LETTER | Questioning the claims about transit on the CKC

Editor:

It is interesting to observe the mindset of people, particularly the pro-BRT bloggers, who still support Transit on the CKC. They take for granted that it is a good thing for the city. They know that better public transportation in Kirkland is needed, they see an ‘empty corridor’ in the middle of the city, and automatically conclude that putting Transit on the CKC is the best solution to the problem. Why question the idea? After all, the City Council is the leading proponent of it! And, anyone who does not agree with that idea must certainly be a NIMBY, right? That is all one needs to know. So, get on with it!

To them, it is not necessary or relevant to consider and try to answer any of the following key questions:

1. Will it actually transport as many people as the City claims (particularly Kirklanders)? 
2. Does it conflict with the city’s own environmental regulations? 
3. Does it makes economic sense?
4. Are there equal, better, and less expensive short and long-term alternatives?  
5. How much more in ST-related taxes will we have to pay for a project like this, and for how many years? 
6. Will the quality of life in Kirkland and the Eastside be enhanced or severely diminished? 

They are equally happy ignoring or discounting the fact that a 100-ft wide, multimodal swath through the middle of Kirkland is equivalent to an entire North or South bound I-405 roadway, PLUS half of the I-405 roadway in the opposite direction! 

That is their point of view. BUT, shouldn’t we address these issues seriously and comprehensibly for the benefit of current and future Kirklanders BEFORE we vote one way or another??

Shawn Etchevers