Letters to the Editor

Transit tangle

Lack of leadership, not studies, has forced region into transit crisis

Editor, The Times:

While King County Executive Ron Sims believes Sound Transit's Phase 2 Plan is the "the wrong investment at the wrong time" [Times, guest commentary, July 23], and the honorable Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels cites many lame reasons to delay in his tongue-in-cheek support for the plan, it is a distinct lack of real leadership that has us in the commuter version of a pickle jar.

The proposal to extend the rail project to Overlake does not adequately address the total region's dire needs. Lack of leadership is the reason we are only dreaming of connecting the Eastside to downtown Seattle via rail. Visionary leadership would have us looking at extending this project in totality from Tacoma to Lynnwood and beyond. Strong leaders would put a plan in place to include Eastgate, Issaquah and beyond.

What we lack is a credible leader with vision to put a plan together to make our whole region the beneficiary of a real Sound Transit plan and alleviate the cluster job of commuting for as many as possible.

Any plan that does not reach far into the bottlenecked regions is shortsighted. Where are the true visionaries and leaders in this community? Isn't this area continuing to grow and expand in all directions?

Why are we stuck in the inactive study mold and not already building light rail north and south, across I-90 and out to the hills? Look in the mirror, Mr. Sims and Mr. Nickels.

We give you our trust to lead, and you both came up lame.

— Dave Sharpy, North Bend

Paying for light rail, riding the bus

Thank you for your support of buses over light rail for the current development of transit in our region ["Light rail can wait," editorial, July 20]. I would have elected to "pony up for light rail" 20 years ago and did, 12 years ago.

But what discourages me in our battle against global warming is the common belief that we have another 20 or even 12 years to build people-moving alternatives to automobiles.

Buses and rubber-wheeled streetcars are available to us now, and the implementation of dedicated lanes can be relatively swift, so that before the end of this decade, car ignitions can be switched off.

— Bob Hollowell, Seattle

Two plans too many

Both Ron Sims and Greg Nickels write like typical politicians when they present their preferences on Sound Transit plans. Sims presents valid arguments supporting his druthers for near-term transit using buses ["The wrong investment at the wrong time," guest commentary, July 23], while Nickels wastes half his space on cute but trivial reasons why mass transit — meaning light rail — is being opposed ["10 lame reasons to delay mass transit," guest commentary, July 23].

Both are correct that we badly need augmented transit in these days of $4.30-a-gallon gasoline, and each has his favorite solution. Interestingly, neither elected to mention a major difference between the two solutions that, if considered, might swing the vote. That difference is the place where the money would be spent.

The Sims solution would spend most of the money elsewhere, since there are no factories nearby that fabricate buses. The Nickels plan, on the other hand, spends most of the money locally.

The factories that do exist are capable of turning out large numbers of vehicles in short order, so the money would be spent quickly and buses would be on the streets pronto. All the labor and a significant fraction of the materials needed to build the light-rail track come from the local community.

Perhaps the advocates of light rail will tell us what the overall cost impact on the three-county community will be for each of the two plans, counting the annual costs associated with not having mass transit.

— James Axtell, Des Moines

Lots of possibilities, far fewer solutions

The article on transit ["$18 billon question," page one, July 25] reinforces the fact that the Sound Transit board doesn't get it.

The issues before the board consist of a $50 million contribution to "possible" rail service on the Eastside, a "possible" tunnel for light rail adding $500 million, light-rail extensions when the system isn't yet proven, more streetcars when the current one has not been a smashing success and money toward multi-transit stations in Edmonds and Mukilteo when the ferry system has already spent large sums of money.

These are pretty straightforward facts. I would like to see current park-and-ride lots expanded, and badly needed maintenance on the highways accomplished, for my tax money.

— John Christensen, Edmonds

A two-letter reply

The answer to your $18 billion question is "no." Sound Transit proposes nothing that will directly benefit me or my family: The light-rail system doesn't go to or from anywhere we ever go. The alleged indirect benefits, such as reduced road congestion, are amorphous at best.

Sound Transit has demonstrated its ability to give us about 10 cents worth of transit for each tax dollar they get from us. Now they want $18 billion, including about $12 billion for 34 miles of rail service — that's $353 million for each mile. We already have the highest sales tax in the nation, and they want to raise it still higher.

This bloated bureaucracy has too many directors assigned to too many committees and subcommittees, and too many consultants, advisers and employees to ever operate efficiently. The best thing they can do is to finish the projects now under construction and turn those projects when completed over to local transit authorities.

— Harry Petersen, Bellevue

Tolling the bridge

Back to the future

Will a toll ["Will $6 tolls drive people from bridge?" page one, July 24] in excess of six bucks per trip deter the SUV set from the floating bridge? Did price hikes at the pump do anything to deter motorists at the pump? It's a safe bet to say "no" on both counts.

People have collectively forgotten malaise, inflation and the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. Or the 1970s, period.

— Aaron Hunt Warner, Federal Way

Meanwhile, the Eastside suffers

The idea that Eastside residents will have to pay a toll to cross a bridge into Seattle is completely unreasonable. The Eastside is currently contributing about 40 percent of Sound Transit's funding. They are required to spend that money on transportation improvements on the Eastside.

Yet, their own planning documents show that the few projects on the Eastside will be completed this year with no plans for future improvements. Unless Sound Transit can convince voters to support the light-rail extensions this fall, residents will be getting very little for the taxes they already pay.

Sound Transit should be required to use the Eastside funds to pay for the 520 bridge improvement before residents are burdened with a toll charge.

— Bill Hirt, Bellevue