south bellevue station renderings

A million thanks to everyone who already gave to our fundraising drive.  Thanks to your generosity, we’re over 1/3 of the way towards our $10,000 goal.  Over 70 of you have donated already, in numbers small and large.  So thank you.

Several of you have generously done recurring monthly donations as well, which is fantastic.  A few dollars a month goes a long way.  For those who haven’t given yet, we hope you’ll consider doing so by the end of the month.  We want to move on hiring our reporter and getting the ball rolling in August. Every little bit helps.

We’re not generally ones for horn-tooting, but here’s a really nice quote from Bellevue Councilmember John Chelminak, on the occasion of David Lawson’s investigation into Bellevue’s Transit Master Plan:



Can we get to 100 donors this week? It’s up to you!  Thanks in advance for your support.

21 Replies to “Fundraising Update: Week 2”

  1. My offer still stands.

    I will donate $50 if STB writes one article about the use of Hydrogen in transit and transportation and possible benefits to the Puget Sound region.

    No troll talking points.
    No damning with faint praise.

    Just real journalism about a technology that rarely gets fair play in the press.

    1. STB does not do “sponsored content,” which is what you’re asking for, and certainly not for $50.



        She: What kind of woman do you think I am?


      2. Wouldn’t “sponsored content” be an article partially written by or for a fuel cell bus manufacture and passed off as STB’s original journalism? Based on the American Press Institute’s discussion of this topic, this request doesn’t appear to meet the criteria of sponsored content. I gave money because I enjoy coverage of TOD issues. Does that now make TOD-related articles sponsored content?

        Why not take up the offer of $50 and do an article on hydrogen? Perhaps there is a case to be made or not in our hilly city. Odd to act as if this issue is somehow beneath STB.

      3. Bailo is laying out conditions on what the article can say.

        I’m not saying we’ll never do sponsored content, or that it’s “beneath” us. It’s just not something we currently do. If we started, the cost would be much more than $50.

        This is really very simple. STB is written by volunteers, so what they find interesting is what appears in the blog. No one — including, evidently, Bailo himself — is interested enough in Hydrogen to spend the time to write a decent article.

        Given that none of the staff writers know much about Hydrogen, writing a decent post would take, what, 4 hours? $50 isn’t a great return for that. And then Bailo can claim the post wasn’t sufficiently fawning to chip in the money.

      4. I didn’t say to make it “fawning”. I said not to make it damning with faint praise, or feel obligated to mention Elon Musk or Tesla or end the article saying that you really like batteries better.

        I simply asked that you mention the use of Hydrogen in transit and transportation. This might include:

        Mentioning the use of Hydrogen buses in Scotland and England
        Mentioning Ballard fuel cell from Vancouver
        Mention the auto manufacturers who have introduced, or are soon to introduce FCEVs
        Mention California’s Fuel Cell Partnership and hydrogen station building.

    2. The benefits are the same as any electric buses. Reduced mobile source emissions, quiet electric drive, good range, reduction in GHG emissions. However, unlike batteries, hydrogen refuels as quickly as petroleum products.

      Benefits to Seattle aren’t all that different than any other bus technology. Propulsion is propulsion, it’s the source of the fuel to drive any machine being the issue. One advantage fuel cell buses could have is trolley-like toque and acceleration without the overhead infrastructure. However, the trolleys are beasts when it comes to hill climbing because they have a huge stationary power source giving them all the amperage needed.

      The biggest problems with hydrogen technology is the source of hydrogen (yes, it’s everywhere but often locked in a molecule), the cost of building hydrogen fueling infrastructure, the cost of operations vs other technology, and safety with carrying around a pressurized vessel full of explosive and reactive hydrogen.

      What more specifically are you curious about?

      Some articles discussing hydrogen buses: [PDF]

      1. While I agree with Elon Musk’s assessment of Hydrogen as a really dumb idea for cars, I think a reasonable case can be made for bus infrastructure fueled by Hydrogen. Particularly in the Pacific Northwest, if the hydrogen is manufactured locally using electricity and not fossil fuels. Yes, it’s not technically efficient, but solar and wind are very cheap.

    3. Lots of ink has already been spilled over the issue. It’s like natural gas buse: some places have used them and liked them and never looked back. Other agencies have never figured out how to make them economical under their conditions.

      Either way, it seems to me a subject for an open forum and off topic here, so I won’t say more.

    4. They only report on viable posts. John bailo perhaps this might convince you that hydrigen isnt the answet. But I doubt it.

      When I get my money situation straightened out I’ll be happy to pay my fair share.

  2. What station is the rendering at the top of this post? I don’t recall any proposed stations out in the farmlands of the rolling countryside

    1. My reaction was somewhat similar:
      What/why would anyone solicit money for better planning by illustrating the very worst of transit planning by showing a vast park and ride lot in what appears to be the middle of the countryside? :)

      1. Ha! I was looking for a bellevue image because I had the bellevue quote and this was the first one that popped up.

Comments are closed.