Posted Mon, Oct 3, 4:54 p.m.

I think the point here is that the "neighborhood movement" is so detrimental to the city right now that either it needs to change to allow people to move here, or activists will focus their efforts on taking away the neighborhoods' ability to stop new growth.

Posted Fri, Jul 15, 10:16 a.m.

I really like climate consideration's comment here - that's exactly how I feel about this. When heavy hitters in the environmental community put thousands of dollars into trying to fight something, it's because it's *bad*. I trust the Sierra Club to fight for things that align with my values.

Posted Thu, Jul 7, 10:39 a.m.

What? This is nonsense. Environmentalists know that exhaust underground is the same as exhaust on the surface - and the tunnel creates more of it in total. The tunnel project funds ZERO transit. The small, temporary transit funding that these authors refer to is part of a different SODO project ...

Posted Tue, May 19, 10:04 a.m.

No, bthornton, this piece is simply asinine. Ridership fluctuates annually for several reasons, so the simple concept that ridership has gone down relative to a month ago is not really a relevant point - that's cyclic. Ennis could have made a useful commentary on fuel prices affecting transit ridership and ...

Posted Mon, May 18, 5:04 p.m.

So what you're saying is, the spike in ridership we saw last year when gas was really expensive is going away, but ridership is still climbing on the same path it has been for the last decade or so? You don't say. It's almost as if the system is maturing, ...

Posted Thu, Jul 17, 11:39 a.m.

RE: Assumptions: Whoops, wrong document! The one from last month is here: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/39870/Resolution%20Report.pdf And the memo: http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/39870/Support%20Data.doc In essence, everything's been studied and has solutions.

Posted Thu, Jul 17, 11:24 a.m.

RE: Assumptions: Funding is so conservative it's not even funny. We're assuming we won't get big FTA grants like the ones for Central Link and University Link - but we will, especially as a large federal transit funding bill just passed, so all of that acts as padding. Sound Transit ...

Posted Wed, Jul 16, 8:50 a.m.

RE: You make no sense...: I think it's fun how your claims are dwindling down to just one... From your link, the majority of the Forward Thrust bonds would have been issued at a 5-6% interest rate, well under the 10-15% construction inflation (the only inflation that matters for construction ...

Posted Wed, Jul 16, 7:40 a.m.

RE: Choice: Tom, perhaps you should bow out of the conversation as we're having it and just listen for a while? The statement you're replying to wasn't "attractive option (full stop)." It was "attractive option (for the people who don't use them)". This is evident wherever we build rail in ...

Posted Wed, Jul 16, 7:37 a.m.

RE: Choice: The nice thing about subarea equity - the requirement that Sound Transit spend the revenue from each of their five subareas to benefit the area where it was collected - is that we will get a second line in Seattle in ST3. Seattle is most of the "North ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 10:58 p.m.

RE: WA Subsidies: Quinault Bob, I don't understand you at all. I think perhaps you might want to stick with one argument so you can appear more rational?

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 10:56 p.m.

RE: You make no sense...: "The page you have requested was not found. The link is either incorrect or the page no longer exists." You seriously argue that adding 2 lanes each way to 405 is cost effective compared to light rail? Look, I'm not interested in responding again to ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 10:53 p.m.

RE: Manhattanization: Tom Heller, you've had forty years to present a standard or a plan. During that time, the FTA was created to identify projects, vet them, and bring them forward for federal funding to reward good planning. Our generally anti-transit federal government is handing us $1.3 billion for Link ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 10:48 p.m.

RE: ound 3: dn, I bent over backward to give you direct evidence. The fact that you aren't reading is helping prove my point - people don't learn from online conversations, they learn from face to face. Innovation doesn't happen when Microsoft brings people together. It happens in garages, on ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 10:46 p.m.

RE: Good try: Ooh, an argument from authority! Keep the fallacies coming, they're not convincing anyone.

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 4:47 p.m.

RE: Buses can't meet the need: Also, if you're unaware, Sound Transit has paid for HOV lanes and transit direct access ramps in a few dozen locations around the district. Have a look at the ramps at Bellevue Transit Center, or Eastgate, or up in Lynnwood or Everett.

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 4:41 p.m.

RE: You make no sense...: 1) Great response, there! I like how you won the semantics (you're quite right, a supermajority doesn't mean 2/3), and ignored the fact that today, that vote would have approved a system. 2) I guess you didn't read my response - I didn't write that ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 4:08 p.m.

RE: Buses can't meet the need: Sound Transit's daily ridership is currently about 40,000 for ST Express, and 10,000 for Sounder. In the first few years of Link operation, we'll see 30,000 daily, making rail ridership half of daily riders. When University Link opens, rail ridership will be more than ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 4:04 p.m.

RE: Buses can't meet the need: Right of way is important for any transit to succeed. The only places where one can't give buses dedicated right of way are the places where it's most needed. HOV lanes are great, but they make up a small portion of the total time ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 3:59 p.m.

RE: You make no sense...: You do understand that if there's a zoning restriction of 30 feet, you can't build higher than 30 feet? I'm not sure that's a guess - it's more of a statute. Did you actually read the article? Of course I advocate higher density - but ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 3:49 p.m.

RE: Sound Transit - an Example of the Corruption of Corporate America under Boomer Leadership: What a ridiculous statement. Is the local bonding law now the same as it was in 1968? Yes. Did we need 60% for Sound Transit? For Transit Now? For the monorail votes? No. So why ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 3:30 p.m.

RE: Urban myths abound: Thanks, I own Metaphors We Live By (and several other Jacobs books). My fiancee is a linguist - she studies polysemy and category shifts, and may have the other title.

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 3:16 p.m.

RE: Urban myths abound: Since when is there a question that rails can support more density than buses? Proof is in the pudding, my friend - the political realities are clear. South Lake Union development is happening post-streetcar. The changes that are allowing that development came hand in hand with ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 3:02 p.m.

RE: Prove it: I'm blowing smoke because you can't read the book I've already pointed you to? In person, would you have simply stood there until I produced a book? No, I'd bring it to you tomorrow. Online, you can make the barrier to an idea as high as you ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 2:45 p.m.

RE: Manhattanization: To those reading, I'd like to point out one little error that sinks Niles' whole piece (and I'm sorry about this, Mr. Niles - but it has been pointed out to you before, and you should know better by now). Right at the end there, he claims that ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 2:21 p.m.

RE: Manhattanization: Mister Niles! So glad to have you here. You must not have read the piece, though. When you talk about buses being a political choice, you're conveniently missing the fact that 40 years of work has not gotten us those frequently running buses. The reality of the situation ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 1:51 p.m.

RE: You make no sense...: 4) Your questions regarding supply and demand overlook the actual reason for a lack of development in these areas in the past. I mentioned CAP in the article - and there have been 30-65 foot height limits through much of Seattle, with single use zoning, ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 1:45 p.m.

RE: You make no sense...: 1) It wasn't a supermajority, it was 60%. Because of changes in the FTA grant process, we'd only require 50% today, as Forward Thrust would have been created as a transit agency. The fact that it wasn't at the time was an artifact of the ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 1:37 p.m.

RE: Buses can't meet the need: Indeed, and you'll note that it's fallen prey to the fallacy of believing that as we haven't done it, it must "still need to be tried" - when even in the 1950s, basic ridership estimates showed that even tunneling everywhere is more cost effective ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 1:33 p.m.

RE: Urban myths abound: dn, we really do understand the sociology behind innovation. It's that exposure to fresh ideas that turns creativity into products - exposure that happens where you see more on your way to work than the bumper stickers in front of you. Online interaction has a fundamental ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 12:58 p.m.

RE: Buses can't meet the need: We can use some highway right of way, but the big stations need to be separate from the highway infrastructure - you want to keep from having the highway in the walkable space around stations, as that's space that can't construct dense development. Sound ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 12:54 p.m.

RE: Car Bus: Systems like that are so far from feasible it's not even funny. Freeway stations kill transit oriented development with noise and with elimination of the closest locations. Small vehicles hamstring capacity lower than even streetcars. The right of way costs the same as a bullet train, but ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 9:55 a.m.

Van Dyk confused again...: Last year's vote was rail and roads, not rail alone. Considering pro-transit Seattle voted it down, it's likely to have failed due to a combination of factors, not as any referendum on Sound Transit. I know it's hard to understand that, but keep trying! This year ...

Posted Tue, Jul 15, 9:51 a.m.

You make no sense...: There are four or five different comments in there about totally different things. Regardless, I just want to point out that the majority of voters approved of Forward Thrust. We just had a rule that was later disposed of - as people have access to more ...