I didn't realized they let convicted liars vote!

I gave up wasting time on Ted Van Dyk a long time ago. His arguments are shaped by the paranoid views and correlating disinformation campaigns waged by mass transit opponents Emory Bundy, John Niles and the right wingnut think tanks which pay hacks to lie through their teeth - grudges/end$ justifying the means, natch.

Van Dyk adopted the rantings of these fringe opinionators for two reasons: 1) he is so clueless, removed, lazy and misinformed, the National Enquirer version of Puget Sound transportation planning fits like a glove (it's winter, so Ted is probably sending in his dispatch from the desert southwest again); 2) Van Dyk plays the role of the classic dinosaur, stuck in the glory days of the '50s and '60s, when cheap gas, muscle cars, sprawl, and "free" freeways formed the ideology of self-centric, horsepower gratification.

If Van Dyk bothered to investigate the ridiculous transportation concepts & theories which form the foundation of Emory Bundy's extreme views, he would quickly realize the extent to which he was duped when he rolled back into town a couple years ago. For Bundy, this whole jihad is about a failed and discredited transit technology he has championed for decades. Unfortunately for Bundy, Richard Nixon was about the only guy who shared his views. Why Bundy decided to take his failures and frustrations out on light rail is pretty obvious.

But given Van Dyk's lazy pedigree, he could care less whether John Niles' outrageous congestion pricing schemes and unrealistic bus dreams will ever come to fruition. Same with Emory Bundy and Kemper Freeman's laughable Personal Rapid Transit scam.

It's terribly easy for all these old cranks to make up all kinds of outrageous claims, using the same old Libertarian & Right Wing think tank bs. But notice how they go silent the second the latest rail alternative fad pops up.

While Van Dyk was wandering around in DC doing the elitist blue blood thing, we were all subjected to his sole sources trying to pitch an obviously flawed monorail project to the masses. Did Van Dyk utter a peep when Niles' Discovery Institute successfully sold us a billion dollars worth of foot ferries? Has Van Dyk ever asked Emory Bundy how it is we're all supposed to get around on bikes, and in Vanpools (Bundy doesn't talk about his pods in public)

Look, Van Dyk might have some wisdom to impart upon us kids - especially when it related to antique policy platitudes, and "the good old days" when guys like Hubert could get elected to office.

But, on the subject of transportation - it's almost painful to read Van Dyk's poorly informed views. Amazing how ideology can blind even the most educated people. They say a conservative is a liberal who got mugged. In the case of Ted Van Dyk, he got mugged by two ideologues operating on the fringes of transportation theory (more like conspiracy theory)

Transportation policy should not be informed by personal grudges, pet technologies, professional/personal setbacks or loopy ideologically-based theories. I could care less if Kemper Freeman is still fighting "the commie train;" I am not interested to know how Emory Bundy became obsessed with micro-transit theory; and I could truly care less to know what drove John Niles to believe telecommuting will solve our traffic woes.

I do know why sugardaddy (aside from Kemper) Mark Baerwaldt keeps his fight going. And, as you might have guessed, it's all based on something totally unrelated to transportation. Also is focused on him - not the greater good. It's good to know most die-hard monorail maniacs have moved on, though.

Madison Avenue's comments are characteristic of the arguments made by light rail true believers. They follow the old dictum that, if you do not have a substantive case, smear the critics, change the subject, do anything but focus on (in light rail's case) the benefit to be derived from the tax dollars expended.

There is a central question to be addressed by those considering Prop. 1:
Which transportation systems would move the most people and goods to the places they need to go, in the shortest period, for the least amount of public money? Light rail would move fewer people than buses, to fewer places (a few fixed-point stations), after many years of construction, for far more money than alternatives.

All kinds of diversionary arguments can be made to obscure that fact. But the fact remains.

Wow, those are quite the attacks on the messenger, not the message. Ironically, they support Mr Van Dyk's point.

When you spew your filth and vermin about respectable people, whose views are different than your own, it only makes you look small, petty, and foolish.
I found the Van Dyke article interesting and thought provoking, where-as the attack response offered by MadisonAve contained only character assassination, guilt by association, and second hand smears. But not one fact to support a crazy quilt proposal to deal with transportation problems.
I smell a Rat.

Nobody's surprised about Van Dyk's positions. I'm curious about Crosscut's recommendations. You're quite a conservative and generally anti-rail publication, but I've seen a little bit of balance here lately.

MadisonAve makes no arguments, whatsoever. Just ignorant rants. What an adolescent clown he is.

Van Dyk is right on, as usual.

The light rail in Prop 1 would cost about $345 million per mile! This is about SIX TIMES what the most recent light rail extension in Portland cost. Talk about a boondoggle.

And to top that off, Sound Transit just admitted, in a presentation at the U.W., that the operating cost of ST light rail would be about $1.24 per passenger mile! That is about 67% MORE than the operating cost of Metro buses!

Not only is ST light rail obscenely expensive to build, it would be far more expensive to operate than buses.

ST's own studies show that Prop 1 would reduce vehicle miles traveled in our area by less than one percent in the year 2030! That is a trivial reduction in traffic congestion.

ST's own studies show that Prop 1 would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our area by LESS THAN ONE-THIRD OF ONE PERCENT by the year 2030. It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our entire state by about ONE-TENTH OF ONE PERCENT by 2030.

Prop 1 would do nothing for traffic congestion, nothing for global warming, and would allow Sound Transit to collect up to $107 BILLION over the next 45 years (and would not stop then).

VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 1, just as Ted Van Dyk recommends.

I'm afraid your argument against Proposition 1 is actually against the 1996 Sound Move, which voters already approved. Funding is already in place for the Capitol Hill and Husky Stadium stations, and construction preparations have already begun. Voting no in 2008 will not change that fact. By the way, the alternative to Husky Stadium was at Pacific Street, and was not opposed by residents---it was opposed by UW professors!

The population of our area is growing, and SoundTransit is the only game is town for an alternatives to congestion. Opponents have no plan.

VOTE YES ON PROPOSITION 1

What percentage of the growing population will live within the Sound Transit taxing district? It seems that Marysville, Maple Valley, Buckley, Covington, Monroe, Smokey Point, Snoqualmie Ridge/North Bend, and many other areas are growing quite fast and are poised to take a significant part of the residential growth because they have relatively inexpensive land.

None of them are in the taxing district. The lines are quite gerrymandered: even parts of Everett and Renton are not in the boundary.

A vote against Prop 1 is--more-or-less--a 10% reduction reduction in our sales tax. We'd avoid the nickel increase, and someday Sound Move will remove most of the the current four cents when the cows start flying, pigs have wings and phase one is complete. We're at about 9 cents on the dollar without Sound Move. With Prop 1 we'll be about 10 cents on the dollar, depending on which local taxing district you're in. That's a badly needed booster shot into the arms of taxpayers.

I'd actually love to have some value-engineered light rail to add to our transportation system, but with those who use it and benefit from it paying for it. Prop 1 is a run-away tax train laden with high-explosive debt service that will destroy our capacity to improve our education system and to keep the rest of government working at normal levels for decades, with the big debt service balloon payment coming after seemingly modest taxation in the early years. Note that ST refuses to talk about post-completion debt service and the risk of huge engorged hunks of flesh being hacked out of taxpayers after this thing is built.

ST has made reasonable conservative cost estimates, yet has asked for 6X the tax authority to meet these conservative cost estimates. A better approach would be to give them a fixed conservative amount to meet their goals in a short period of time and then give them more if they perform. Instead, they fail to perform, so they want more. It reminds me of the daughter who crashed the BMW her parents gave her, so the parents gave her a Range Rover to replace it. What she needed was to learn how to drive.

Giving this voracious fiscal entity unending taxing authority will just provide incentives for people to work as slowly, ineffectively, and inefficiently as possible, so that the gravy train will keep running for the life times of everyone associated with Sound Transit. Actual delivery of a light rail line is a secondary goal, relief of congestion a tertiary goal, and fiscal transparency no goal at all.

Every Obama voter should understand that what ails government and what afflicts the Bush administration is the same disease that makes Sound Transit run. Vote out Bush, vote no on Prop 1 and vote no on a ten cent sales tax.
Vote in Obama and vote for a nine cent sales tax. Out with the old and in with the new and the nine.

- Stuka

//We're at about 9 cents on the dollar without Sound Move. With Prop 1 we'll be about 10 cents on the dollar, depending on which local taxing district you're in. // So suddenly ST2 is a 0.1% sales tax? Where'd you get that new info? Did they change the proposition on us?

More lies from the no camp.

I have always enjoyed the role Ted Van Dyk plays as a journalist and provocateur of essential debate. He has the personal courage to put out ideas an uses his journalistic skills to make us chew on them hoping we will discover concepts we missed. I appreciate him as much when I disagree with him as when I agree because his arguments force me to think.

In this piece Van Dyk says “In short, ballot measures provide an excuse for those we elect to not do their jobs. They also facilitate passage of proposals which might not make it through a deliberative legislative process.”

While I might agree there are elected officials who make a living straddling the fence to get reelected, the initiative process comes closer to representing the concept that created this nation. Do the words “WE THE PEOPLE” ring a bell? Decisions are supposed to be about what the people want, not what big campaign contributors want or what might please a mayor with a Napoleon complex.

The initiative process is far from perfect and can lead to some poor decisions. It’s also true that government just as often makes even worse decisions that cost taxpayers so much that even local government must offer special levies to maintain existing infrastructure because of money they squandered with bad decisions or colossal boondoggles. The list of poor governmental decisions is lengthy. Take one recent very very small example. Did you ever wonder if the money wasted on the Automatic Toilet fiasco could have been better diverted to a parks project or maybe directed toward traffic light synchronization?

Van Dyk notes that the State Auditor has been asked to investigate if the City of Seattle and Sound transit can use public funds to hire a non-profit organization called Transportation Choices Coalition. They create propaganda to support governmental agendas for hire. Seattle spent $95,000 of our tax money to hire TCC to influence a public ballot measure because it’s illegal do it themselves. This is the most disgusting insult to public trust imaginable. If this level of deceit doesn’t make you angry as a citizen then maybe you should reexamine your role as a citizen.

For all the frustration one might have with Tim Eyman his ethics or career choice of being a professional initiative creator. He does generate debate, gets people to the polls and makes elected officials get off their ass and do a better job of representing the public rather than special interest groups.

Keep it up Ted, we need you as much when we disagree as when we go along with your opinions.

Matt: Crosscut is "quite a conservative publication?" Compared to what: The Stranger and Eat the State!?

Ted: You write that "ballot measures can subvert good government... they encourage elected officials to shun their responsibilities and buck difficult political issues to the ballot." Yes, this was indeed the case with the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement advisory measure you go on to mention... that showed a horrendous lack of leadership. And yes, "ballot measures also are habitually used to generate monies which should be found in normal state and city budgets." But I am still not entirely convinced that this is the result of the initiative/referendum process. You see "our elected officials hav[ing] lacked the guts to propose and execute solutions" because they have the option to punt. This may be a part of it, and likely is in the cases mentioned above. But I see the ballot-measure process having been instituted precisely because of "those we elect... not do[ing] their jobs."

I wonder which did come first, the chicken or the egg.

Personally, I don't choose to share my voting preferences. But I must admit that in the candidate races, I'm getting tired of voting AGAINST somebody in selecting my preferred candidate. I would like to have someone I support, but more frequently it isn't an affirmative vote so much as a negative vote against the other choice. Where's the "none of the above" box?!?! As for the initiatives, I won't vote for anything associated with Eyman even if it is brillant - which is not to say the current proposal is. Some people just don't get that we are a representative democracy and seek direct democracy in thinking they can write good law. Phhoey.

Debbalee, your best shot at getting a "none of the above" box on the ballot is in fact via initiative...

Seriously, though, it sounds like you'd like some sort of ballot reform, and major changes in that direction, such as lowering access requirements or wholesale changes of system, like the instant-runoff voting that will be in effect in certain Pierce County races in a couple of weeks, aren't likely to make it through the legislature, for the simple reason that the Democrats and Republicans don't want to give up the power they currently have.

As for Eyman, he's not my favorite person in the world, but when he's got a good idea (performance audits, for instance) I'll gladly vote for it.

As I stated, it would be quite easy to pick apart Van Dyk's worn-out and discredited arguments. But I would rather waste my time trying to convince a hardcore Christian Coalition activist on the scientific importance of Evolution.

Look, at least Dino Rossi, Dori Monson, Kemper Freeman, Bill Virgin and other right-Libertarian-dime store populist voices are honest about their position vis a vis light rail. Unlike Bundy, Niles and Van Dyk, these guys are up front about their wish to take the transit money, and use it to fund billions more for bigger & badder freeways.

All this beating around the bush really bugs me (can you tell?) Pretending buses can be just as effective as rail in a fast growing metropolitan region is just a joke. Especially when the proponents of BRT refuse to support any basic components of the "R" (rapid) part.

Find me a large North American metro region following the mono-modal dreams of our local mass transit opponents, and I'll take some of this anti-rail fuming seriously.

And if Van Dyk's faux populist camp ever bothered looking into the incredibly intrusive, controlling, regressive, and expensive "congestion pricing" plans being pushed by Sims, MacDonald, Baerwaldt, Talmadge - the Discovery Institute Brain Trust - they would take a more rational look at light rail transit.

If the default is 'don't build anything - we'll keep driving' - then just say so. (dumping more buses on existing streets would be almost as useful as doing nothing) If the fanciful social engineering plans of these light rail opponents are your bag - then how's about some analysis of how 'Plan B' would affect all of us in a big way. The Elway poll from last spring showed 75% opposition to the concepts being pushed by the people Van Dyk gives special recognition to.

A couple of additional comments:

A state legislative analyst, who asked to remain anonymous, has e-mailed Crosscut to attest that ballot measures indeed are troublesome, difficult to interpret and apply, and cannot be corrected or tweaked at last minute, as legislation can be.

To MadisonAve and others who apparently believe all light rail opponents harbor rail hatred or bus love: When I returned home to Seattle nearly eight years ago, I was prepared to support light rail. No one likes crowded highways. If light rail made sense here, I was for it. I have always liked trains. Choo. Choo. Clickety. Clack.

It took only a brief time, however, to conclude that topography (making necessary water crossings and tunneling) and travel patterns (diffuse)
made light rail more costly and less practical here than in other places.

Anyone with public policy experience can attest that decisionmaking begins with the consideration of all available options and the choice of those offering the most benefit for the least cost. Even the most elemental cost-benefit analysis here takes light rail out of the game. In the three-county area it would cost too much, take too long to construct, and carry too few people to too few destinations to justify itself.

I have no personal stake in any transportation system or mode... in buses, highways, bicycles, congestion pricing, tolling, and so on, or in the interests or theories of other persons or groups. My only stake is the one shared by most citizens: I want our tax dollars spent in a way which will provide the greatest and most cost-efficient public benefit to the region. I do not want billions spent for the mostly private benefit of those who would derive income or political campaign contributions from the system Prop. 1 would authorize.

Congrats ! With the exception of 985, I'm happy to be voting with you !

Light rail is nothing more than a horrific waste of dollars that should be going to sensible transit and road solutions.

Hopefully you'll agree that the time for chris to go is at hand, and support Rossi. Under chris, the democrats have bought votes with legislation that has the state facing a incredible deficit.

This is an interesting and helpful article. Where it falls short for me, is that even if Prop 1 fails, we will still have a public transit system that is comprised of buses, a bit of light rail, trains, a water taxi and a short monorail. And none of them really connect to one another in any useful way.

This illustrates the problem that the Puget Sound area (our real transit area) doesn't really have a Sound-wide transit planning organization that can identify needs, set priorities, tax and create a Sound-wide system. So we've got our current mish-mash of systems that each have had different supporters. I do agree with Mr. Van Dyk's analysis that we need to chose transit systems that suit our geography.

I'm still undecided on prop 1,

Long Time Seattlite

[lizru], that's the one piece I agree with Van Dyk on: //we need to chose transit systems that suit our geography//. We have a huge number of bottlenecks here thanks to water and hills. We're at the point where building more freeways is not possible or cost effective. So how do we reduce traffic and move the expanding number of commuters? The answer is clearly to switch to rail. Rail has the ability of moving the equivalent of IIRC 9 lanes of traffic. Try imagining putting 9 more lanes of traffic through I-5 in Seattle, and you can see what the obvious choice is for our region. It's not more buses stuck in traffic.

Thanks to Sound Transit and the 1996 tax approval, the Seattle region is now beyond mono-modalism. Light rail is fully funded and close to opening from downtown Seattle to the Airport.

(Based on Federal status monitoring reports and risk assessments of "HIGH" in the 2009 Sound Transit no-new-taxes-budget posted on the web, I predict Airport Link will open a bit later than ST has scheduled, but the airport trains will be running in 2010 under all foreseeable circumstances.)

Both Seattle and Tacoma already now have short street railroad segments (trams) of the type that covered both cities through the start of World War 2 until replaced by buses. Sounder Commuter Rail is chugging in from Tacoma and Everett every weekday and on some game weekends, full of happy travlers who are getting an incredibly fine, highly-tax-subsidized ride. BNSF has got to be smiling about the cash they've gotten out of this deal for funding the challenge of keeping long freight trains moving on the same tracks as short passenger trains.

Bottom line, the Puget Sound region is now a passenger-rail-enabled region, and will become increasingly so in the years just ahead, whether Prop 1 wins or loses.

We even have a historic monorail for an uptown shuttle, and an automated rubber-tire subway people mover to get you closer to the airplanes at SeaTac. Plus, don't forget about Amtrak.

All of what we do for mobility around Puget Sound with what we've already got could be vastly improved with far less money than the billions of dollars, billions, Sound Transit seeks from taxpayers to build more railroad tracks and train stations that are not close to both ends of most trips in the region, and never will be.

The question with Prop 1 is, how much light rail is enough for right now, since this tax vote is about building 19 new light rail stations at over one half billion dollars each.

We are a few years away from knowing what Central Link light rail to the Airport will do for transit market share and mobility after Metro rearranges buses and starts operating Link light rail in coordination with new bus routes. We don't know how five Metro arterial BRT Rapid Ride lines and an arterial BRT from Community Transit called Swift on SR 99 are going to work out in practice.

I and other rail critics predict that the new expanded bus service already funded at Metro and CT will work very well, and that light rail to the Airport won't be the barn burner that rail foamers and politicians hope for. Serious problems are likely to arise in the downtown "bus tunnel" with trains and buses intermixed in close coordination, and in Rainier Valley with trains traveling at 35 mph through 18 ungated intersections. Or maybe everything will work out just fine. Or not. Take your pick and vote.

Doubling Sound Transit's tax collections on November 4th is one hell of a big bet that everything is going to work out great with ST's uncompleted mainstay project.

Some look at Portland and see light rail; I travel to Portland and am more impressed with the Tri-Met Frequent Bus Service Network (every 10 minutes or less) drawn on the light rail maps to cover where the tracks don't go.

Some look at Vancouver BC and see Skytrain; I'm more impressed with the B-Line arterial BRT and other buses that carry more people than Skytrain every day.

Our region will soon be able to have a region-wide subway-like transit map that shows both our urban railroads, and the frequent service bus lines that cover the much more of the region.

Plus we have the biggest and best vanpool and rideshare programs on planet Earth, bar none. And one of the most extensive, well-managed HOV networks in the nation for shared ride private vehicles and buses both. Be proud of what we have.

Be proud that the U.S. Census bureau every year in the American Community Survey reports the region has the 8th best transit commuter market share in the country, behind only the San Francisco Bay Area in the west. We're ahead of all the western "light rail" cities like Portland, Denver, San Jose, San Diego, Salt Lake City, et al.

For now, Prop 1 costs too much and takes too long to do the little for the relatively tiny increment of mobility it promises -- 62 thousand new transit trips in a 2030 forecast of 15 million trips per day. Do the long division to see what that does for transit market share.

Prop 1 consumes tax capacity needed for many other government priorities just as the nation and the region are rolling into tough economic times. This would be true even if after 12 years Sound Transit had finally built what it said in 1996 it would build by 2006.

But in fact every dollar from Prop 1 going into Sounder and Buses is bail out money, and some of the money for light rail is too, paying for light rail stations in City of Sea-Tac and in the U District we already paid for with the 1996 vote.

Consider making Sound Transit live for a few more years with the million dollars per day in taxes they are already getting.

I get so tired of the light rail zealots lying every time they discuss it.

Like Matt's pathetic post: "Rail has the ability of moving the equivalent of IIRC 9 lanes of traffic."

One light rail car has a capacity of 137 passengers, as noted in the SEIS from Sound Transit for the north link. Sound Transit will never run more than 4 cars per train, and will never run trains more frequently than one train every 4 minutes, or 15 trains per hour.

So the capacity of ST light rail, which is far, far into the future, running 4-car trains every 4 minutes with at most 137 passengers in each car gives a maximum capacity of about 8,220 riders per hour per direction.

An articulated bus has a capacity of about 90. Therefore, to carry 8,220 passengers per hour would require about 91 buses per hour per direction. One highway lane can carry about 2,000 vehicles per hour.

So one highway lane can carry just as many passengers per hour as ST light rail ever will, with only 91 buses per hour, leaving room for another 1,900 vehicles per hour to share that lane with the buses.

One highway lane has vastly more capacity than one ST light rail track. You just need enough buses to carry that many people. Each bus takes about 75 cars off of the road (at 1.2 passengers per car), so 90 buses per hour could eliminate 6,750 cars per hour.

Just 90 buses per hour could carry the same number of people as more than three full freeway lanes. And one freeway lane can carry several times 90 buses per hour.

Putting money into more buses takes cars off our roads, and costs a fraction of what light rail would cost, on a per-passenger basies, both in construction and in operation.

Hint: we don't need to build more highway lanes if we add more buses. Buses increase the capacity of highway lanes many-fold.

//Bottom line, the Puget Sound region is now a passenger-rail-enabled region, and will become increasingly so in the years just ahead, whether Prop 1 wins or loses.// Heh. We're also Monorail-enabled. I'm sure that will expand any day now...

Killing Prop 1 likely kills light rail. And it's a good package - much better than the one last year that was bogged down in road-building.

Killing Prop 1 likely kills light rail?

Where do you get that idea?

Sound Transit has issued a no-new-taxes budget for 2009 that waxes eloquently about light rail from the Airport to Husky Stadium. I was sitting beside Mayor Nickels last week when he confirmed to the P-I editorial board that Sound Transit is fully funded to build light rail from the Airport to Husky Stadium.

Matt: according to John Niles, Lincoln and Ted Van Dyk, it's the lack of roads funding in this measure which gets them so bloody worked up!

|//We're at about 9 cents on the dollar without Sound Move. With Prop 1 we'll |be about 10 cents on the dollar, depending on which local taxing district |you're in. // So suddenly ST2 is a 0.1% sales tax? Where'd you get that new |info? Did they change the proposition on us?
|
|More lies from the no camp.
|— Matt

No lie or intent to lie. Prop 1 does two things: imposes a 0.5% ST2 sales tax and continues the 0.4% ST1 RTA (i.e., Sound Move) sales tax. That's 0.9%. Reading the ballot it's easy to miss this. The $69 annual cost provided by the pro-Prop 1 campaign is for the ST2 tax. The continuation of ST1 taxes adds $55, so the total we'll be paying (using ST's own numbers) is 0.9% or $124 a year. So if you go to a restaurant and spend $20.00, you'll be paying a total tax of 10.4% for the meal, broken down as follows:

6.5% $1.30 State Sales
2.5% $0.50 Local City/County Sales
0.5% $0.10 Food & Beverage (added for dramatic effective to go over 10%)
0.9% $0.18 RTA (ST1 + ST2)
10.4% $2.08 Total

Without it:

6.5% $1.30 State Sales
2.5% $0.50 Local City/County Sales
0.5% $0.10 Food & Beverage
0.0% $0.18 RTA (I put this at zero, although it'll take years before
there's a rollback, and an M&O-level; tax will still continue...)
9.5% $1.90 Total

Most cities have base sales and local taxes (excluding the RTA) of around 9%. See here:
http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/salesandusetaxrates/lookupataxrate/

I have observed Sound Transit for several years while living part-time in Seattle. I have never seen a taxpayer-funded body, anywhere, operate with such arrogance and disrespect for the people it supposedly serves. It is a rogue agency mainly serving itself.

Prop. 1 would impose a record, regressive tax increase on people who already are buried under heavy taxes and trying to pay their bills in a recession. What are its sponsors thinking?

I especially resent the role played by elected officials who front for light rail. Senator Patty Murray went so far as to meet with Arizona elected officials to lobby them on behalf of a Phoenix light rail system.
Why? Is she now also a Senator from Arizona?

Most of the responses have addressed Prop One, 2008.

Though Van Dyk's piece contained several glaring errors, he probably reached a reasonable recommendation.

University Link LRT between CPS and the UW Stadium Station is already funded and is not at stake in this election. The Montlake Cut crossing is quite good.

He also asserts that the University District and Capitol Hill are well-served by buses. They are not. They are dense urban pedestrian-oriented centers with latent demand for frequent, fast, and reliable transit. Bus transit is quite slow on Capitol and First Hills. Seattle has choked transit flow on seveal key arterials with three-lane profiles or bike lanes (e.g., Broadway, Madison Street, and Pine Street). There are too many bus stops and too little service frequency. Link LRT between Northgate and downtown will be a great transit investment, as it will provide fast, frequent, and reliable two-way service to high demand markets. Bus transit cannot serve the U District and Northgate well in the reverse peak direction.

The flaws in Prop One 2008 include timing (e.g., the recession, before the implementation of a tolling regime on the limited access highways), revenue source (e.g., the high and regressive sales tax), and too much Link LRT in the outer subareas. The South extension is estimated at $2B and is forecast to attract few riders. More quickly implemented bus investments are solely needed in South King County. What is the point of reaching Star Lake with LRT? The East extension is estimated at $4.5B and is forecast to attract relatively few riders. It does not seem a wise use of the I-90 center roadway. The north line beyond Northgate will place stations in the I-5 envelope where pedestrian-oriented areas will probably never develop.

The majority of the ST Board is overly wedded to their long range plan despite the evidence it is unaffordable and a poor transit ivestment. They are enamored with capacity and are suggesting we build much of it in alignments where it will be under used. Their objective seems to be to achieve the maximum extent of Link LRT. A better objective would be maximizing the transit ridership attracted. ST2 expends little to improve transit within Everett and Tacoma; ST is focused on long intersubarea transit trips that may not require high capacity. High capacity is needed only where there is high demand. High capacity comes at high cost. The ST Board would have been wiser to adopt the same accidental wisdom it found in 1996 with a multimodal approach.

Many other cities building modern LRT have used abandoned freight rail lines (e.g., Vancouver SkyTrain, Denver, St. Louis, Sacremento, San Jose, San Diego, NJ). ST is building its own right-of-way and that is quite costly.

Van Dyk also criticized Nickels for the Bridging the Gap levy. That does not seem fair. The blame for defered street and bridge maintenance must be shared by the Legislature, past mayors, and the Council. Nickels and the 2006 Council were brave and addressed the issue. More could have been done, but it was clearly a positive move and they used two other tax sources, the commercial parking tax and an employer tax. The current debate with Licata over the Mercer project is fun.

Not surprised that transit opponents try to paint advocates as frothy mouthed demogogues.

I have one reason for favoring transit. I have lived in Seattle (grew up here), Portland, LA, Phoenix, Boston, and Chicago. I have experienced the mass transit heaven of Chicago and Boston, the belated efforts of Southern California to jump on a solution they abandoned during the most critical decades of their development, the pure hell of Phoenix's drive everywhere lifestyle, and the nascent years of Portland's embrace of light rail.

The cities with transit are vibrant, easier to get around, have more independent small businesses, are less susceptible to economic booms and busts, and are generally nicer to live in. Cities without transit require untold hours wasted in cars, while feature strip malls, pollution, neighborhoods divided by massive roadways, and people who don't socialize easily with strangers.

Are all these attributes due to transit choices? Of course not. But then, they are not all completely de-coupled from transit either.

I'll vote for Prop 1 because transit has worked for the cities that have it, and it has made the cities that don't have it crappy places to live and work. After my personal, 6-city sample, this is my conclusion.