Seattle Times Still Doesn’t Get It

The Oct 19^th Seattle Times editorial denigrating my candidacy is just the latest example they still don’t “get it”.  Even I was surprised that no one more “credible” had filed, ending my candidacy in the primary.  However I never expected such vitriolic responses to my being on the general election ballot. (I hope I'm not the only one who had to look up "nihilist")

The paper still doesn’t recognize (get it) that my candidacies have never been about winning but to use any candidate forums and the Voters’ Pamphlet to attract attention to this blog.  I recognized a long time ago that a single city or county council member or legislator wouldn't be able to deter Sound Transit plans for light rail extensions.   Those candidacies and my candidacies for King County Council Executive and Governor were attempts to reach larger audiences with my concerns rather than a rational chance for success. 

Even more important, the Seattle Times still doesn’t “get it” that Sound Transit is far more interested in constructing light rail extensions than in providing the increased public transit capacity needed to reduce congestion.  The Times Oct 11^th article “Upstarts face well-heeled incumbents in races for King County Council” exemplified my concerns the transit agency’s light rail extensions will be “one of the biggest transportation boondoggles in history”.  That light rail operation will be a “disaster for the entire Eastside”.  That Sound Transit should have never been allowed to confiscate the I-90 Bridge center roadway and devastate the route into Bellevue.

The Times Oct 19^th editorial chose to denigrate the messenger rather than debunk the message.  But then the editorial board has spent the last decade ignoring my message.  My first candidate interview in 2012 ended abruptly when I persisted with my view  48^th district voters should be more concerned about Sound Transit’s plans for East Link than with the McCleary school funding issue. 

Since then I’ve referred the Times to more than 500 posts on this blog.  It has attracted more than 140,000 views to posts detailing problems not only with Sound Transit’s East Link but with all the Prop 1 extensions.  Several of the posts have detailed the paper’s Traffic Lab failure to “dig into the region’s thorny transportation issues”. 

For years the editorial board has ignored emails referring them to posts urging they include the need for the legislature to audit Sound Transit in their list of top ten priorities.  Even a cursory review would have shown Sound Transit’s decision to route the Prop 1 extensions through the Downtown Settle Transit Tunnel (DSTT) limited its capacity to a fraction of what was needed to reduce congestion.  That the billions spent on extensions will do nothing to increase transit capacity into Seattle. 

An audit would have also concluded any riders added by the billions spent on extensions would reduce access for current riders during peak commute.  That Sound Transit plans to use the extensions to replace bus routes will do little to reduce HOV lane congestion and nothing for GP commuters. 

Meanwhile Claudia Balducci, who may be a fine council member in many respects, also, still doesn’t “get it” regarding public transit.  For years Bellevue residents have considered congestion as a major concern with 67% doing so in the latest survey.  Yet East Link is never going to be the “fixed route, high capacity transit system” Balducci claims will reduce it.  Again, that possibility ended ten years ago when Sound Transit decided to route all the Prop 1 extensions through the (DSTT).  Even worse it precluded increased I-90 Bridge center roadway BRT that could.

As a Bellevue City Council member and later as mayor she ignored my many appearances urging they disallow the permits Sound Transit needed for East Link.  She ignored the results of a 2004 PSRC study, funded by Sound Transit, concluding the DSTT limited Central Link capacity to 8880 riders per hour in each direction.   East Link’s share of that capacity would never be sufficient to justify confiscating I-90 Bridge center roadway or devastating the route into Bellevue. 

She also ignored a 2004 FHA Record of Decision conclusion Sound Transit plans to add 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge outer roadways would not make up for the loss of two lanes on center roadway.   Increased I-90 corridor travel times since center bridge closure reaffirm FHA concerns.  

Even more important, Balducci and the council ignored the opportunity to demand Sound Transit add the 4^th lanes to the I-90 Bridge center roadway ten years ago for non-transit HOV.   Commuters from both sides of the lake would've benefited from both the added outer lane and the option of two-way BRT on bridge center roadway with 10 times light rail capacity at a fraction of the cost.

Instead Balducci’s steadfast East Link support “presumably” played a major role in her appointment to the Seattle Transit Board.  Anyone with a modicum of public transit competence would have recognized Sound Transit CEO Peter Rogoff’s 2019 budget plan to spend $96 billion between 2017 and 2041 was delusional.  That Rogoff didn't recognize the DSTT limits on light rail capacity or the benefits of added bus transit.  Yet she and the board chose to extend his contract for another 3 years with a substantial raise.

The bottom line it’s too late to do anything about Balducci’s prominent role in the East Link debacle.  However, it’s only the beginning of her 6^th District residents being forced to pay for CEO Rogoff plan to spend most of the ST3 $96 billion on a light rail spine that will do nothing to reduce congestion and few  district residents will ever use. 

They and residents throughout the Sound Transit service area deserve better.  My candidacy is an attempt to attract the support needed to demand an audit exposing Sound Transit failure.  Sooner of later the entire area is going to recognize that failure.  Its time the Seattle Times “got it”, paid more attention to the message than the messenger, and demand the legislature expedite that recognition with an audit.

(I’m already looking forward to the Seattle Times response when I file as a candidate for governor in opposition to his attempts to reduce the state’s CO2 emissions.)