The mayor's view on transportation is amazingly out of touch. His full-bore support for a publicly and privately funded new arena in Sodo, while doing nothing to fix the huge transportation problems already there and that the facility would exacerbate, clearly shows a lack of perspective.

This manufacturing and industrial center, highly dependent on the waterfront, railroads and efficient truck transportation, is a multi-billion-dollar driver of region's economy. Swallowing up industrial land and increasing already congested traffic for a bunch of low-paying service jobs while forcing out great family wage jobs is extremely short-sighted. The focus seems not on the best future for the city, but trying to find an issue that might garner a second term.

More false equivalentarianism from TVD. Mourdock is most definitely an extreme right-winger. He strongly criticizes the Obama administration's successful automaker bailout, strongly opposes the DREAM Act, and strongly opposes bipartisanship and compromise on foreign policy or any policy. He's also an ardent climate change denier.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/09/us/politics/richard-mourdocks-many-pursuits-dont-include-bipartisanship.html
http://thehill.com/blogs/e2-wire/e2-wire/226307-defeated-sen-lugar-laments-gop-climate-stance
In terms of TVD's statements about both sides being equally responsible for the current polarization, see Thomas Mann's and Norm Ornstein's statements about this, that the problem now is clearly the Republicans:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/lets-just-say-it-the-republicans-are-the-problem/2012/04/27/gIQAxCVUlT_story.html

Ted -- Nice run down on the news of the week. I agree that Lugar's defeat had more to do with him being out of touch than any TEA party action. However, it's interesting that races on the R side always mention the TEA party while races on the D side never mention the Occupy movement. Yes, the TEA party has some significant big money backers, but why can't Occupy do the same thing.

On Greece and Europe: Do you think it would really be the worst thing for the Euro to break up? It might strengthen the various economies if they were allowed to take advantage of opportunities available to them that differ form their neighbors. The Euro hasn't been around all that long. Maybe we shouldn't think of separation as all that hard to do. I bet some Germans and Greeks would be OK with it.

"A Seattle bicycle census last year showed that, in all neighborhoods but downtown, there were fewer bicycles in use than two years before."

While this is interesting data, it's taken on a single day so it's very weather dependent. Last year the weather was cold/wet and rainy, the year before relatively nice. In fact a week of crappy weather in late September is often enough to get the fair weather commuters to switch over to a bus even if the weather is still reasonable.

Jordan: I think you may have answered your own question with your recent piece re the demonstrations in Seattle. The Tea Partiers have
a discrete agenda of deficit- and debt-reduction, around which its supporters can focus lobbying and electoral efforts, whereas the Occupy movement has no such targeted focus and ranges from those with a beef about Wall Street or income inequality to anarchists. I don't know if Occupiers ever will agree on a coherent two- or three-point agenda and organized political action.

Yes, it would be tragic if Greece or others were to withdraw from the Euro zone or European Union. First, any country withdrawing would find itself in even deeper financial and economic trouble than at present, without the support of the European Central Bank, Germany, and others who have been susstaining Greece, for instance, through difficulties it could not face by itself. Second, the whole enterprise arose from the ashes of WW II when a few far-sighted European leaders saw the need to establish a political, economic, and financial framework which would make another war among European nations impossible. The dissoluation of that framework could lead to the kind of selfish, natinoalist policies which brought the continent to past acrimony and war.

It also would be a blow to the United States. Blowback from
single-country defaults in Europe would damage our own financial and economic systems. The breakup of EU cooperation would take away
our single strongest partner in the world.

I certainly can understand the motivations of Mayor McGinn and others
who favor increased bicycle use and, for that matter, commuting on foot. The fact remains, however, that a vast majority of Seattleites
must depend on their cars for vital transportation. Many do not live near transit. Many who do cannot travel conveniently to where transit takes them. We should be looking for alternatives to auto transportation but cannot force them on people for whom they presently do not fit.

Maggie lost in the 1980 General Election along with 11 other Democratic Senators, including Frank Church; it was the Reagan landslide; Lugar lost in the Primary; the only parallel is age.

The Fairview Fanny editorial board is usually much more confused than McGinn.

Most of the Seattle Council agrees with the Mayor's proposal on how much parking should be required to be built in new multifamily projects. It is a question of housing affordability and market freedom. It is not a case of hating cars. It is within a quarter mile of FREQUENT transit, not just any transit. If the curb space in a neighborhood is parked out, the market solution would be to price the curb space, not impose parking requirements on new buildings.

Improved service frequency is the most important way to improve transit ridership. The McGinn and Council push toward short, slow, costly streetcars (e.g., SLU and First Hill) is counter to that, as it spends too many scarce transport dollars on urban bling without improving mobility much.

The data about 16 year olds may not be bad; Seattle is only part of King County. It is easier to live without a car in Seattle and more difficult to do so in much of King County outside Seattle.

Thanks for your comment, Eddie. Yes, a majority of the Council may at this time agree with the mayor's proposal. But it also agreed with his proposal last year to impose a sharp car-tab surtax on Seattle auto owners---an attempt, in that case, to tax Seattleites out of their cars. But voters turned down the proposal one-sidedly.

There are many ways to improve Seattle transit effectiveness, beginning with shifting of resources to cost-efficient ordinary bus service from costly streetcars and light rail which carry fewer people to fewer destinations for far more tax dollars. Right now, though,
the mayor and council must face the situation as it is. That is,
that a vast majority of Seattle residents still use their cars for transportation to and from work and for other vital purposes and that
local transit, of any kind, does not take them efficiently to the places they need to go. They thus need parking where they live and work until the mayor's more perfect world comes into existence.

Actually, the 2011 ballot measure to increase vehicle license fees was from the Seattle Transportation Benefit District, not the mayor. The council forms the TBD; the mayor has no vote. The TBD board voted 9-0 to place it on the ballot. Seattle voters approved a much higher, but more progressive motor vehicle excise tax (1.4 percent) to fund the still born monorail governed by the Seattle Monorail Project board.

Flawed as it is, transit in Seattle is improving and attracting more riders, and, on net, SDOT is helping (e.g., signals, bulbs, sidewalks, funding). The JTW data shows Seattle transit ridership is higher than in PDX. About 40 percent of commute trips to downtown and the U District are on transit. Those markets have paid parking.