Posted Fri, Sep 24, 9:22 a.m.

crossrip: You are wrong. Article II, sec. 40 is not a protection of drivers but of taxpayers. The taxpayers expectations and interests are met by reimbursing them for the amount of 18th Am. funds invested in the bridge or, in other words, making the taxpayers whole (a most basic concept ...

Posted Fri, Sep 24, 12:49 a.m.

Great article, just a few quick corrections/clarifications: the 18th Amendment restricts excise taxes on "motor vehicle fuel" and "license fees for motor vehicles" to highway purposes. There is no constitutional issue with using the MVET collected by Sound Transit for light rail construction. In fact, the 18th Amendment specifically cites ...

Posted Thu, Sep 24, 1:16 p.m.

I heard Fred talk about this during the Executive campaign, so I'm glad he's put these ideas in writing and is continuing to talk about how maximizing service between job and residential growth centers is a smart way to provide better transit service. It's especially important, as Fred points out, ...

Posted Thu, Aug 20, 9:50 p.m.

Nice piece, Feliks! I hate to dwell too much in the "what might have been" for Seattle. But, I do think it's worth reflecting on what opportunities we passed on by rejecting the rail transit part of Forward Thrust, the Olympic bid and the Seattle Commons. I think most people ...

Posted Tue, Aug 11, 11:54 a.m.

Kent: Reading this piece made me think of my days as a college teaching assistant when I had to ask too many students, "what's your thesis?" If your point is to just to prove that Seattle is not going to double in population then, well, Sara just above pulled the ...

Posted Wed, Feb 25, 10:16 a.m.

sdstarr and Yarrow: The bill has changed significantly. The 50 residential units/acre only remains in station areas identified as "growth centers" by the PSRC. So, for example, in Seattle the station areas that must meet the standard are Northgate, U-District (Brooklyn), Capitol Hill, and Downtown Tunnel stations. Roosevelt and SE ...

Posted Tue, Feb 24, 11:28 p.m.

"...organizations like Futurewise, Transportation Choices Coalition, and think tanks like Sightline. It would be wonderful if the sponsors and promoters for this legislation were to set an example by living in the kind of housing they propose, but initial checking finds that most of the people involved with these organizations ...

Posted Tue, Feb 24, 11:16 p.m.

Lincoln, Yes, New Rainier Vista and New Holly were re-built because of an initial infusion of federal housing dollars. However, each project depended on private developers coming in and building hundreds of units of market-rate housing. In both cases, light rail was a major factor in enticing those developers to ...

Posted Fri, Jul 18, 12:37 p.m.

RE: choes of World War I: "There is nothing being said about whether the proposed investment in light rail is cost-effective, helps or harms global warming, is financially affordable or prudent, would increase transit ridership more than a similar investment in BRT, has more ultimate capacity than BRT, or out-prioritizes ...

Posted Thu, Jul 17, 3:05 p.m.

RE: Cost of Projects in the Subareas: I'll ditto that "Easy there Digg." We know that the cost to taxpayers will be - 5/10 increase in sales tax (5 cents per $10 purchase), estimated to cost an average adult in the region about $69 per year. That's pretty much the ...

Posted Thu, Jul 17, 12:32 p.m.

Politics of transit: "Complicating the Ladenburg situation is his race for state attorney general, in which incumbent Rob McKenna, long a rail skeptic, is expected to wrap a yes vote by Ladenburg around his neck. Gregoire expects the same from gubernatorial challenger Dino Rossi" -I'd like to see Ladenburg hang ...

Posted Thu, Jun 26, 12:40 p.m.

RE: Thanks to the former Tom Heller!: "SOUND TRANSIT'S PLAN TAKES TOO LONG AND DELIVERS TOO LITTLE. Yet it absorbs an enormous amount of money. I believe that money can be better used, FASTER, elsewhere." I agree. But the answer is not to throw out the already extensively developed plans ...

Posted Wed, Jun 25, 12:42 p.m.

Better bus service? Absolutely! But...: Doug is absolutely right about the need for better bus service and he does make some good points about the need for coordination within the region and, especially, the need to set goals. But, it's absurd to characterize Sound Transit as one-dimensional in its approach ...

Posted Tue, Jun 24, 5:46 p.m.

RE: Free speech should be used constructively in this forum: My comment was not a generalized statement about older people or even older white males. It was about the sameness -the lack of diversity in terms of gender, race, income, length of time spent in the region and age - ...

Posted Tue, Jun 24, 12:58 a.m.

Re: Old White Male Farts Against Light Rail: To see what prompted my earlier comments about the people who drive the opposition to light rail transit in this area, check out the photo accompanying this article. It's this small, insular group of wealthy older white males- including Doug McDonald and ...

Posted Mon, Jun 23, 10:48 p.m.

Re: I'm white and over 60: Thanks, Ivan. There are, of course, multitudes of white male Puget Sounders over 60 who get that we need to build out a high capacity transit system that will provide a dependable, reliable and safe way to move around while also driving smart land ...

Posted Mon, Jun 23, 2:47 p.m.

Old White Male Farts Against Light Rail: Ever notice how nearly all the members of the tiny minority of people who devote any energy to fighting off efforts to build a light rail system in the Puget Sound are over 60 (usually way, way over 60)? Are white? Relatively wealthy? ...