Hey Tunnel Agreement: Got Transit?

Dan–you neglect to mention that surface/transit would require many more transit hours than the tunnel in your narrow analysis. If the absence of transit in the tunnel plan is a flaw in the tunnel plan, it is an even larger flaw in the surface/transit plan.

Will some surface/transit booster please outline the political path to getting a dedicated funding source for ongoing transit in the viaduct corridor on top of the dedicated funding we already need from Olympia just to save Metro?

I want to support surface/transit…but I see no way to get the transit. So what I think the Capitol Hill/North Seattle boosters of the surface option are really saying is fuck you West Seattle and Ballard…we have a point to make and it doesn't really matter to us if you can get around.

Surface/transit has nothing to do with the state failing to live up to the agreement on the tunnel.

NOW we're talking about the real issue – transit funding. Cost overruns is a red herring. Why do I feel like I'm repeating myself?

I gotta agree with Soapboxin'. Anyone who doesn't support expanding transit as part of the tunnel rebuild (tunnel supporters, that is) is absolutely crazy. It is such an important and integral part of what will not only make the new system work, but what will really work towards reduced need for SOV vehicles in and through the city.

So, how do we get there? I'd love to see Erica chase down a few council members and get their exact strategies to secure funding for transit before signing this agreement. But my guess is that she won't get many calls back.

So much of this tunnel debate is happening between those who want to kill the tunnel at all costs and those who want to make the tunnel happen at all costs, including the costs to Seattleites. McGinn, on the one hand, just wants to kill the deal. Conlin, on the other, might as well be representing WSDOT. What's getting lost here is how we can protect the interests of Seattle residents in a tunnel agreement.

So how can we drive a hard bargain while still bargaining in good faith? Well, I think Dan Bertolet has identified one crucial element. The state has reneged so far on its commitment to make transit funding happen as part of this project. The question is, how can the City Council hold the state's feet to the fire to enable the transit funding for the tunnel project? Or can they? Any ideas?

If anyone has some good ideas, I'd be glad to write our councilmembers with them.

Agreed, even with the tunnel we need much more transit, but that is what King County Metro and Sound Transit is for and already has those specialties in-house; let them deal with that.

Can McGinn change his position to this pragmatic solution (tunnel/transit) now that he has made such a stink about costs. Adding transit would add a lot of costs to the project.

Well put. This crazy discussion process we have here has moved me pretty firmly away from tunnel at all costs. Now I'm just disappointed with the current stalemate and want to see a re-focus on the truly important issues.

Let's also not forget that Metro's facing a possible shortfall of as much as $100 million. Assuming the worst, that money wouldn't even be enough to keep Metro as-is above water for more than two years… let alone expand its service to cover any shortfalls.

It's no secret transit expansion's going to cost money. And it's always been King County's responsibility to find the money (and find savings within their existing budget) to remain solvent AND fund improvements.

If McGinn hadn't made it into a pissing match, the potential special session might have yielded a change in the law regarding cost overruns. But I doubt that they will open it up to change on fear of having to spend to much time on it for a special session.

I thought the meme was that trips will just disappear.

As is always asked of tax cutters, what will you cut to finance the restoration of Metro and this expansion? Schools, low-income health care, battered women's shelters; what?

The $20 MVET would raise about $40M in King County – enough to build one mile of streetcar a year or 1/10 of mile of LRT.

Right now KCM is doing a study to see if we should keep electric buses. Seattle is trying to build more streetcars that cost 5 to 10 times what a new modern low-floored rubber-tired system would cost. The streetcars also cost twice as much to operate.

We need to save what we have and make prudent decisions on what to add. Just saying to the state give us more, isn't the answer.

Our best bet to reduce GHGs is to increase mileage and shift to electric cars, but that doesn't fit with the life you want for others.

Glad to see that Dan has finally realized that the tunnel plan is supposed to have a transit component, however he continues to have his facts wrong. It is King County that committed to provide additional service, not the State (which is taking care of the roadway component). Due to the budget crisis, that hasn't happened – yet. Since that service will not be required until 2015/16 when the viaduct is removed there is still time, but no question that it is a vital part of the total equation. If McGinn decided to become a positive part of the process, his help would be very useful. If.

Is TVGuide Greg Nickels?

In any case, the State said it would give King County the taxing authority to fulfill that commitment, which it failed to do. Telling only the half of the story that fits your narrative is more or less deception.

are you kidding? No one was talking about the tunnel at all before McGinn single-handedly made it an issue. It was “a done deal,” remember? Do you really think Joe Mallahan would have stood up to the business establishment and the legislature to fight cost overruns language?

But by asking inconvenient questions, the mayor has made it a pissing match?

The key passage is “the state did not follow through on granting authority for the MVET tax to raise those funds.”

http://www.publicola.net/2009/02/02/a-theme-is-…

Jakers: If McGinn hadn't made it into a pissing match, the potential special session might have yielded a change in the law regarding cost overruns. But I doubt that they will open it up to change on fear of having to spend to much time on it for a special session.

Um, the pertinent issue here is not how much of a jackass Mike McGinn is. And it's not to spin the history of deep-bore tunnel politics.The issue is how–in the present tense, through legislation signed by the City Council–Seattle can stand up for its own interests with a tunnel agreement.

I realize that the City of Seattle cannot legislate the State of Washington, but I'd be happy to hear if there's any way the City Council can force the state's hand on an MVET option.

morning: Our best bet to reduce GHGs is to increase mileage and shift to electric cars, but that doesn't fit with the life you want for others.

So let's see here, our best bet is to double down on our automobile use by magically increasing mileage and shifting to electric cars? Are you serious? This seems to be motivated less by an recognition of the challenges involved than by a belief that the alternatives–oh, how should I put this?–don't fit with the life you want for others. Gee, where did I hear that one before?

sounds like the state has plenty of time to figure it out. Maybe the state should have a referendum on giving that authority to king county.

Lot's of time still to figure it out, then have a state-wide referendum to decide if we should give them that authority and then a county-wide referendum to see if they want to actually have the tax and then a City of Seattle referendum to see if the city somehow wants to scuttle the whole thing.

The MVET is just one of the ways KC could raise money for the transit component. The Ferry District funding came out of property taxes. Speaking of which, it is my understanding that the West Seattle and Vashon runs will get additional funding from the State during construction.

He is doing much more than asking questions. Referendums, vetoes, “won't agree unless…” is much more than tough questions. Not bother to talk to anyone, just having press conferences….etc.

Increased mileage standards and electric cars will absolutely not save our GHG producing asses. You still have to produce the car out of new materials and then we still have to build and maintain our massive road and highway infrastructure.
The most fuel-efficient trip is one made without fuel, or not made at all. The way out of this mess will be adjusting our consumption, not our production.

Dan's story shows that Dan did not watch the council meeting last Monday.
You might want to pick up the meeting with about 35 minutes to go, Rasmussen, Burgess, and OBrien, expressly addressed that point to the SDOT and WSDOT (state). they stressed the point and expectation. Rasmussen asked for SDOT. Then there was tolling talk, that included more transit talk, SDOT is interested in tolling to support transit.

They will focus on this more on the future.

I expect, based on the SDOT comments, that they intend to show the plan and diversion, and a need for transit to mitigate (volume shift).
Maybe you should listen to the meetings to hear what they are thinking and maybe you could be useful in the Fall, and not just a critic today.

Tom Rasmussen made the point quite clear directly to WSDOT (the state) that

But an MVET limit was clearly supported by the public in a referendum that passed with something like 54% approval (later found unconstitutional and then inacted into law by the legislature). all this talk about wanting to follow the will of the people regarding surface, rebuild, etc. must all be bunk if we're willing to then go against their will in the manner that we decide to tax them. Increase the sales tax, increase fares on KC metro, all kinds of things are still within the power of KC and Seattle to fund their projects.

Some reading which might clear this up:
As Dan points out the authority to raise the MVET was not granted by the governor to the county, thus killing the funding source for transit.
http://www.publicola.net/2009/02/02/a-theme-is-…
Also here's the surface transit option as it was drafted in 2008
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D…

The surface/transit option costs about a billion dollars less than the tunnel. It did involve some vehicle trips not being taken, which is to say that people will adapt their habits to the transportation options available. Given the problems associated with climate change and the obesity epidemic, adapting in the direction of driving less is a positive thing.

Electric cars are not yet in mass production and when they do they will at best be as affordable as existing new cars. It will take many years for the cost to go down and for a supply of affordable used vehicles to build up. Electric cars are just one tactic in what should be a multi-tactic strategy to combat global warming.

Note to self: if the transit portion of the tunnel/transit option is an issue today you should ask yourself; self, what makes you think ANY option would get any more or less legislative support from the state then you are getting with the tunnel/transit option?
Answer, self, nothing.

Mr. Baker, I'm glad to hear some councilmembers are concerned about funding the transit component. Did you get a sense of where the $120 million or $190 million is going to come from? Is there hope for getting that MVET option enabled by the state? I'm guessing this is a regional MVET, not just city.

Jakers, are you actually going back more than a decade to some goofy Tim Eyman initiative? Can we get out of the habit of cherrypicking the plebiscites, however dated and unconstitutional they are, that happen to support our position? I know this is Washington and that takes some political maturity, but please try.

Increasing the sales tax and increasing fares on Metro (or how about cutting existing programs, for that matter?) are precisely the kinds of harsh side effects that the city should be trying to prevent. Isn't that the whole point of buffering ourselves from cost overruns? And what's so bad anyway about an MVET? What's so wonderful about the state reneging on its part of the deal?

I didn't standards, I said increase mileage. We have cars available today that would double MPG. Electric cars are here and with a national effort they could be pervasive in 15 years. The road structure will need to be maintained for buses and trucks anyway. Rail takes plenty of energy to build and maintain. Rail cars also take plenty of energy to build and run. Transit requires empty or near empty vehicles to be running. Without cars these modes will need to run more and more and will few people using them during the off hours.

Yes, the most efficient trip is the one not taken – use that for your slogan.

Just a quick fact –

the Statewide result for 695 was 56% Yes. King County was 59% No.

McGinn is also the business establishment; just different business.

As has been noted many times the S/T plan you link to involved using western and was quickly rejected. Electric cars are in production, mass just a few years away.

The cost of them is already at the average car cost level.

If climate is a major issue, it will not be solved by building $300M per mile LRT.

Some reading of the PSRC might clear this up for you.

It's less magical to completely remake society than to produce low carbon vehicles? Don't think so.

It is too soon to tell, they did not mention it. I get the sense that when the discovered in the meeting that they had the power to toll roads that that became an instant option.

The schedule the DOTs have is to analyze the tolling study, review the options, understand the diversion impacts, and have some proposals in the Fall.

Thinking a little further about Rasmussen and Burgess and O'Brien making a point of transit funding… My concern is that, with the possible exception of O'Brien, they're just playing lip service to transit. And the agreement that emerges will say something like, “It would be really nice if the state would make an MVET funding option available for transit, but it's nothing something we're going to insist on. And you the state are free to do bupkis to help fund the transit component of this project.”

So let me just put this idea on the table. Why not make the city's agreement with the state contingent on the state granting the county the MVET option. At that point, the county council can take it or leave it, but at least the state is forced to hold up its end of the bargain.

Please provide links to demonstrate these assertions.

The difference is that right now Seattle's politicians are for the most part allowing the state to renege on any part of the viaduct replacement plan except for the tunnel. Neither our state reps nor the city council are standing up for these other things because they REALLY want this tunnel. I don't know what would happen if Seattle politicians presented a unified front demanding both a better agreement than the tunnel one and/or that any agreement being considered actually be implemented. To my knowledge it hasn't happened in the recent history of state funded mega-projects. The problem isn't that Seattle politicians are trying for a good deal for Seattle and not getting it, the problem is that Seattle politicians aren't trying because they're infected with tunnel-mania.

Pro-Tunnel folks need to understand that this is not “yet another excuse” to oppose the tunnel/support the surface plan.

The bored tunnel proposal DOES NOT WORK without the small transit component in it.

The four-lane tunnel will only carry 40-60% of the existing Viaduct capacity. And the new four-lane Alaskan Way and one new intersection will not handle the congestion if all the displaced car trips simply end up on the surface. It requires increased transit funding.

This is why some folks want to Rebuild (replace virtually all AWV existing capacity) and some folks want SurfacePLUS Transit PLUS I-5 to replace, absorb or displace the existing capacity.

You scam artists aren't satisfied until you tax rape every last dollar, right?

It's not bad enough to soak people for a tunnel, no, you have to add in “transit” to rob every last cent.

Right?

There was no “rejection.” At the end of the stakeholder process, the two solutions to be moved forward included a Rebuild and the Surface/Transit/I-5 with further study of the newly proposed single bored tunnel hybrid.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews…

Yet somehow, the tunnel has become the magical decision that everyone had agreed to…

It's not clear what purpose the quote around transit serve. Do you suggest that if we spend money on paying people to drive buses, this will not be transit? I take it that you do not like transit, or taxes. I would suggest however that “tax rape” while a colorful expression, is a rather inappropriate comparison of the money charged by government in exchange for services with a brutal act of violence, terror, and oppression that women around the world are subjected to and must fear all their lives.

We may have been typing at the same time. Please read my comment above…

The Western/AW couplet was quickly rejected – read the link for what we are discussing.

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D…

morning, it hardly amounts to magical thinking to shift more of our transportation infrastructure investments to transit. Time and again, we see that such investments get results. Does it remake society? Yes, a small part of society in a manageable, organic way.

The problem with putting all our eggs in the low-carbon vehicles basket is that it's a bit like a 65-year-old person investing more and more money so they can continue looking like they're 35. At some point, you have to realize, hey, this isn't practical anymore.

Will you now produce the same when I ask?

A new car is second only to a home as the most expensive purchase many consumers make. According to the National Automobile Dealers Association, the average price of a new car sold in the United States is $28,400.

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/edu/pubs/consumer/autos/…

Already, Japan’s Mitsubishi has lowered the price of its i-MiEV since its launch in its home territory last July, when it was priced at 4.59 million yen ($50,500). Now it reportedly plans to cut it further to 2 million yen ($21,890) by fiscal 2012, which will end in March 2013, reports the Nikkei (via Reuters). Mitsubishi is cutting the price to better compete with Nissan, which plans to launch its electric LEAF in Japan, the U.S. and Europe later this year. Nissan has priced LEAF at $32,780 for the U.S. market, before the $7,500 federal tax credit and incentives from states such as California, making it one of the cheapest options.

http://earth2tech.com/2010/06/18/waiting-for-th…

I generally do post links, but feel free to ask.

I'll concede and perhaps even adoption. That leaves the minor question of SHOULD we continue to base our transportation system around automobiles. If we convert our electric power to clean renewables and our cars to electric vehicles then we'll be left with “only” the problems of obesity, carnage, inequity, economic inefficiency, and habitat loss. Changing just the motor and leaving everything else in place seems like a missed opportunity.

I'm hoping members of the City Council will take a break from this noise over a really nice weekend, relax, and clear their heads to make a clear minded decision on Monday. Most of them have already made their views real clear.

My own view is that the sooner we all move on to actually uniting to bring better transit to the city, as opposed to fighting about the tunnel; the sooner people will have better transit and fewer people will need to drive their cars all the time.

I have confidence in the council's extensive efforts to assure that the interests of the city are represented in Monday's action and very little confidence in Mayor McGinn's ability to represent the interests of the people of the City on anything.

Leaf

Just for the record, I will look 35 forever.

We will reduce our carbon footprint by more efficient cars not by having people stay home.

You're the one that said changing to electric and other non-polluting vehicles would be magical.

There are no more gullible fools in this city than those who believe that surface plus transit (so far all vapor) plus I-5 (improvements doubtful) will replace or absorb the existing capacity. Don't be like them. you're smarter than that.

Displace? Yes. That is the goal here. People like alexbroner, who apparently thinks it's just fine to tell others that they should curtail their personal mobility to fulfill HIS agenda. Don't be like them either.

I should add, that's why I favor a rebuilt Viaduct. We cannot afford to lose the capacity, or the mobility. If I want to cure obesity, I'll eat less and work out more. It's not alexbroner's business.

Interesting opinion I'm not sharing.

so, you really don't care if transit for West Seattle–16% of Seattle's population and rapidly growing–and Ballard is not part of the equation? Can you answer my question–where is the transit coming from? Or do you not care about us?

So, you watched the video?

At the end of the day, nobody still wants to answer my question–how do we possibly get the transit needed to keep Metro afloat and then to replace the viaduct as a transportation solution for the west side of Seattle?

Apparently Mayor McGinn and all other surface/transit fans just really don't care about us at all. Because they sure as hell don't have a realistic game plan to get us all to better transportation solutions.

Duh

Thank you Alex,

People riding transit aren't exactly working out. I don't think inequity is a result of cars. Cars are not economically inefficient especially if time is valued. Habitat loss can be minimized, interestingly transit advocates are fine with a 120' wide freeway through the wetlands of the Arboretum, I'm not.

We should keep making the roads safer.

Confiscate all unnecessary cars, sell them, force the erstwhile owners to pay what they used to pay for running them to KC and ST.

Well, a rebuilt Viaduct is a better deal than a tunnel because it costs less, Seattle wouldn't be on the hook for any cost overruns, and it would maintain present capacity and the downtown on- and off-ramps, probably without tolling.

But you're not having any of that, are you? We know damn well you're not.

Hey westside, are you referring the the tunnel agreement signed last year or the surface transit option? The tunnel agreement signed last year explicitly mentioned the Motor Vehicle excise tax as the source of funding. The surface transit option never got as far as identifying specific funding sources because city and state leaders chose not to pursue it. One would assume that the MVET would work just as well for the I5/surface/transit transit element. Since transit improvements in the surface transit option amounted to 475 million dollars, any funding plan would probably been able to find sources other than the gas tax to fund that which the MVET increase didn't cover. It might include some sort of swap whereby general fund money currently being used for roads is rededicated to transit and gas tax money is used for roads. Suffice to say there are options should we choose to pursue them.

I think what I said in another part of this thread works pretty well in response to this, I apologize for repeating myself.

The viaduct rebuild is in fact cheaper than the tunnel. That leaves the minor question of SHOULD we continue to base our transportation system around automobiles. If we convert our electric power to clean renewables and our cars to electric vehicles then we'll be left with “only” the problems of obesity, carnage, inequity, economic inefficiency, and habitat loss. Replacing the viaduct with another viaduct seems like a missed opportunity.

I think what I said in another part of this thread works pretty well in response to this, I apologize for repeating myself.

The viaduct rebuild is in fact cheaper than the tunnel. That leaves the minor question of SHOULD we continue to base our transportation system around automobiles. If we convert our electric power to clean renewables and our cars to electric vehicles then we'll be left with “only” the problems of obesity, carnage, inequity, economic inefficiency, and habitat loss. Replacing the viaduct with another viaduct seems like a missed opportunity.

I, tunnel/transit supporter, care so much about your transportation needs that I am going to vote against west side light rail and press for more rapidride bus service, even though I will not see any direct benefit myself.

You're welcome Seattle.

Mr. Baker, I'll certainly watch the video. But not all of us have the time to. So if there really is something there from the council to assuage our concerns that we're going to cede this transit funding ground to the state, you should be able to articulate it in a few sentences, without having to hint and nudge and dance around it.

You have the floor.

The old, the poor, the young and the disabled have personal mobility curtailed constantly in order to fulfill other peoples agenda. Those who feel compelled to drive them places also have their time/mobility curtailed by becoming part time chauffeurs for family members. Pedestrians and cyclists and transit users have their mobility curtailed by other peoples agenda.

The state has already laid claim to using tolling to pay $400 million on its obligation to the project. Now you're suggesting that the city should tap into tolling on other routes to pay for the transit component on the viaduct? That's a political nonstarter and it just doesn't make sense. To hear you suggesting tolling–together with further studies in the fall rather than demanding commitments from the state–suggests to me that you're in the “tunnel at all costs” camp. And as for those folks who are concerns about cost overruns and their unintended consequences–well, you're not one of them and they're merely another constituency to be appeased or silenced.

I have nothing to add regarding anyones individual health and diet choices. On the level of public policy choices however I don't see why the government should actively intervene in ways that will make people less healthy. For the last 50 years we have been using government policy, including transportation dollars, to produce a landscape that prevents healthy lifestyles. Why should we continue to make choices that we know harm people? Tradition? Inertia? Stubbornness? Masochism? I would like to think that Seattle of all places would be able to look at the mistakes of the last 50 years and learn something.

King County doesn't have any options to find the money. It is utilizing all that state allow allows. That was the promise from the governor when the three executives decided on the tunnel – she would fight for MVET authority for Metro. However, she broke that promise. So, it would be fair for Seattle to put the brakes on its fulfilling its commitments until it can be assured that the state will live up to its part of the bargain on transit funding.

King County Metro would provide the service, but the state would provide Metro the taxing authority to do so. She lied and the tunnel boosters haven't done anything to hold her accountable because the reality is that the boosters don't care about transit, only asphalt.

Allow statewide voters, with no vested interest in the outcome as either beneficiaries or taxpayers, to decide whether King County should have tax authority for transit? That's a Tim Eyman bullshit solution. In fact, Tim Eyman has already done it – I-776, where statewide voters repealed Sound Transit's MVET authority even though a majority of Puget Sound voters supported retaining that authority.

Hey Morning, comments don't nest any farther so this will have to do.

No matter how efficient transit is, people still must walk even a short distance to get between destinations and the transit vehicle. It turns out that a short amount of walking is more than most people get when they only need walk as far as the garage. I'm reminded of a recent empirical study regarding this: http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/06/30/1282…

In order to minimize habitat loss and continue to accommodate population growth we'll have to build more densely. Are we going to keep building more roads in existing built up areas? Los Angeles tried this on the surface and they've never managed to keep up. I don't imagine we can keep up doing much more expensive tunneling. Automobile roads are inherently low capacity. We have neither the space nor the money to keep investing in them.

Automobiles are inherently more dangerous than mass transit because by design nearly every single passenger is also a driver regardless of their age, state of mind, or ability. Transit systems will always have advantages in safety because the average level of skill and equipment will always be higher.

McGinn and other surface transit supporters have not created a funding plan for the surface transit option because the city council and the state legislature are pursuing the tunnel. The first step would be to convince the city council and state legislature to pursue the I5/Surface/Transit option. The next step would be to draft a specific funding plan. Expense wise, the I5/surface/transit option costs a billion dollars less than the tunnel. If you're interested in covering the projected metro shortfall then part of that billion dollars could easily cover that while still saving the state hundreds of millions of dollars.

Some of us have even less confidence in the state than we do in the mayor.

rape. n. also has the meaning:

destroy and strip of its possession; “The soldiers raped the beautiful country”

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=rape

And therefore “tax rape” is a valid neologism.

Almost all of Seattle's traffic “problems” are due to self-inflicted wounds of bad, negligent or malicious planning and design.

Major entrances pour into exits.

Lanes disappear, going from 4 to 3 to 2 to 1!

Highway roads exit into streets with traffic lights and cars pile up back into the interstate.

The answer is always more, and yet they present the same stupidity over and over again.

There is absolutely zero reason to continue to fund the scam artists and no talents that staff these incompetent departments.

Clean house is the only answer.

So what's your rate, $5 a post?

The question has been answered, it's just that you tax rapers keep putting your hands over your ears and going “noooooooooooo”.

what IS the transit part of the surface transit “plan”?

and while we're at it, what is the I 5 part? I heard about eliminating an offramp to get another lane somewhere, can someone describe this is succinctly?

The best option for transit is to rebuild the Viaduct. Buses run on the Viaduct, which takes them off the surface streets.

It takes two (or in this case ten) to have a pissing match. The council could have kept their heads down, drove a hard bargain with the state, made sure the state kept its side of the bargain on promises like transit, kept the state honest on the EIS process and pushed through solutions that would have protected the city's interests. They could have done all this while continuing to favor a tunnel. Instead, they acted like their only job was to defend the tunnel at all costs against the mayor's attacks.

When people are trying to decide whether or not The Information is trolling, keep in mind it is just The Bankruptcy/John Bailo.

McGinn and allies have no plan in Olympia.

as a start, we've begun a facebook group to show support for including transit with the tunnel. share with your friends and join here: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=139449532…

Here's what I'd like to say to Greg Nickels:

“The Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association, Gov Evans, regional entities, and you Greg were all for the cut/cover Tunnelite in 2006-07. Aren't you all making your mistakes worse with the deep bored tunnel and Mercer West projects?”

Dan's post is correct. The city councilmembers and mayor may talk with WSDOT, but only the Governor and Legislature can follow up on the January 2009 agreement on the MVET. They have had two sessions. They have not. What they have done is cap the state expenditure on the state highway project. It is difficult for the Legislature to take a tax vote and allow the locals to spend it. that is part of the reason that the last two gas tax increases have all gone to state projects and not to local maintenance. shall we let our existing infrastructure fall apart anyone?

the I-5 part included improving lane continuity. WSDOT found they could get more capacity through downtown on I-5.

of course, what is really needed in dynamic tolling on all the limited access highways.

another question: why does the deep bore have to be a limited access highway with freeway ramps at the south and north portals? would it not be less costly to use a series of traffic signals to provide the access. yes, through speed would be slower, the portals would take less land and less money. providing a grade separated bypass seems enough advantage to through drivers.

And where is the electricity coming from to replace the oil fueled cars? Hydro? All 1 or 2,000,000 cars in Seattle area? Do some math and come back again. Don't forget to include the impact of increased demand here on the ability to ship juice to California (to our economic benefit), which will otherwise have to burn more oil.

“We will reduce our carbon footprint by more efficient cars not by having people stay home.” I believe this is in error. You are not accounting for overall growth (population, resource consumption) which is not sustainable. You cannot catch up by marginally increasing efficiency of a system that is inherently inefficient (personal auto oriented). Ain't gonna happen.

I don't think “curtailing personal mobility” is an agenda, it's a reality of the post Peak Oil era. When oil hits $1,000 a barrel (current dollars) we'll be rationing gas and doing a lot more riding of buses and bikes. And far less jetting all over the place. The only alternative is to stop breeding so damn much, and even then it takes a century or two to drop to a sustainable level (globally).

So, knowing that the above is the inevitable future (if not this decade, certainly within two or three), why are we spending so much on infrastructure that didn't make sense in 1950?

We cannot afford to maintain the current level of moving people and their consumer crap around (“mobility”). Without cheap energy (i.e., oil in the range of $100/barrel), it simply cannot be sustained. It has nothing to do with alexbroner's business. Or yours.

There aren't 2,000,000 cars in Seattle. One of the beautiful things about electric cars is that they can be charged at night when excess capacity goes to waste and put back into the system when it is most needed, in the evening hours. Even with electricity produced by natural gas plants (much cleaner than gas or oil), which can convert at 50% efficiency that doubles the 20% efficiency of ICE even considering transmission.

We will also add wind, solar, geo thermal, wave, tide, current and nuclear.

Transit also takes energy. Moving people in an electric bus or train generally means more pound per passenger mile then an electric car. Check out the need for substations to run transit.

California has great solar potential.

I agree with your etymology. However, your obvious anti-tax position is irrational. Stop using road, fire dept, police, library, etc. Go live in a cave somewhere. No taxes.

I agree. It's the best interim solution–lowest cost, least distruptive, most efficient, etc.–while the bigger picture of energy, climate, resource limits, government finances/taxation, etc. settles out. WSDOt simply didn't want to seriously consider it.

You're irritating. Try posting something intelligent.

Before you pounce – you did say Seattle area, not Seattle.

It was their preferred choice until Yalta in 2008. Seattle (Nickels) demanded it. Gregoire had declared the tunnel dead before the vote in 2007.

That's tea bagger garbage, not a solution. To blame current officials for decisions made in the 30-50 years ago is just wrong. The decisions made now are far from perfect, but they have improved vastly over the past several years, the current stalemate notwithstanding.

I'm with westside and NordicGal here. How many years ago was the earthquake? If McGinn and pals really want to stop the DBT and switch back to Surface/Transit, I feel they owe it to me, as a voter, in the name of public safety, fiscal responsibility, and the common greater good, to hustle their asses and deliver a workable and politically viable solution ASAP. That means they better be working on it already, assuming that they're so confident they're going to kill the DBT.

What is the plan?

How will it be funded?

How will it satisfy all of the governing bodies that have to sign off on it.

Like it or not, McGinn has to collaborate with the Establishment at some point. If you think your grass roots coalition can just bully the Council and Olympia and ram through whatever package you think is most likely to save the Earth, methinks you're a tad unrealistic.

Yes, because I don't have time to dig up exact number. PS basin certainly has close to 2,000,000 if not more.

“Excess capacity” does not “go to waste” at night. That's the juice that's sent to California so they can burn less coal. It's a big part of NW hydro system; water is not spilled except when it's needed (for juice or for fish after lots of litigation). Natural gas does appear to be “cleaner” than coal/oil, so is part of a transition solution. I believe all your other options represent single digit % replacement of base load or any other kind of load, at least for the near term (decades). Except nuclear, which has its own major issues and cannot be considered a serious alternative. And it also requires decades to come on line. I suspect we'll be well into the consequences of Peak Oil before they can start generating nuclear waste for us to sit on for the next few millennia.

I agree that transit isn't nec. the most efficient mode of moving people. I don't have “the answer.” I do know that the current rate of resource/energy use is not sustainable, and IMO you have not presented any truly viable options. IOW, despite Ivan's yowling, we will indeed be walking more and flying less. And consuming less food from Chile, and less plastic & silicon crap from China.

There goes Anc….representing the Internet Middlebrow everywhere.

You can't refudiate me, so stop trying.

The Seattle Peninsula commands too much time, too much money and too much attention.

There is North and South and West Seattle, and all the Right Sized Cities like Kent, Auburn and Issaquah…which have reasonable infrastructure.

Seattle is an old steam locomotive that officials want us all to waste our lives patching up with crazy tunnels and arcane “transit”.

Let's clean house. A peninsula is not a place to build a 21st century hub.

I suggest almost anything South of Renton and East of Tacoma.

High speed rail, and Clear Wimax have expanded commuting options from tens of miles…to hundreds of miles!

We need to expand a Statewide Infrastructure, with trillions in highway and rail construction. New, planned smaller cities need to be built all over Washington State…and the world!

The Seattle Peninsula serves no one…except a few small interests that command the tax revenue and want to direct it all into their own pockets!

Washingtonians need to look further eastward, and southerly…to see the Future!

generally we sell during the summer when they are air conditioning and we don't need heat or lights til 9 at night. There is excess at night and that's why they charge less for it, if there are variable rates. Ever heard the utility ask people to wash clothes and dishes at night?

While hydro can be shut off in a short time span that is not true of coal fired, oil and to a lesser extent natural gas. Nuclear plants would seem to waste potential power by slowing reactors down.

According to a recent U.S. Department of Energy study, there is so much excess energy on the U.S. grid nightly that if every light-duty car and truck in America today used plug-in hybrid technology, 73 percent of them could be plugged in and “fueled” without constructing a single new power plant. “Studies have shown that plug-in hybrids produce at least 67 percent fewer harmful emissions than a standard gasoline-powered car. Even when accounting for emissions from the production of electricity, national studies have shown greenhouse gas production would fall by almost 40 percent if plug-in hybrids became commonplace. Plug-in hybrids could easily be expected to get over 100 miles per gallon of gasoline, and owners would do most of their refueling at home where the equivalent cost of electricity is about $1 per gallon.”

Whatever he's been doing has been working. The Colin position is melting away like an ice cap.

No, but I can repudiate you.

urm.. Conlin.

Oh, I get it now. Got another one for you. I ripped it off from Public Radio:

“Sarah Palin won't use a thesaurus, because everyone knows they're extinct.”

I was thinking of calling you a Middlebrow for that comment, but the fact that you listen to NPR makes it all too plain…

Yes, all the “new decisions” are so much better.

How about that plan to transform “SoDo” into an Urban Village. Really worked out right? I mean, they really had to destroy the Kingdome and build a new stadium at tax payer expense, even when it was publically voted down TWICE, and had to be enacted with a legislative fiat.

But yeah, the result is so grand…I mean, look at all the middle class people living in SoDo…just ignore the carpet warehouses and crazy guys with knives.

Hey but how about Light Rail? Yeah, in 1993 they said it would cost 3 billion and go everywhere. It cost 20 Billion or more and it only goes through the worst part of town.

How about even more urban density…Seattle's single family home model which brought people in was crashed by insane libs who wanted to put everyone into crappy super dense and expensive condoes. The damage like the fire in Fremont is only now being felt!

Again and again and again, corruption and incompetence have ruled the roost in Washing-Toon politics, yet they keep coming back and asking fore more, more, more for the latest and greatest ripoff!

In general I don't like WikiPedia because it is biased so much, but here's a description. There's no specific “transit” because it depends on all the existing plans for improvement…it doesn't need “extra” planning because light rail, Sounder, RapidRide and more trolleys will naturally be added in.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_replaceme…

Who's trying? I viewed some of your other recent posts and found this gem: “We need to expand a Statewide Infrastructure, with trillions in highway and rail construction. New, planned smaller cities need to be built all over Washington State…and the world!”

OK, I'll bite: Where do you propose to put the current 6,000,000,000 people who won't be able to afford your gleaming new smaller cities on a hill? And without taxes, who is paying those trillions? And where are the resources coming from to support your fantastical expansion of humanity across the landscape? Just asking.

“The Seattle Peninsula serves no one…except a few small interests that command the tax revenue and want to direct it all into their own pockets!”

Last time I looked, Seattle and rest of central PS counties underwrite the infrastructure costs of the rest of the state. Who do you think pays the taxes that pay for those highways between spread out small towns?

I repeat my prior request: post something with a modicum of facts and logic.

“How many years ago was the earthquake?”

Nine and a half years.

“If McGinn and pals really want to stop the DBT and switch back to Surface/Transit, I feel they owe it to me, as a voter, in the name of public safety, fiscal responsibility, and the common greater good, to hustle their asses and deliver a workable and politically viable solution ASAP.”

The surface transit option is workable but the politically viable part hasn't happened so far. As far as public safety is concerned, the surface transit option can be implemented far more quickly than the tunnel. It is because of the tunnel that the Governor decided to keep the viaduct in use through 2016.

“That means they better be working on it already, assuming that they're so confident they're going to kill the DBT.”

I don't think they're all that confident. 8 city council members out of 9 want to build it. That is pretty formidable opposition.

What is the plan?

“How will it be funded?”

With some combination of gas tax and other funds. Any more detail than that is premature for an option which doesn't yet have much support within the council.

“How will it satisfy all of the governing bodies that have to sign off on it.”

The city gets more mass transit and the state saves a billion dollars. The port probably is unhappy.

“Like it or not, McGinn has to collaborate with the Establishment at some point.”

The question is, collaborate to do what? That is exactly what the disagreement is about, what we should do. Collaboration isn't something that happens for it's own sake, it's born out of a common understanding of shared interests. With out BOTH sides having this agreement collaboration is impossible.

“If you think your grass roots coalition can just bully the Council and Olympia and ram through whatever package you think is most likely to save the Earth, methinks you're a tad unrealistic.”

I'm not sure where the bully part comes from. I seem to remember a whole bunch of McGinn supporters lining up with everyone else, dutifully recording their names, and speaking for their one minute of alloted time regarding the tunnel, then quietly sitting down. It was the most well behaved “bullying” I've ever seen.

As far as our ability to persuade the council (and the legislature) to change their position, it's true that this is a difficult task. I don't think anyone who is trying to advocate for more mass transit and less pollution is doing it because it's easy. The future is uncertain. The only way to find out what is possible is to try something new. What's unrealistic is to keep trying the same old policies and expecting a better result.

It is interesting how people have time to argue and assume, but not enough time to be self-informed. Depending on Publicola, or the Stranger to be bothered with these details when they are busy scooping each other with working draft documents does nothing to public discourse.

It was the council transportation committee chair, Tom Rasmussen, that raised the point and expressed the expectation that the state has unfinished business, Burgess followed up, and OBrien contributed a me-to type answer.
The city tolling question was centered around a more general idea of having that power and how it might be used for streetcars or trolleys. It was a pretty general discussion, but Rasmussen was clearly interested, and did request that SDOT provide more information on it.

These were two different things: the state still needs to follow through on the transit portion; the city has the power to toll and use those funds for other transportation uses (however you want to define it).

The transportation problem has plenty to do with zoning 40 years ago, and repeating those same choices today.

The car haters are missing the foot ferry on this, the question is not “how shall we commute?”, it is “why are we commuting?”

The company town, logger camp, did not have a mass transit problem. People could afford to live near work, and work was not zoned away from people (it is loud, and smells).

I see these “walkable communities” as idillic but I do not see how the people that life in them can afford to live there with the kinds of jobs available (coffee shop, nails, and retail).

As much as I detest SLU, at least there are jobs and housing.

If we all had magic carpets we could still have a backup on the offramp from 405 southbound onto 167 ever night at 5 pm.
People work one place and live another.
Way too many of them are leaving home to drive to a computer screen (build broadband, not rail lines, thanks).
That has a lot to do with zoning.
On top of that the tax structure makes it cost prohibitive to relocate 30 miles. Local governments depend on REET, and all the other taxes. It is cheaper to not move and just buy a car, and commute.

There are all kinds of things that were set in place decades ago that we are repeating.

The upzone zombies must have light rail.

That was a long “I don't know”.

Eliminating an I-5 exit is a benefit, not including it because of a tunnel is a major concern.

There's no point in getting hung up on the fine grained details of particular option for which there is not even close to majority support. To be frank, I don't see this concern over the specific funding mechanisms as coming from actual desire to implement the surface transit option. Instead of generating fake concern about the fine grained details of the surface transit option, we should be genuinely alarmed at the gaps in the omissions and assumptions in the draft EIS for the tunnel. The surface transit option should we choose to adopt it can have it's details fleshed out. The tunnel IS in the process of being adopted and yet the draft EIS is highly problematic.

http://www.publicola.net/2010/07/23/the-states-…

Electric cars will still need the same space for highways, streets, and especially parking. These all have their implications for global warming as well.

Metro is studying whether to keep electric trolleys – there are forces that want to convert to diesel.

6 billion people? Seattle used to support the rest of the state, not so much anymore.

Electric cars are the fastest way to reducing GHGs. I rather spend money on alternative electricity generation than on $50M a mile streetcars or $300M per mile LRT. I'd like see us convert as many buses to electric power with off line capability.

The expansion of ST will cost well over $12B – that would buy 480,000 electric cars at $25,000 a car. It pay for half of 960,000.

In the mean time, the next 10 to 20 years, we need to keep vehicles moving and not stalled in grid lock, polluting all the time they are idling.

We will not move enough people to non-polluting transit to combat climate change in a meaningful way by building transit – we could do it by converting to non-polluting cars, but that would require to temper their anti-car religion.

According to a recent U.S. Department of Energy study, there is so much excess energy on the U.S. grid nightly that if every light-duty car and truck in America today used plug-in hybrid technology, 73 percent of them could be plugged in and “fueled” without constructing a single new power plant. “Studies have shown that plug-in hybrids produce at least 67 percent fewer harmful emissions than a standard gasoline-powered car. Even when accounting for emissions from the production of electricity, national studies have shown greenhouse gas production would fall by almost 40 percent if plug-in hybrids became commonplace. Plug-in hybrids could easily be expected to get over 100 miles per gallon of gasoline, and owners would do most of their refueling at home where the equivalent cost of electricity is about $1 per gallon.”

We should be converting to Hydrogen fuel cells like London and Vancouver and San Francisco.

JB, Vancouver and San Francisco each just bought new fleets of electric buses after extensive testing.

I've been a fan of hydrogen as a fuel since the early 70's – there was an article in Scientific American that peaked my interest.

If hydrogen technology is available and works better than straight electric I think that's great.

Please provide the best new information on this.

Btw – Seattle isn't a peninsula.

Yes, by all means, let's replace our beautiful, unique city with another bland, sprawling, faceless metropolis. We'll have plenty of space to build 8 lane roads for every arterial, and everyone can drive their own private H3 to the mega-lot that surrounds the mall like a sea of concrete.

You go have fun with that, me and the rest of the people who actually ENJOY life will be back on the “Peninsula” ignoring you.

Just because people have computers at work doesn't mean they can work from any computer. Building broadband isn't going to do a damn thing to negate the need for in-person interaction. Humans just aren't built that way. I've worked at tech-heavy companies in the area for several years now, and I've only ever seen those who try to telecommute take a hit to their careers as a result. Face time is important, and so is being able to go track someone down in person and talk to them.

Hydrogen fuel cells are just a way of storing hydrogen and converting it to electricity – to date batteries are more efficient and cost effective.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/…

I think (at least hope) he was being facetious

See, i think the tunnel is better because of the reduced capacity, the lack of downtown ramps, and the tolling. That is awesome.

See, Ivan, on the off-topic portion –

It is alex's business, and mine, and every other taxpayer. When it comes to childhood obesity, where it is worst is in poor communities, communities that are more likely to either rely on State subsidized healthcare, or have no insurance at all. The illnesses that come along with obesity, and other poor health choices, end up being absorbed by you and I taxpayer, as well as increased cost of healthcare (which leads to increases in premiums and costs associated with insurance) from the low reimbursement rates of Medicaid/Medicare and the charity care provided to people without insurance, or cannot pay for whatever reason, and as such, don't.

So, anything we can do to encourage more healthy lifestyles, especially starting as young as possible, the better we will all be.

Are you writing crap like this just to jerk my chain? Traffic capacity causes childhood obesity like the color of my house causes measles.

So, anything we can do to encourage more healthy lifestyles, especially starting as young as possible, the better we will all be..

How about child labor? We could make all kids above a certain weight factor work the fields.

We could stop all assistance to people and then they couldn't afford to drive.

We could…

I guess maybe “anything we can do to encourage more healthy lifestyles” isn't precisely what you meant.

We provide health care and now, because of that, we can tell you how to live. There's something about that bothers me.

Eddiew: Dan's post is correct. The city councilmembers and mayor may talk with WSDOT, but only the Governor and Legislature can follow up on the January 2009 agreement on the MVET. They have had two sessions. They have not. What they have done is cap the state expenditure on the state highway project.

I've become increasingly convinced that the City Council should make the city's tunnel agreement contingent on the state following through and giving King County the MVET authority. Obviously, the state legislature and the governor will only do what they're forced to do (that's just the political reality), and this is the city's last real opportunity to force them to do anything.

So what am I missing here?

The state wanted to build a viaduct. The city (Nickels) said no, we want a tunnel. Nickels, Sims and Gregoire cut a deal to build a tunnel. All three knew they'd be gone by the time it was actually built.

Seattle got its way with the caveat, you pay.

At some point, which may have reached, the state will just build the new viaduct. They're the state, they can just do it.

Seattle can't “force” the state to do anything.

Your link helpfully states that the plan for surface/transit is to make surface/transit “improvements.”

Answer the question, please!

What IS the transit part of the surface transit plan?
And what is the I 5 part?

BTW if you can't describe it, why would you expect anyone to be for it?

What's a peninsula?

again, please for the love of God,

what IS the I 5 part of the surface transit plan?

You say “the I-5 part included improving lane continuity.”

What in heck do you mean by that? (a) Installing barriers to changing lanes? (b) adding chips to cars to direct lane changes? (c) closing an off ramp, which one, where????? (d) adding shoulders? (e) eliminating shoulders and using them for lanes? (f) rebuilding an off ramp so it''s on the right where they're supposed to be?

WHAT WHAT WHAT WHA?

If you can't describe it, how can you sell it?

what are you talking about?

what exit, where?

you guys suporting the I 5 plan need to actually tell us what the plan is.

you're assuming the council is anything but a set of feckless cowards.

They won't “force” the state to do anything and btw you're not asking them to force something. force is like bombs, armies and stuff like that. You're only asking them to stand up and ASK and SPEAK and they are too cowardly to even do that.

From the I5/Surface/Transit fact sheet prepared by SDOT in 2008.

“Changes to I-5 would allow for more efficient operations through downtown. Northbound, a new lane would be created between Seneca Street and SR 520 using the existing shoulder of the highway. This new lane would be managed and the Cherry Street on-ramp would be closed at
night.”

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/FAF9612A-D…

That leaves the question of SHOULD we continue to base our transportation system around automobiles. If we convert our electric power to clean renewables and our cars to electric vehicles then we'll be left with “only” the problems of obesity, carnage, inequity, economic inefficiency, and habitat loss. Changing just the motor and leaving everything else in place seems like a missed opportunity.

Alex,
a. we can have electric cars AND more transit AND more density.

b. Do you not agree that the ability to make lots of trips is a good thing, or is the goal to have people huddled in their homes and not making trips?

I have friends in WS, SE Seattle, cooking classes in NE Seattle, and a social club I enjoy in Ballard.

I get the feeling you'd prefer it if I never saw those friends, or changed them for friends living nearby, and if I stopped with the planet killing cooking classes 5 miles away and the social events 4 miles away.

a. To the extent people continue to use cars those cars should be electric instead of internal combustion. What the viaduct replacement debate is about is the extent we should continue to use cars. There are many reasons in addition to climate change to reduce our dependence upon cars.

b. Mobility is important for the function of the economy. The more options any particular person has in terms of jobs, retail, and socializing the more efficiently a society achieves optimal results.

c. There is no reason why we as a city can't provide fast and frequent mass transit to the places you mention. We would have to spend some money on it, which is harder to do if we spend money on car infrastructure such as the deep bore tunnel instead.

McGinn could do this as well–but he seems to have no appetite for winnable objectives

Primarily people are fat because they eat too much of the wrong food. Walking 3 miles at 4 mph burns about 250 calories. One Big Mac has 560 calories – do the math.

NYC has the highest US journey to work transit share at 25%. How long for us to get to that?

Something like 95% of all trips are by car in the PSR.

People have always enjoyed mobility. It gives them pleasure. Our Declaration of Independence stated people had the right to pursue happiness, therefore it is anti-American to deny people the right to drive. Okay, just kidding in the last sentence.

There is a reason that we can't provide fast and frequent service – money and we would gain for the environment by running transit 24/7.

Cars are not at the root of economic inequity, they are not the cause of obesity, and they certainly aren't the cause of economic inefficiencies (although it isn't clear what that means).

As I mentioned the last time you put up this same screed – when the environmentalists/urbanists oppose any rebuilding of 520 through the wetlands of the Arboretum maybe the habitat argument might hold a few drops of water. The tunnel or even a viaduct won't damage the habitat as it now exists.

These urbanazis will pull any argument out of their asses to get us out of our cars, like bringing up childhood obesity.

Driving a car, or being a passenger in one, or being a passenger in some transit mode, might be one of many contributing factors to obesity, much in the sense that any sedentary activities of any kind might be. But it is hardly a direct cause, so when we're discussing transit policy, bringing obesity onto the discussion is just fraudulent.

Where personal mobility is concerned, the toothpaste is out of the tube and it's never going back. Personal mobility, and private motorized transit, have been democratized far beyond the point of no return in this society. They are no longer the sole property of the aristocracy or the knighthood.

I have no problem with building all the transit infrastructure we can, and I'd gladly tax myself to pay for it. But I don't regard it as some zero-sum game. The increase in population absolutely will dictate that we increase, or at least maintain, our highway capacity.

It's not either-or. We need both. If the price of motor fuel forces people out of their cars, transit will increasingly use existing right of way, and transit users will be damn glad it's there.

As for tolling, “dynamic” or otherwise, I will never support it, nor any elected official who promotes it.

That sounds so great. I wish they could figure out how to get Northbound I-5 traffic entering at Mercer/Fairview over to 520 without choking everyone off.

The problem is that the viaduct is falling apart. Politics and delay has made the problem worse and more expensive by not acting promptly to the problems. Both sides are arguing as if we are going to come up with a great solution – the reality is we are just going to come up with a less sucky option than the viaduct falling down.

The state, county, and city have no money. There is little time to fix this and waiting just makes it worse. Arguing about what we should have is just dealing with dreams, we need to argue about what we can have.

I'm always trying to get you angry

i do think that tying using buses too much to various health problems is bullshit. Realistically, our schools need to stop cutting PE and recess, and actually serve healthy food (across the state, not just in Seattle), and offer nutrition education.

Of course, standardized tests are more important…

Like I said, completely off topic.

Well, “anything” within reason, of course (per my response to Ivan)

Michael – I was.

However, King County and Seattle do have other ways that they can tax their residents beyond just the MVET. The MVET is a convenient, easy and kinda hidden way to tax car owners so it doesn't look like it is the local jurisdiction that is doing it, most people believe that it is the state that takes in all of it.

Okay, so we shouldn't go back to old votes and old will of the people, so let's stop going back to old advisory votes taken by the city.

Michael – I'm not going to take the time to look into it, but it would be interesting to see how Seattle/KC lawmakers voted when they instated it.

Tell me, tvguide, what are these Metro funding options that the County could use without additional authority from the State?

Back during the Mayoral campaign, the Nickels campaign released some numbers on Surface/Transit:
http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/…
The city was committed to spending $135m on the First Avenue Streetcar. The state would chip in $400m for transit.

One thing that I truly appreciate about Mayor McGinn is just that. He believes in what he believes. He has convictions, and sticks to them.

Not so much in his defense – he doesn't have a long history in politics, in the way that things work. Yes, he's done work on elections, but the inside work is a completely different story. He definitely has a few things to learn.

But one thing he is doing a great job at – using media to garner support. He understands that the Times isn't all that important in Seattle proper, and that ensuring his voice is heard not only at the Times, but also at the Stranger and Publicola, etc., gives him the ability to reach out not just to his base, but to an active group of people who will really get out there and citizen lobby the hell out of their government.

I agree that on this one issue, where McGinn and I completely disagree, he is not on the “winning” side, I do think that, in general, he will be able to use his skill with non-traditional media to push forward some other parts of his vision for the city.

Who knows – in a year, he may learn that Olympia functions very differently, but for local issues, I think he is going to be effective.

He just needs someone who understands relations with Olympia, and the politics behind those relations, on his staff. Of course, we haven't had one of those in a long time.

didn’t standards, I said increase mileage. We have cars available today
that would double MPG. Electric cars are here and with a national
effort they could be pervasive in 15 years. The road structure will
need to be maintained for buses and trucks anyway. Rail takes plenty of
energy to build and maintain
http://www.wctube.com