Committee Passes Restriction On McGinn’s Transit Master Plan. McGinn Says Plan Will Include Light-Rail Expansion

Have they stated what they exactly have a concern with in the plan?

Have they stated what they exactly have a concern with in the plan?

O'Brien obstained? Yes, I'd like to reserve my right to be both, for and against the legislation as soon as I can figure out how it will play city wide!

O'Brien obstained? Yes, I'd like to reserve my right to be both, for and against the legislation as soon as I can figure out how it will play city wide!

I am mad with the city council that lost sight of why they are there for. We are (the people) elected you to work for us not the business interest. You (the council) showed time and again that you don't care or even want to hear the citizen's voice. Killing the transit master plan is true example of that. Time will come when we have the choice to evaluate your performance. And only then you will learn your mistake.

I am mad with the city council that lost sight of why they are there for. We are (the people) elected you to work for us not the business interest. You (the council) showed time and again that you don't care or even want to hear the citizen's voice. Killing the transit master plan is true example of that. Time will come when we have the choice to evaluate your performance. And only then you will learn your mistake.

They are technically there for the business interests, as well.

The problem with THIS version of the Council is they've totally screwed up and gone so far into the business side of the equation that they've now possibly ruined the political careers of both Conlin and Burgess. I hope the others wise up before they find themselves on their final terms.

They are technically there for the business interests, as well.

The problem with THIS version of the Council is they've totally screwed up and gone so far into the business side of the equation that they've now possibly ruined the political careers of both Conlin and Burgess. I hope the others wise up before they find themselves on their final terms.

At this point I keep wondering if we can swap the two Mikes. The council is a better place for a gadfly and loose cannon like McGinn and O'Brien seems to have more political sense and to play well with others which would make him more effective as Mayor.

At this point I keep wondering if we can swap the two Mikes. The council is a better place for a gadfly and loose cannon like McGinn and O'Brien seems to have more political sense and to play well with others which would make him more effective as Mayor.

I don’t know if the council understands this but the Seattle voters, are beginning to hate the increasing hostility between the city council and the mayor. In the eyes of many people, the mayor is seen as the one who is fighting for the people, and the city council fighting for the business interest. The council is completely out of touch with the public.

I don’t know if the council understands this but the Seattle voters, are beginning to hate the increasing hostility between the city council and the mayor. In the eyes of many people, the mayor is seen as the one who is fighting for the people, and the city council fighting for the business interest. The council is completely out of touch with the public.

Maybe he was out of text messages for the month?

Maybe he was out of text messages for the month?

They haven't actually done anything yet except to suggest that they should have say in how this money is spent. They haven't killed anything.

Stop being silly.

They haven't actually done anything yet except to suggest that they should have say in how this money is spent. They haven't killed anything.

Stop being silly.

“However, in his office after this morning’s transportation committee meeting, Rasmussen expressed surprise that McGinn wanted light rail to be in the plan.”

Was Tom out of the country during last year's election? Has he forgotten that Seattle voters passed Transit Now with 69% of the vote in 2006 and ST2 with 70% in 2008? Does he realize that as the Chair of the Transportation Committee it's his responsibility to plan for the future of transportation in Seattle? Or does he really enjoy getting into childish a pissing match with the Mayor at every possible opportunity?

Leadership fail.

“However, in his office after this morning’s transportation committee meeting, Rasmussen expressed surprise that McGinn wanted light rail to be in the plan.”

Was Tom out of the country during last year's election? Has he forgotten that Seattle voters passed Transit Now with 69% of the vote in 2006 and ST2 with 70% in 2008? Does he realize that as the Chair of the Transportation Committee it's his responsibility to plan for the future of transportation in Seattle? Or does he really enjoy getting into childish a pissing match with the Mayor at every possible opportunity?

Leadership fail.

“I think we should eventually have something like [light rail to Ballard and West Seattle], but it seems premature to me, when we haven’t even built light rail to the University District, to start building it to West Seattle and Crown Hill.”

So “are building” light rail to the U-Dist isn't enough? It has to be finished before we can think of building any other transit?

“I think we should eventually have something like [light rail to Ballard and West Seattle], but it seems premature to me, when we haven’t even built light rail to the University District, to start building it to West Seattle and Crown Hill.”

So “are building” light rail to the U-Dist isn't enough? It has to be finished before we can think of building any other transit?

Actually, I think this is the right move. I like the 30 day limit, it gives people a chance to figure out whats really going on. The Walk Bike Ride plan is about a serious realignment of transporatation priorities. While it might not be a politicial motivated realignment of the roads, it fees like it, and I think this is a good period for the council, mayor, state, and advocates to talk about what they are trying to accomplish. I like that this measure pushes what feels like a campaign, back into the government for the short term. Let the roads be about policy. If this can survive on the merits, let it.

FYI – http://www.magnoliavoice.com/2010/06/08/state-l…

Actually, I think this is the right move. I like the 30 day limit, it gives people a chance to figure out whats really going on. The Walk Bike Ride plan is about a serious realignment of transporatation priorities. While it might not be a politicial motivated realignment of the roads, it fees like it, and I think this is a good period for the council, mayor, state, and advocates to talk about what they are trying to accomplish. I like that this measure pushes what feels like a campaign, back into the government for the short term. Let the roads be about policy. If this can survive on the merits, let it.

Yes, here the the city council plan for Seattle to get a multiline system of rapid transit:

1. First, kill the monorail without obeying the law that said build it.
2. Then when voters say they want it load it up with finance requirements like paying rent to the city, knowing there was a revenue shortfall. This is like Goldman selling products designed to fail. They didn't help it succeed, but they did help kill it.
3. They promise to find alternative wways to serve W Seattle and Ballard, but never do.
4. A few years later they are happy to build megaroad projects that don't have real transit benefits or components, even to sign on to overrun liability.
5. Meanwhile, the voters elect the guy who says we want light rail to be proposed and studied to connect W Seattle and Ballard.
6. The voters approve. This is about the fifth time voters have said we want rail over here on the western side of Seattle!
7. Rasmussen acts like an idiot, as if awol during the whole election, “what — what's this about needing rail over there? When was this brought up, duhhh duhhh uhhh ?”
8. The council scurries to ensure the mayor's transit plan can't be funded.

Another big old fuck you to transit. Thank you very much city council. All arising out of ego, jealousy and small minded power trips.

Yes, here the the city council plan for Seattle to get a multiline system of rapid transit:

1. First, kill the monorail without obeying the law that said build it.
2. Then when voters say they want it load it up with finance requirements like paying rent to the city, knowing there was a revenue shortfall. This is like Goldman selling products designed to fail. They didn't help it succeed, but they did help kill it.
3. They promise to find alternative wways to serve W Seattle and Ballard, but never do.
4. A few years later they are happy to build megaroad projects that don't have real transit benefits or components, even to sign on to overrun liability.
5. Meanwhile, the voters elect the guy who says we want light rail to be proposed and studied to connect W Seattle and Ballard.
6. The voters approve. This is about the fifth time voters have said we want rail over here on the western side of Seattle!
7. Rasmussen acts like an idiot, as if awol during the whole election, “what — what's this about needing rail over there? When was this brought up, duhhh duhhh uhhh ?”
8. The council scurries to ensure the mayor's transit plan can't be funded.

Another big old fuck you to transit. Thank you very much city council. All arising out of ego, jealousy and small minded power trips.

Bridging the Gap has several funding programs; if you look at the latest report at http://www.cityofseattle.net/Transportation/Bri…
it says that road maintenance is required to be “No less than 67%” of the levy but SDOT has actually spent “70% of the total levy.” The total 2009 expenditures was $178m, so that extra 3% was over $5m spent on roads that could have been used for transit planning, or for more sidewalks and other projects. If we ever renew Bridging the Gap or something similar, road projects should be the ones limited to “no more than” a certain percentage.

I know it's time to make tough budget decisions, but this is less than $1m for much needed planning while we're literally spending hundreds of millions on road projects when you include Bridging the Gap, Mercer, etc. Yes our roads need maintenance, but we can spare less than 1% for planning for the future.

Bridging the Gap has several funding programs; if you look at the latest report at http://www.cityofseattle.net/Transportation/Bri…
it says that road maintenance is required to be “No less than 67%” of the levy but SDOT has actually spent “70% of the total levy.” The total 2009 expenditures was $178m, so that extra 3% was over $5m spent on roads that could have been used for transit planning, or for more sidewalks and other projects. If we ever renew Bridging the Gap or something similar, road projects should be the ones limited to “no more than” a certain percentage.

I know it's time to make tough budget decisions, but this is less than $1m for much needed planning while we're literally spending hundreds of millions on road projects when you include Bridging the Gap, Mercer, etc. Yes our roads need maintenance, but we can spare less than 1% for planning for the future.

So, the mayor is taking bridging the gap money for “only” one year to study his campaign promise. Mighty big of him but I think a project on that scale should not be taking money out of that fund.
I think he should define that a little better, just how much is he taking for that other thing?
Does he intend to pay that back when we all line up for the West Side light rail levy so we can have more sidewalks?
I need more information, and data, and I doubt I will get that here.

So, the mayor is taking bridging the gap money for “only” one year to study his campaign promise. Mighty big of him but I think a project on that scale should not be taking money out of that fund.
I think he should define that a little better, just how much is he taking for that other thing?
Does he intend to pay that back when we all line up for the West Side light rail levy so we can have more sidewalks?
I need more information, and data, and I doubt I will get that here.

I would like to support west side rail if I had an actual plan, including funding, to compare it with Rapid Ride bus service that I already voted for.

Won't that eat up a lot of bonding capacity?
I'd like to have something that could be taken back to the legislature to show as a viable option for the added mass transit taxing authority they dropped the ball on for the AWV proposal. But I do not even see that as part of what he is taking my sidewalk money for.

I am sure there is a good idea of how he was going to do this somewhere.

I would like to support west side rail if I had an actual plan, including funding, to compare it with Rapid Ride bus service that I already voted for.

Won't that eat up a lot of bonding capacity?
I'd like to have something that could be taken back to the legislature to show as a viable option for the added mass transit taxing authority they dropped the ball on for the AWV proposal. But I do not even see that as part of what he is taking my sidewalk money for.

I am sure there is a good idea of how he was going to do this somewhere.

He's not on the transportation committee. Council rules allow him to vote at any committee meeting, but it seems more appropriate to wait until the legislation comes to the full council.

He's not on the transportation committee. Council rules allow him to vote at any committee meeting, but it seems more appropriate to wait until the legislation comes to the full council.

Considering that Obama's own head of Federal Transit came out against light rail in favor of buses, shouldn't this whole region be reconsidering the mistakes of the past 15 years?

Considering that Obama's own head of Federal Transit came out against light rail in favor of buses, shouldn't this whole region be reconsidering the mistakes of the past 15 years?

The real problem is that most councilmembers can't get themselves out of reactive mode with the mayor. They need to move past their emotions and instead worry about their own agendas while weighing mayoral priorities on the merits. In other words, they need to stop taking the bait.

The real problem is that most councilmembers can't get themselves out of reactive mode with the mayor. They need to move past their emotions and instead worry about their own agendas while weighing mayoral priorities on the merits. In other words, they need to stop taking the bait.

Well, there was a vote, as the McGinn folks like to say, this one before McGinn became mayor.

I was already unhappy that too much of this money went into sidewalks in SLU. Now, I have light rail advocates grabbing at cash.
I am kind of wondering why Walk, Bike, Ride bothered asking anybody that lives in the area of the Bitterlake Community Center where they had that meeting last week anything if the mayor was going to turn around and take money already voted on for sidewalks and spend it on a different plan.

We should at least vote on that plan since he is using money we voted on for a different plan.

Let the people vote on it, Mike, they are smart and will make the “right” choice.

Well, there was a vote, as the McGinn folks like to say, this one before McGinn became mayor.

I was already unhappy that too much of this money went into sidewalks in SLU. Now, I have light rail advocates grabbing at cash.
I am kind of wondering why Walk, Bike, Ride bothered asking anybody that lives in the area of the Bitterlake Community Center where they had that meeting last week anything if the mayor was going to turn around and take money already voted on for sidewalks and spend it on a different plan.

We should at least vote on that plan since he is using money we voted on for a different plan.

Let the people vote on it, Mike, they are smart and will make the “right” choice.

Not in these eyes. Keep up the fight, Council!

Not in these eyes. Keep up the fight, Council!

Yes, Jonah, and I was one of those voters helping pass transit measures. But the Seattle light rail is nowhere in the transit planning done by Sound Transit. Who will operate the system? Will it connect to Sound Transit light rail?

The subregion equity requirements for Sound Transit might well prevent this Seattle line from joining the ST system.

And cost? Quite possibly about $2 billion, with two new bridges (ship canal and West Seattle) being built in salmon habitat. As a candidate, the Mayor miraculously managed to avoid any discussion of the cost of this line. His election was not a mandate to build it.

I am concerned that the real goal of some proponents of this light rail line is simply to take two lanes away from cars.

Yes, Jonah, and I was one of those voters helping pass transit measures. But the Seattle light rail is nowhere in the transit planning done by Sound Transit. Who will operate the system? Will it connect to Sound Transit light rail?

The subregion equity requirements for Sound Transit might well prevent this Seattle line from joining the ST system.

And cost? Quite possibly about $2 billion, with two new bridges (ship canal and West Seattle) being built in salmon habitat. As a candidate, the Mayor miraculously managed to avoid any discussion of the cost of this line. His election was not a mandate to build it.

I am concerned that the real goal of some proponents of this light rail line is simply to take two lanes away from cars.

As for #5, since there was no debate on this issue during the Mayor's race and absolutely no discussion of its cost, Mr. McGinn's election was not a mandate to build this rail line.

As for #5, since there was no debate on this issue during the Mayor's race and absolutely no discussion of its cost, Mr. McGinn's election was not a mandate to build this rail line.

Here's a fun game? What else costs $2 billion (at least)? Here's a few hints; it has no exits downtown, it will cost more to drive through than it would to take light rail, if it goes over budget then Seattle gets screwed, it was the most expensive and will take the longest to complete of all the options studied, it will actually put MORE cars on the waterfront than the surface-transit alternative (WSDOT study, not my claim) and not even it's biggest supporters (looking at you business community) are willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it. Figure it out yet?

The point of spending less than $1 million on a transit study is to answer the questions you ask; why should we have to wait for ST to get it's act together for improved transit service if we're willing to pay for it? Are you happy waiting a few more decades for a 21st Century transportation system in Seattle?

Here's a fun game? What else costs $2 billion (at least)? Here's a few hints; it has no exits downtown, it will cost more to drive through than it would to take light rail, if it goes over budget then Seattle gets screwed, it was the most expensive and will take the longest to complete of all the options studied, it will actually put MORE cars on the waterfront than the surface-transit alternative (WSDOT study, not my claim) and not even it's biggest supporters (looking at you business community) are willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it. Figure it out yet?

The point of spending less than $1 million on a transit study is to answer the questions you ask; why should we have to wait for ST to get it's act together for improved transit service if we're willing to pay for it? Are you happy waiting a few more decades for a 21st Century transportation system in Seattle?

Here's a fun game? What else costs $2 billion (at least)? Here's a few hints; it has no exits downtown, it will cost more to drive through than it would to take light rail, if it goes over budget then Seattle gets screwed, it was the most expensive and will take the longest to complete of all the options studied, it will actually put MORE cars on the waterfront than the surface-transit alternative (WSDOT study, not my claim) and not even it's biggest supporters (looking at you business community) are willing to pay higher taxes to pay for it. Figure it out yet?

The point of spending less than $1 million on a transit study is to answer the questions you ask; why should we have to wait for ST to get it's act together for improved transit service if we're willing to pay for it? Are you happy waiting a few more decades for a 21st Century transportation system in Seattle?

That's simply false. Obama spoke in favor of light rail during his presidential campaign, and he's loosened the rules on funding streetcars (which can be seen as a form of light rail). This administration has done more than any other in decades for transit and smart growth. They have not favored one mode over another. BRT does different things than rail, and Obama and LaHood know that. Buses don't attract the ridership rail does, don't catalyze efficient land use patterns like rail does, don't run on green renewable energy like rail does, and don't have the speed or capacity rail does. Buses are cheaper than rail because you get what you pay for.

SLU sidewalks are being funded by private developers, not the city, with the exception of the Mercer project. Bridging the Gap funds about 15 block faces of sidewalk per year, and none this year or last or in 2008 (the time I have served on the Pedestrian Advisory Board) have been in SLU. Linden Ave. N. somewhere around 130th St. and 1st Ave. NE by Northgate are among this year's sidewalk projects funded by the city. Last year there were a bunch in SE Seattle.

The mayor is trying to get a study on the viability of light rail to West Seattle and Ballard funded. Then, if things go well, we would get to vote on that light rail plan. (Or, the study may show one, the other, or both, not to be viable.)

You seem not to want us to have that vote, Mr. Baker.

Indeed, you seem to be opposed to anything the mayor is for. What did the mayor do to you that you've become so Pavlovian?

Except for electric trolley buses, which do run, at least here, on green renewable energy – as long as the County Council doesn't take them away.

I completely disagree. After “moderating” his stance on the tunnel, this was a way for McGinn to differentiate himself. I didn't like either candidate that i was presented with – Light Rail to West Seattle was the deciding factor for me.