It has the added bonus of bipartisan appeal: It's smug and patronizing, so liberals should like it, yet cruel and punitive enough to appeal to conservatives. It's a win/win!

+It will leave a multi-billion dollar funding shortfall for the SR 520 work, while soaking up trasportation tax dollars that should be spent instead on SR 520;

+RTID funnels billions FROM Seattle and directs that money to I-405 roadwork; and

+since the "ST2" work would add additional train infrastructure that could be used for 75-100 years, but it would take 15 years to bring it on line, there no marginal utility gains would be realized by holding the vote now, vs. in five years.

On the last point, holding off on ST2 would give the region time to digest the tax burdens the SR 520 and SR 99 work will entail, and evaluate whether augmented ST train service is precisely the type of transit alternatives that the region should embrace for the next 100 years. Things change, our perspective could change once we see what light rail actually is like in operation, and the one thing we don't need is $26 billion in YOE debt AND a case of buyers' remorse in three years.

• HOT lanes. HOT lanes in themselves are not a win. Their potential lies only in their ability to lay the groundwork for the real wins: dynamic toll roads. If HOT lanes don't lead eventually toward tolls on roads like the new 520 bridge, then they probably end up doing more harm than good.
• Transit mitigation on roads projects. They've talked this up like it's some big victory when really it's just the roads guys throwing us a bone to try to shut us up.
• Viaduct replacement. What have they had to say about the viaduct issue? ... ... ... My point exactly.
• This new driver's ed thing. Josh's words suffice here: "If TCC wants to promote transit alternatives they should stay focused on getting more transit alternatives into the system."

I will say this, though, about the new TCC. They're pretty proficient fundraisers.

Care to cite a source for that nifty piece of info?

Archimedes: On the last point, holding off on ST2 would give the region time to ... evaluate whether augmented ST train service is precisely the type of transit alternatives that the region should embrace for the next 100 years. Things change, our perspective could change once we see what light rail actually is like in operation, and the one thing we don't need is $26 billion in YOE debt AND a case of buyers' remorse in three years.

Hey, this is a great idea. Because y'know, light rail is a radical, revolutionary idea that has never been implemented anywhere else in the world. Let us tread cautiously into these wild frontiers.

Archimedes, you're fantastic. Where do you get your ideas from, the Kennedy School of Government or a late-night conversation with your pot-smoking buddies? I say we ditch the condescending, elitist liberals like TCC and follow nutty, populist liberals like you.

Yeah, Seattle liberals. Sometimes it seems like all the ones with brains have no spines. And all the ones with spines have no brains.

ST has a massive subarea equity imbalance. The east king co. subarea hasn't had enough spent in it because of the light rail spending in the n. king co. subarea. One of the reasons the legislature linked ST and RTID was so RTID money (primarily from the No. King subarea) could be spent on roads on the east side of the lake AND that would count as an offset against ST's subarea equity imbalance. That cite you ask for would be HB 2871 from last session.

Still with me?

And no, I'm not sure light rail is going to be all that great. The whole idea behind ST was that the first phase would be built, then if the people liked it, as second phase would be put forward. It may be that instead of fixed LRV track extensions a better transit model could be tried. You seem to have your mind made up, based on conceptual drawings and ridership projections that may be way low and riding trains in other cities with different land use development patters and geographical realities. Just because Denver likes it doesn't mean it will work here. Let's try this LRV system here first, before committing anything further to it. That's prudent, and realistic.

If you were designing the taxing scheme to pay for the SR 520 work Cressona, how would you allocate the taxes and tolls (that is, types of taxes, amounts of bonding, etc.). I start from the premise that businesses are the primary beneficiaries of that project, and they should pay the lion's share of it.

The fact that the RTID and ST2 measure leaves a multi-billion dollar shortfall for the SR 520 work is reason enough to pull the plug on ST2 and RTID.

Let's say RTID and ST2 pass as is in Nov. Where would you tax to make up the SR 520 shortfall.

---------
From the website:

The Transportation Choices Coalition unites public interest groups, businesses, public agencies and concerned individuals to educate the public and promote policies that support transportation choices. Transportation Choices Coalition partners include:

Non-Profit Organizations and Public Agencies*

Amalgamated Transit Union Legislative Council
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1015
Amalgamated Transit Union Local 587
Bicycle Alliance of Washington
Cascade Bicycle Club
City of Kirkland
City of Redmond
City of Sammamish
City of Seattle
Climate Solutions
Communications Workers of America Local 7800
Community Transit (Snohomish)
Feet First
Futurewise
Intercity Transit
King County Metro
Kitsap Transit
League of Women Voters of Washington
Northwest Ballot Watch
Pierce Transit
People for Modern Transit
People for Puget Sound
Pilchuck Audubon of Snohomish County
Puget Sound Alliance for Retired Americans
Seattle Audubon Society
Sierra Club - Cascade Chapter
Sound Transit
Spokane Transit Authority
Spokane Transit Authority Employee Advisory Council
Surface Transportation Policy Project (STTP)
Tacoma Wheelmen's Bicycle Club
Tahoma Audubon Society (Pierce County)
Tour de Hammer Cycling Club
Washington Association of Rail Passengers
Washington Citizens for Resource Conservation
Washington Conservation Voters
Washington Environmental Council
Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG)
Washington Environmental Alliance for Voter Education (WEAVE)
Washington State Ridesharing Organization (Board)
Washington State Transit Association
Whatcom Transportation Authority

Businesses
Bricklin Newman Dold, LLP
Crane International, Inc.
Flexcar
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Gendler & Mann, LLP
Good Nature Publishing Company
MacGowan and Associates
Perteet, Inc.
Starbucks - Facilities Dept.
Transportation Solutions, Inc.
Vulcan, Inc.
Washington Bike Law
Zimmer Gunsul Frasca Partnership

* Membership dues from public agencies or entities are not spent on campaign or lobbying activities.

If the aim is to teach future drivers that bikes exist as a transportation alternative to cars I agree. But most bike commuters, liberals or conservatives, would overwhelmingly approve of having the sections of the vehicle code that pertain specifically to bikes taught in Driver's Ed classes.

Plus backing RTID which should die.

They support a tunnel - the absolute worst environmental solution. Billions for roads...

You say, "It will leave a multi-billion dollar funding shortfall for the SR 520 work, while soaking up trasportation tax dollars that should be spent instead on SR 520"

This is just plain wrong. The state is supposed to pay for the basic costs of replacing a STATE highway. This is true for both the viaduct and 520. RTID is supposed to pay for the extra lane for HOV and transit to use. It is the state who needs to pony up more money for 520, not this region.

RTID will funnel the same amount from everyone in the region, not just Seattle. The funding is primarily motor vehicle tabs.

You clearly don't use transit and fail to recognize its benefits to you already, bad as it is here in Seattle. You can't build your way out of congestion. Countless cities have found that lanes fill up as soon as you can build them. A car is a big thing for one person to move around in.

Transit on the other hand, can carry far more people in less space in dense urban environments. It also has the power to transform station areas into dense, walkable, vibrant neighborhoods. Growth happens in certain areas for people who are comfortable in living without a car. Developers love rail over buses because they can bet on a fixed track. Go to the Pearl in Portland or Commercial Drive in Vancouver to see what happens in station areas.

I don't follow you, care to elaborate?

How is the tunnel the "the absolute worst environmental solution"?

The focus of drivers ed is traffic safety and ought to stay that way.

We need new people running some of groups and they need to get out of Seattle more often.

Sen. Ken Jacobsen has prefiled a bill this session to give King County an additional sales tax, but only to pay for state highway work. So the way this scam is going to work, is if the voters approve ST2/RTID, then King County will impose an ADDITIONAL sales tax on those same people to make up part of the SR 520 work shortfall.

The theory is: let the people vote to tax themselves on what they want, but impose even greater sales taxes to come up with the money needed for basic infrastructure upgrades.

Sleazy, scummy, duplicitous - any other words fit?