buddy Dow and washed their hands of the whole stinky mess.

       7. “A lot of people nowadays switch jobs every few years, including at the top levels.”
          I can attest to this, one of my professors when taking a career planning class in community college said 5 years is the sweet spot for when to consider switching jobs in career upward mobility, long enough to gain experience and knowledge in the position to take to the next job.

       8. “I can’t believe anybody who supports transit is supporting Julie Timm. ”

          “She took the damn job, she needed to suck it up.”

          “Jesus, put down the pom poms and quit being a cheerleader for poor performance.”

          That’s such a gross thing to say about someone who dealt taking care of a loved one. Right now, all you’re being is such a cantankerous bullying asshole to a woman who had to deal with a family issue and left the position so she could manage the situation better. I hope one day you never have someone say that to you when dealing with a loved one.

       9. Zach B

          Let’s live in the real world here. We all show up at work regardless of the ups and downs of our personal lives. If Ms. Timm’s life was so full of impending doom….. why did she even take the Sound Transit job for a lousy 16 months?

          I’m far for only person who believes she took the job, looked around and saw what complete dead end it was and just quit. She got paid near a million bucks right? Nice work if you can get it I guess.

          Let’s get back to Sound Transit CEO Dow for a minute. You think he’s going to quit in 16 months? Because the board needed to find somebody, anybody really, remotely qualified for the job who isn’t quitting the minute Federal funding is shut off. Dow is their guy, through thick and thin.

       10. “Let’s live in the real world here.”
           So you’re wanting to double down on your behavior and continue to bully a person in caring for a loved one. Truly abhorrent behavior from someone who should absolutely know better.

           The “real world” that you keep talking about is one where it is actually taking care of a loved one and adapting your circumstances to the situation. Which includes, possibly moving back home to take care of them. Alongside situations like this are sometimes sudden and can happen at anytime, which is likely why she left early in the middle of her contract with Sound Transit.

           Again, she made a hard decision to move back that likely was a difficult one for her to take so you can give actual sympathy in this regard instead of trying to push a grand conspiracy that she left because some people at ST wanted her out. Even though, there really isn’t any evidence to support that notion.

           Some people can handle the cross country situation with a loved one, others not so much and I won’t chide someone for making either choice. Amd neither should you.

       11. What doing nothing? What poor performance? These sound like baseless accusations. We don’t usually know most of what the CEO does. She doesn’t seem worse than other ST CEOs, and she had her unique strengths.

16. This does reek of favoritism. However, at least Dow does meet the incredibly low bar of being a better CEO than Elon Musk.

17. Dow’s salary will be $450,000, along with some other pretty cushy benefits:

    https://www.soundtransit.org/st_sharepoint/download/sites/PRDA/FinalRecords/2025/241212%20System%20Expansion%20Committee%20minutes.pdf

    Terri Mestas, Deputy CEO of Megaproject Delivery, is paid $600,000: https://www.theurbanist.org/2024/03/30/sound-transit-hires-lax-exec-terri-mestas-to-fix-its-transit-expansion-programs/

18. Why do I smell corruption?

19. Come now, if Tulsi Gabbard can run the DNI, Hegseth our DOD and
    Kennedy HHS then surely Dow can run ST. Sorry, mental
    block for a moment there, senses have returned.

20. Per Sound Transit press release this afternoon, Dow Constantine will be starting at ST’s next CEO almost immediately, with his first day on April 1, 2025. Goran Sparrman will remain in an advisory role until May 1.

    https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/dow-constantine-hired-sound-transit-ceo

    Per a King County press release almost immediately afterward, Deputy Executive Shannon Braddock will become acting King County Executive when Constantine vacates the position. Presumably, this means whoever is elected King County Executive this November will take up the role almost immediately.

Comments are closed.