4 ms·

Just watching the staggering change that has happened now that Capitol Hill and University Link stations have opened makes me both thrilled for the next ones (U

Just watching the staggering change that has happened now that Capitol Hill and University Link stations have opened makes me both thrilled for the next ones (U-District, Roosevelt, and Northgate) and insanely jealous of the handful of areas inside the city that are going to get real, grade-separated mass transit over the next two or three decades. It is already far too late for me to afford to buy housing in any of the coming-very-soon areas that is walkable to the new train stations and the new stations (Ballard and West Seattle Link) are going to areas that are already priced out of most affordability. Though I understand the political and infrastructure reasons why we have to build light rail to the suburban areas before filling in the urban core[0], that doesn't stop me from being sad that, in my lifetime, already-dense areas like Georgetown or the Central District or Lake City or even Greenwood[1] won't see real high-capacity transit. (Having a single station in the CD's Judkins Park doesn't really count, not when Interbay and Ballard are getting five stations between them, or when West Seattle has four.) I read somewhere, probably on Seattle Transit Blog[2] from someone who likes to rant about this stuff like I do, that route 48 through the CD has more daily riders now than the train to Issaquah is supposed to have five years after it opens in 2035. But Goldy makes the most salient point: Voting against Sound Transit 3 doesn't accomplish anything except, maybe, make Sound Transit more cautious in a second vote and less willing to put out a big package to build for the next generation. Voting for it doesn't get a perfect system, but I think that it helps more than saying no. 0 - Because Sound Transit is a regionwide taxing district so the region has to pass it and selling voters in Everett on a transit package that builds only in Seattle will not fly; because we should have been building Ballard Link 30 years ago so, by that same logic, we need to build Redmond and Issaquah Links now instead of waiting 30 years... 1 - Yes, I realize that "85th St Station" is marked as "provisional" and that 85th is the southern boundary of Crown Hill and that having a light rail stop west of IH-5 with easy bus and RapidRide access from west Greenwood and Crown Hill would be a good compromise...but nothing would beat having a station parked right at NW 100th and Holman. 2 - It's a good blog, you should read it: http://seattletransitblog.com http://seattletransitblog.com

drewrv 10y ago
I've decided recently that I'm voting against ST3. It bums me out because I've always been a big transit supporter (I know how republicans voting for Hillary must feel). The thing is, ST3 builds a ton of crap to the outer suburbs and 50 billion dollars and 20 years later it will still be a pain to get from the University District to Ballard. But at least the taxpayers of Bothell will have an easy way to get to Totem Lake!
- techsupporter 10y ago
  > ST3 builds a ton of crap to the outer suburbs and 50 billion dollars and 20 years later it will still be a pain to get from the University District to Ballard. But at least the taxpayers of Bothell will have an easy way to get to Totem Lake! That's one of the shitballs that the Washington legislature has handed us with how Sound Transit 3 works. It's called "subarea equity" and means that taxes are spent only in the area where they are gathered--areas called things like "North King," "South King," "Snohomish," and so on--which sounds great and all but the tax rate has to be uniform across the district and the entire district must vote in a single yes/no vote. So Bothell is spending its own money to go to Totem Lake but Seattle's more expensive needs can't be fully met because it would take the tax authority of the entire district to be spent in a single subarea and neither the voters or the Sound Transit district organization would go for that. This is what I alluded to when I wrote that I understand, politically, why ST3 is written as it is. Seattle as a city is never going to have the tax authority for us to buy the kind of in-city dense transit we really want. There's absolutely no reason for the state legislature to give it to us (especially not with that 1% hard property tax cap written into the state constitution) since leveraging Puget Sound's representatives for votes on allowing us to tax ourselves on a handful of transit packages is what the rest of the legislature uses to strongarm votes for road packages in the rest of the state (that, conveniently, never seem to have to go to the ballot). So I'm voting yes on ST3 because, with all due respect to Mars Saxman whom I really respect and really want his ideas to come true, I don't think we'll get a better package in four years.

drewrv 10y ago

I've decided recently that I'm voting against ST3. It bums me out because I've always been a big transit supporter (I know how republicans voting for Hillary must feel). The thing is, ST3 builds a ton of crap to the outer suburbs and 50 billion dollars and 20 years later it will still be a pain to get from the University District to Ballard. But at least the taxpayers of Bothell will have an easy way to get to Totem Lake!

techsupporter 10y ago
> ST3 builds a ton of crap to the outer suburbs and 50 billion dollars and 20 years later it will still be a pain to get from the University District to Ballard. But at least the taxpayers of Bothell will have an easy way to get to Totem Lake! That's one of the shitballs that the Washington legislature has handed us with how Sound Transit 3 works. It's called "subarea equity" and means that taxes are spent only in the area where they are gathered--areas called things like "North King," "South King," "Snohomish," and so on--which sounds great and all but the tax rate has to be uniform across the district and the entire district must vote in a single yes/no vote. So Bothell is spending its own money to go to Totem Lake but Seattle's more expensive needs can't be fully met because it would take the tax authority of the entire district to be spent in a single subarea and neither the voters or the Sound Transit district organization would go for that. This is what I alluded to when I wrote that I understand, politically, why ST3 is written as it is. Seattle as a city is never going to have the tax authority for us to buy the kind of in-city dense transit we really want. There's absolutely no reason for the state legislature to give it to us (especially not with that 1% hard property tax cap written into the state constitution) since leveraging Puget Sound's representatives for votes on allowing us to tax ourselves on a handful of transit packages is what the rest of the legislature uses to strongarm votes for road packages in the rest of the state (that, conveniently, never seem to have to go to the ballot). So I'm voting yes on ST3 because, with all due respect to Mars Saxman whom I really respect and really want his ideas to come true, I don't think we'll get a better package in four years.