All posts by STB Editorial Board

Below are Seattle Transit Blog’s Endorsements for the November 6th General Election. As always, these purely reflect the issues of public transit and land use. We have only endorsed in races with a compelling reason to do so, but in general a generic Democrat typically is better on transit and land use issues than a generic Republican. The Editorial Board consists of Martin H. Duke, Adam Parast, Sherwin Lee, and Bruce Nourish.

U.S. Senate

U.S. Senator: Maria Cantwell gets our pick for a third term in the U.S. Senate. While not as proactive about sustainable transportation choices as her colleague, Patty Murray, Senator Cantwell has provided reasonably steadfast support for transit during her tenure in D.C. Her earmark requests have been relatively favorable to local transit projects, a notable example being Sound Transit’s Link extension to S. 200th.

Washington State

Governor: Jay Inslee has a transportation platform that explicitly mentions continued support for light rail and Amtrak Cascades. His support for light rail on the Columbia River Crossing and long career emphasis on greenhouse gas reduction are good signs. His opponent doesn’t have transportation as a major issue on his website, but does have a record of light rail opposition stretching back over a decade. Although McKenna seems to have made his peace with current Sound Transit plans, he hasn’t repudiated his previous attitude towards high-quality transit and would probably not support any further effort to expand it.

Initiative 1185: No. Another Eyman initiative, once again requiring a supermajority to raise taxes. Our broad view is that transportation taxes are not high enough, and this creates insurmountable obstacles to fixing that. Furthermore, the initiative creates more procedural obstacles to adjusting tolling rates, flying in the face of best practice for managing demand on congested roadways and ensuring they remain congested.

Supreme Court Position #9: Sheryl Gordon McCloud, like most judicial candidates, doesn’t get deep into transportation in her campaign materials. However, her opponent is former Justice Richard B. Sanders, a reliable vote against Sound Transit in Kemper Freeman’s endless attempts to sue East Link out of existence.

County

Pierce Transit Proposition 1: Yes. Pierce Transit is in deep financial trouble. Service levels have dropped dramatically over the last few years, and failure of this measure would accelerate the death spiral by eliminating all evening and weekend service. We’re not thrilled with how little PT achieves with the current level of funding, but don’t see any alternative to preserve the principle of service beyond support for commuters.

C-Tran Proposition 1: Approve. This proposition is a critical seal of approval for light rail on the Columbia River Crossing (CRC), which will be Vancouver’s principal connection to Portland for our lifetime and beyond. The proposition funds C-TRAN’s share of light rail operations on the CRC as well as construction and operation of the Fourth Plain BRT project through a 1/10th of 1 percent sales tax increase. High-capacity transit across the CRC is essential for Vancouver’s future, and the extension of Portland’s well-established MAX system is an obvious choice.

Washington State Senate

Continue reading “STB 2012 General Election Endorsements”

Here are Seattle Transit Blog’s endorsements for the August 7th primary. As with all our primary endorsements, these focus entirely on transit and land-use issues, and only on races with three or more candidates.

STB only selects candidates with strong pro-transit portfolios or particularly egregious opponents, although the generic Democrat will generally produce better legislative outcomes than the generic Republican.

The editorial board consists of Martin H. Duke, Sherwin Lee, Bruce Nourish, and Adam B. Parast, with valued input from the rest of the staff.

Governor: Jay Inslee’s transportation platform is basically agreeable to STB: “The next governor must take an ‘all of the above’ approach to transit and transportation choices – cooperation at the state level and advocacy within the Legislature for transit alternatives.” He also name-checks light rail on the CRC, Amtrak, and complete streets. His platform, and a track record of concern about environmental issues, suggests he would be a reliable partner for transit agencies around the state, although he shows no indication of wanting to curtail endless road expansion.

Principal opponent Rob McKenna says nothing about transportation in the issues section of his website. More worryingly, Mr. McKenna has a long record of being a Sound Transit skeptic, favoring highways over rail spending. He was particularly active on this front from around 2000 to 2003. Ancient history, perhaps (and he did recently preside over the defeat of the Kemper Freeman lawsuit). But he hasn’t articulated a change of heart, and his instincts are clearly to fund roads and lower taxes rather than create high-quality transit; it’s unlikely he’d be interested in finding new revenue sources to accelerate rail expansion.

District 11, Rep. 2: Rob Holland stands out from the field of five candidates. Scanning the five websites shows that transportation is not a major issue in this race, but Mr. Holland has a transportation background at the Port of Seattle. In these very pages he bucked his colleagues there by favoring the SR99 replacement option that maximized delivery of transit. He told The Stranger he favors new taxes for transit, which is a much clearer statement of support than virtually any other candidate this cycle.

District 36, Rep. 2: In a field full with basically pro-transit candidates, Brett Phillips  demonstrates a focus on transit and understanding of the immediate challenges it faces. Moreover, his endorsements indicate a good interface with groups in our corner of the policy world.

District 46, Rep. 2: Jessyn Farrell’s background includes the Transportation Choices Coalition, and that experience shows in an issues page that discusses transportation and land use in rich detail. She has deep understanding of the issues and experience with relevant legislation in Olympia. Her opponents don’t indicate any priority on transportation at all. There are a few candidates that stand out every election cycle by being worth not only your vote, but your time and money. Ms. Farrell is the one in a competitive race this time around.

Supreme Court: Light rail opponents are always suing Sound Transit over something or other, so who sits on the court matters. As judicial candidates traditionally don’t speak about potential issues before the court, it’s also hard to know how they’ll vote unless there’s a track record. However, at Position 2 Justice Susan Owens has spent her 11 years on the bench beating back desperate attempts to halt rail construction. At Position 9, John Ladenburg spent time as Pierce County Executive and Sound Transit Board Chair. One of his opponents, Richard B. Sanders, in his previous tenure on the court has consistently found excuses to try to freeze the rail project.

June 18th, 2012

The Honorable Pat McCarthy, Chair

Sound Transit Board of Directors

401 South Jackson Street

Seattle, WA 98104

 

The Honorable Conrad Lee, Mayor

Bellevue City Council

450 110th Ave NE

Bellevue, WA 98004

 

Dear Chair McCarthy and Mayor Lee:

The Seattle Transit Blog (STB) Editorial Board is concerned about the Downtown Bellevue Station cost savings designs that the City of Bellevue and Sound Transit have identified through the Collaborative Design Process. As STB has reported, tens of millions of dollars in possible cost savings have been identified recently through the design process. This is good news and very welcome, especially when design changes reduce costs, reduce neighborhood impacts and improve operations of East Link.

However, changes that result in functional and irreparable reduction in the quality of Link are unacceptable.

Over two years ago the STB Board sent you an open letter indicating our support for the C11A (surface on 108thth) and C9T (tunnel under 110th). The C3T (tunnel under 108th Ave) is the ideal solution. We still hold that position.

Roughly $180 million to $235 million dollars have already been shaved from the ideal downtown tunnel proposals (C3T to C9T). These costs savings are a result of the shorter tunnel design, which also results in a poorer station location, located farther from the geographic center of Downtown Bellevue, increasing walking time to much of downtown Bellevue. We believed this was an acceptable compromise because it reduced East Link travel times and made a tunnel financially feasible.

However, the two proposed station cost saving designs currently under review unacceptably compromise the station design. The downtown Bellevue Station is the most important station of the whole $2.4 billion dollar line and the STB Board finds the cost savings proposals short sighted.

The NE 6th St Station design is wholly unacceptable and defeats the purpose of the downtown tunnel. It reduces walk access to employment and housing throughout downtown Bellevue, results in slower travel times due to substandard curves and will result in inferior passenger comfort. It also has little TOD or development advantage over other station designs.

The Stacked Tunnel design, while better than the NE 6th design, results in reduced station accessibility due to elimination of station access on the west side of 110th Ave, reduces vehicular capacity on 110th Ave (which could degrade transit speed and reliability at the Bellevue Transit Center  immediately adjacent), and eliminates the possibility of a center platform design which improves ease of use and safety while waiting. These compromises are not worth the estimated $8-13 million dollars in savings.

Thus, the STB Board urges you to cease work on these cost savings designs as they are unacceptable compromises in the quality of an investment the region will rely on for decades.

Sincerely,

Seattle Transit Blog Editorial Board

cc:

Bellevue City Council

ST Board of Directors

Joni Earl, Sound Transit CEO

Steve Sarkozy, Bellevue City Manager

Three and a half months ago, the Metropolitan King County Council, in a bipartisan effort, came together to pass via supermajority the $20 Congestion Reduction Charge. This two-year car tab fee is designed as a stopgap funding measure to prevent drastic cuts to Metro bus service while the agency restructures itself to become leaner and more efficient, and the legislature can arrange a stable long-term funding source.

While the vote to establish the fee was not unanimous, the dissenters did so only on a question of process. The principles espoused in King County Metro’s Strategic Plan for Public Transportation, incorporated into the CRC ordinance, received the strong, public endorsement of every single member of the Council, along with Executive Constantine and Metro GM Desmond. King County has thus publicly committed itself at every level to make the bus system more cost-effective and ridership-oriented. Without that promise, the CRC’s stopgap funding would not have been forthcoming, and without the fulfillment of that promise, we can expect no further help from the legislature.

Fast forward to a month ago, when Metro released the Fall 2012 restructure concept. This proposal is one of the boldest Metro has ever made public, and represents a distinct break from the downtown-oriented legacy network, towards one built on a modern understanding of what makes for cost-effective and well-used bus routes: connecting dense urban centers with frequent, direct and reliable trunk routes, and providing excellent commuter service to neighborhoods without enough ridership to justify all-day service.

Inevitably, these things come at a cost. Some riders will be inconvenienced by having to walk further to get to their stop or having to transfer; some neighborhoods will lose midday service; a very small fraction of the population will lose access to transit altogether. Those riders affected have genuine complaints, for which the public service change process provides a valuable opportunity to explain to Metro staff how their ideas may play out on the ground. But there are voices not heard at public hearings: those of the thousands of riders who will benefit greatly from the changes; and those of every King County resident whose tax dollars will go much further towards improved mobility, emissions reduction, and congestion mitigation.

Seattle Transit Blog believes it is now time for King County Metro to uphold its end of the bargain, by moving ahead boldly with a restructure comparable in scope to the conceptual proposal; if this restructure were to become the mere substitution of RapidRide C and D for Routes 54 and 15, it would be a failure. Leadership means steering organizations through difficult and unpopular decisions for the greater good. Metro staff have publicly shown us how our bus system can be improved: we look now to Metro management, the Executive, and the Council to provide the leadership to make it a reality.

These are the rest of STB’s general election endorsements. We endorsed in races where one candidate clearly stood out. Part I is here.

We are deeply indebted to the Transit Riders’ Union, who shared their questionnaire results with us. We drew heavily from them.

Snohomish County Executive: Like all County Executives, Aaron Reardon has a lot of sway over staffing the Sound Transit Board. He is also one year into this his two year term as Chair of Sound Transit’s Board of Directors, which obviously makes him a leader on regional high capacity transit. He’s turned in a solid performance to steer Sound Transit through a period of steeply falling revenue and strife with Bellevue.

Tacoma City Council #7: David Boe is a retired architect who knocks it out of the park when it comes to land use and transit. His flagship positions view increased residential and mixed-use density as a solution to strengthen the local tax base and support expanded transit.  Boe is also an urban design wonk who has written a column for the local Tacoma blog Exit 133.

Tacoma City Council #8: Ryan Mello is outstanding on our issues and is the kind of council member we love to endorse. He previously worked for the Cascade Land Conservancy and advocates for all of the transportation and land use beliefs we hold. Mello, along with other like minded council members, are pushing Tacoma forward as a regional leader in building sustainable and livable city.

Kirkland Council #2: Bob Sternoff supports a number of positions that align with ours, including Metro reform, expanded taxing authority and a strong understanding of the importance of land use in transit development.  His involvement on the Regional Transit Committee as well as a few growth management boards indicates a dedicated track record that supports transit and better land use policies.

Kirkland Council #4: Jessica Greenway has basically sound pro-transit views by Eastside standards.  She supported the $20 CRC to save Metro service and opposes I-1125.  Her challenger, Toby Nixon, not only opposed the CRC but also believes Metro should raise fares to a 100% farebox recovery rate.  This view alone is troubling enough to warrant an automatic endorsement for Greenway.

Kirkland Council #6: Dave Asher’s impressive knowledge of our regional transit system is well indicated by his positions, which include support for Metro’s Strategic Plan, broader promotion of ORCA, an alternative transit funding source to the sales tax, and repealing the 18th Amendment.  On land use and density, he’s a strong advocate of smart growth and incredibly knowledgeable about the market forces associated with parking. Since our endorsement in the primary, Dave Asher’s opponent has withdrawn from the race.

Renton Council #5 : Robin Jones has some interesting ideas on how to improve transit in Renton. He wants to increase police presence at the Transit Center and put in more curb bulbs, both sensible, small-bore improvements for a city like Renton. His opponent is Ed Prince, who doesn’t seem to have much of a transportation platform. Jones is endorsed by Michael Taylor-Judd and Bobby Forch, both of which are transportation-oriented Seattle Council candidates we have previously endorsed.

Shoreline Council #2: Incumbent Chris Eggen has sound ideas about transit-oriented development and bus priority. His statements indicate deep understanding of the problems facing transit riders in Shoreline and strong awareness of broader transit issues in the County.

Shoreline Council #6: Robin McClelland has a regional planning background, is a regular transit user, and her positions are what one would expect. She understands the relationship of density to various regional goals and has deep understanding of the region’s long-range plans.

Shoreline Council #4: Janet Way supports upzones in major transit corridors, and is a strong proponent of bikeshare programs.

Federal Way Council #7: We don’t agree with everything Keith Tyler thinks about transit, but in the areas most important for City Council — land use and priority treatments for buses — he is absolutely correct. He’s interested in TOD, less surface parking, and more signal priority and bus lanes for RapidRide. His opponent shows no apparent emphasis on either subject.

Here are Seattle Transit Blog’s endorsements for the November 8th general election. As always, our endorsements are meant to focus entirely on their transit and land use positions. Readers can apply other criteria as they wish.

Our editorial board consists of Martin H. Duke, Adam Parast, and Sherwin Lee, with valued input from the rest of the staff. We relied extensively on both an STB questionnaire and one from the Transit Riders’ Union. You can also consult the King County voters’ guide.

This post covers ballot measures, King County, City of Seattle, and City of Bellevue councils. We’ll follow up with other races in a few days.

BALLOT MEASURES

Seattle Proposition 1: YES. A $60 vehicle license fee doesn’t cover all of the city’s transportation needs, but it makes a sizeable dent. It will help to reduce the road maintenance backlog, improve bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and spend about 50% of the revenue on transit, making it faster, more reliable, easier to access, and less dependent on petroleum. It also takes small steps towards higher capacity streetcars on Seattle’s busiest corridors. Moreover, the VLF benefits the city’s poorest who can’t afford a car in the first place.

Initiative 1125: NO. There is nothing to like about I-1125. The initiative prevents variable tolling, doesn’t allow tolls to be used to fund transit, and blocks East Link over I-90. Adding further litigation and funding uncertainty to state mega-projects is counterproductive. It should go without saying that East Link is one of our largest priorities, and this initiative would kill it. Congestion-based tolling is the only way to tackle congestion in the long term. I-1125 sends us back to the 1950s in both respects. Tell Tim Eyman and Kemper Freeman that they’re out of touch with Washingtonians’ priorities by voting No on I-1125.

CANDIDATES

King County Council, Position 6. Richard Mitchell is running against incumbent Jane Hague and holds a number of positions that we like, including support for long-term sustainable transit funding and emphasis on productivity; he’s also shown a firm grasp on the importance of land use in the transportation discussion. We are, however, very skeptical of his ideas on transit agency consolidation. To her credit, Ms. Hague did help broker the deal to pass the $20 CRC and eliminate the ride-free area.  Although she did the right thing in the end, she was still willing to accept draconian cuts unless her second-order concerns were addressed. That’s just not good enough with a strong transit advocate like Richard Mitchell in the race.

King County Council, Position 8. Joe McDermott has had a short but impressive term on the Council since he replaced Dow Constantine. His positions are similar to Mr. Constantine’s — solid support for preserving and reforming Metro service while proceeding with Sound Transit’s buildout. Mr. McDermott’s opponent doesn’t appear to have a transportation emphasis.

Seattle City Council, Position 1. Bobby Forch has experience managing capital projects for SDOT, is a strong supporter of the VLF, and has several interesting ideas for transportation improvements, like making 3rd Avenue transit-only all-day. The incumbent, Jean Godden, championed the least aggressive, most road-oriented version of what became Proposition 1.

Seattle City Council, Position 3. The incumbent, Bruce Harrell, has basically sound views on transit that are “centrist” by Seattle standards. Transportation has not been one of his areas of focus on the Council. That’d be enough for a pass in many cases, but Brad Meacham absolutely hits it out of the park. He’s been aggressive in advocating for more funding for transit, and his ideas make it obvious that he’s used transit for a long time and been thoughtful about his experiences.

Seattle City Council, Position 5. Tom Rasmussen is also basically a transit centrist by Seattle standards: eager to grow the transit pie, a little squishy on density, pro-tunnel, and so on. As Chair of the Transportation Committee, he’s the architect of the $60 VLF as much as anyone (for better or worse), and has had a positive impact on the recent Metro dramas. We yearn for more progressive voices on the Council, but opponent Dale Pusey is not it. Pusey opposes the VLF, demand-based parking fees, and is broadly anti-streetcar.

Seattle City Council, Position 7. Tim Burgess is a solid contributor on the City Council. He’s been a leader on upzoning, market-based street parking, and is supportive of Prop. 1. We’d like it if he were sometimes a bit more aggressive on our issues, but the fact remains that policy-wise he’s the second strongest Councilmember behind Mike O’Brien. Opponent David Schraer says a lot of wonderful things about density, but he seems very dismissive of the environmental concerns that led many people to oppose the DBT. Tim Burgess is an effective advocate for good policy and deserves another term.

Seattle City Council, Position 9. Sally Clark won our primary endorsement as a positive force to improve Seattle’s zoning codes, although as chair of the land use committee, we think she could be much more forceful in that area. Her opponent, Dian Ferguson, opposes our values in almost every dimension: railing against density increases around light rail stations; emphasizing more government-mandated parking everywhere; opposing transit, bike, and pedestrian improvements; and so on.

Bellevue City Council, Position 1. John Stokes is running for Grant Degginger’s open seat, Bellevue’s most hotly contested position.  His attitude towards transit are consistent with our views: strong support for East Link, development in the Bel-Red Corridor, and more sustainable taxing authority for transit funding.  His opponent, Aaron Laing, is affiliated with Building a Better Bellevue, a neighborhood organization which has been hostile towards Sound Transit and East Link.

Bellevue City Council, Position 3. John Chelminiak has been a staunch proponent of East Link over his tenure on the city council, even authoring a guest piece for us this past May debunking a common talking point among B7 supporters.  His general positions on transit are fairly solid, including support for transit signal priority and minimization of cash-fare payment.  Opponent Michelle Hilhorst is being backed by developer Kemper Freeman and has not expressed convincing support for any positions that would be considered pro-transit.

Bellevue City Council, Position 5. Claudia Balducci is Bellevue’s purest transit advocate and deserves another term on the council.  Her strong support for East Link and transit are supplemented by her impressive transportation resume, which not only includes a seat on the Sound Transit Board, but one on the PSRC Transportation Policy Board as well.  Her opponent, Patti Mann, has expressed opposition to ST’s preferred East Link alignment, has no public office experience and is endorsed by a slew of transit opponents.

It will surprise no one, but STB endorses YES votes on the two transit funding measures on the ballot:

• Pierce Transit Proposition 1: YES. Pierce Transit is fortunate to have additional authorized taxing authority under existing state law. Prop 1 would increase the sales tax rate from 0.6% to 0.9%, the maximum allowed, in order to bring revenues more or less in line with pre-recession levels. Pierce Transit has had a pretty good crisis, streamlining operations, but now it’s time to pass a measure and avoid deep service cuts. For more see the campaign website.
• Jefferson Transit Authority Proposition 1: YES. A similar increase in the tax rate in Jefferson County will avoid a 22% cut in service hours and deferred increases in service. More information here.