Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Morning News | Hoo Rah! »

Friday, March 23, 2007

The Text of Sen. Murray’s “Screw RTID (and Sound Transit a Little Too)” Letter

posted by on March 23 at 9:33 AM

Yesterday I posted about state Sen. Ed Murray’s letter calling for Sound Transit’s light rail expansion and the Regional Transportation Investment District’s road expansion plan to be decoupled at the polls.

Murray says RTID isn’t ready to go the voters. He also says Sound Transit’s plan to go east across I-90 is half-baked. (ST told me Murray’s way off base on that point.) Anyway, Murray’s letter basically says the only thing that should be on the ballot in November is ST’s plan to go north, and forget about RTID.

This is all to say, I couldn’t post the actual letter yesterday because I only had a PDF. But voila, now I’ve got a Word version. Sen. Murray’s letter is attached below.

March 21, 2007

The Honorable The Honorable
Senator Lisa Brown Speaker Frank Chopp
Senate Majority Leader Speaker of the House
307 Legislative Building 339C Legislative Building
PO Box 40403 PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0403 Olympia, WA 98504-0600

The Honorable The Honorable
Senator Mary Margaret Haugen Representative Judy Clibborn
Chair, Senate Transportation Committee Chair, House Transportation
305 John A. Cherberg Building Committee
PO Box 40410 435 John L. O’Brien Building
Olympia, WA 98504-0410 PO Box 40600
Olympia, WA 98504-0600

Dear Senator Brown, Speaker Chopp, Madame Chairs Haugen and Clibborn,

I am writing to offer my thoughts on how best to revise the proposal for a Regional Transportation Commission. Any proposal must consider the ongoing concerns about the joint ballot measure of Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and Sound Transit scheduled for the upcoming general election this November. As you remember, as a result of negotiations last year, the RTID and Sound Transit were required to jointly place their respective proposals on the ballot, both contingent upon each other passing before either could take effect. I am concerned these proposals are not far enough along in their development to be placed on the 2007 general election ballot as currently configured.

These concerns include:

• The amounts of and types of taxes placed on the ballot – between the two entities, taxpayers in the joint boundaries will be paying an additional 0.6% sales tax and a 0.8% motor vehicle excise tax, both historically controversial taxes;



• The RTID package contains projects that will despite our recent historic transportation funding packages will not be completed (e.g., SR 167, SR 520 bridge replacement and HOV project, SR 509, and U.S. 2);


• There remain outstanding issues on SR 520 – no final project design has been selected, no final location has been determined yet for the pontoon construction, the environmental planning time frame is too long as it has no date certain for process completion, the toll estimates are very high and should be reevaluated based on more recent data, and a process needs to be in place that leads to a consensus among impacted communities regarding mitigation of the project impacts; and

• Questions remain regarding the preferred high capacity transportation option across the I-90 floating bridge, which Sound Transit has deemed to be the light rail option. This option has yet to receive the comprehensive environmental planning and traffic mitigation assessments required of Sound Transit.

I recommend the Legislature develop the following alternative this legislative session:

Pass legislation permitting Sound Transit to submit to the voters this fall part of their current proposal, excluding all projects that have not been sufficiently developed and planned or that fail to include well defined project schedules.

Integrate the remainder of the RTID and Sound Transit projects into a regional transportation proposal. In the interest of not slowing down the delivery of these projects the governing structure should be in place by the end of this year. I believe this will allow us to develop a truly integrated transit and road package under the auspices of a new regional governing entity, such as a Regional Transportation Commission.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Senator Edward B. Murray
Vice-Chair, Senate Transportation Committee

RSS icon Comments

1

I would be happy to see Sound Transit be able to drop the RTID albatross. But this region's been planning to build light rail across I-90 since the 1970s and Ed Murray doesn't think it has been fleshed out enough?!

I'm really, really not trusting this guy now. I'm starting to feel like this is an episode of "24" where you find out a long-time CTU agent is actually a mole for some powerful terror organization.

Why is he going after light rail to the Eastside?

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 9:40 AM
2

I love this line from Murray's letter concerning 520: ...and a process needs to be in place that leads to a consensus among impacted communities regarding mitigation of the project impacts;...

I just love that he uses the word consensus. Whenever a politician uses the word consensus -- especially in this area and especially when it comes to transportation -- there are only three possible interpretations:

  • He's incredibly naïve.
  • He's entering BS territory.
  • He's trying to stall or kill a project through the very Seattle-ific "death by a thousand processes."

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 9:47 AM
3

Cressona @2,
Good questions. I'm also curious about Sen. Murray's position on starting over on I-90. Is it just payback because Seattle (First Hill and Cap Hill) didn't get all the stations they wanted, and so... he's smacking down the suburbs? I've been playing phone tag with Sen. Murray for 24 hours. I will ask him to expain why he thinks ST's I-90 plan isn't good to go.

Posted by Josh Feit | March 23, 2007 9:47 AM
4


I’m very glad to see what Sen. Murray actually wrote.

His first point is PRO-TAXPAYER. This is not a “screwthe governments" letter. His first point is pro-constituent, and not pro-special interest. Compare that with EVERYTHING that came out of Nickels' mouth relating to the viaduct vote.

Right now the people of this area pay at or near the top in sales tax rates. Those impact the poorest in our community the hardest. Poor families with kids (needing clothes and shoes and bedding, for example) pay a proportionately huge amount of what they have to spend in sales taxes in this region. It would be one thing if the ST1 sales tax was going away, but ST2/RTID sales tax is a huge .6% on top of the existing 8.9%. Plus there may be additional sales taxes to pay for the shortfall on the SR 520 project.

Again, the Senator is very much concerned about impacts on PEOPLE. That is an extremely valid concern. The problem with reporting on these megaprojects is how the proponents just tout supposed benefits. At least the Senator is balancing that out by this letter.

Here are revenue sources that should be used to pay for ST expansion: per-mile tax on drivers, congestion-priced tolls (RFID chips, like in Maryland), employer tax (a couple of bucks a month per employee, businesses with less than five employees exempted), luxury tax on motor vehicles. Those are examples of raising revenue from the persons who cause the problem and who will reap the benefits (employers, mostly).

But enough with the sales taxes paying for commuter trains!

Posted by Albert Hall | March 23, 2007 10:02 AM
5

Several other things are puzzling me about this letter.

Murray writes: Pass legislation permitting Sound Transit to submit to the voters this fall part of their current proposal, excluding all projects that have not been sufficiently developed and planned or that fail to include well defined project schedules.

Is Murray saying that Sound Transit should only put U District-Northgate light rail on the ballot? Nothing else? So if the entire Sound Transit area will be voting on this, what will everybody outside of Seattle have to be voting on in their area? Isn't this just setting up Sound Transit to fail this fall? I mean, with a gift like this, shouldn't Sound Transit be saying, "Thanks, but no thanks?"

Wasn't Sound Transit raring to go to the ballot last fall? And now Murray thinks an additional year's planning isn't enough? And if he was so concerned about the lack of planning, where was he before this?

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 10:04 AM
6

Y'know, I keep hearing all this talk about governance and how all this region's transportation project problems can be traced to a lack of centralized and accountable governance. But what is the one fundamental problem this region's transportation projects are facing? Inertia. An inability to get going on them. And inability to get voter and/or elected approval.

And yet, here is one set of projects, Sound Transit 2, that has an overwhelming favorable chance of getting voter approval. And this is the set of projects you want to hold up? It's a bit like bombing the village to try to save it. You're trying to fix the problem in the one case where it doesn't need fixing and where the mere act of fixing it is the problem.

I mean, this really gets to the crux of why I am so very suspicious of Ed Murray. I'm getting to the point now of missing these all-roads, all-free guys like Jim Horn. At least you knew they were the enemy and not a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 10:05 AM
7

Albert Hall: His first point is PRO-TAXPAYER. This is not a “screwthe governments" letter. His first point is pro-constituent, and not pro-special interest. Compare that with EVERYTHING that came out of Nickels' mouth relating to the viaduct vote.

Tell you what, Albert, there's a group of people out there who are always looking out for the interests of taxpayers. They're called voters. Let's see how the voters feel about taxing themselves for Sound Transit. Or are you one of these special-interest elitists who are afraid to hear the will of the people?

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 10:10 AM
8

Ed is very well know for carry grudges, and he and Chopp did not get along.

He thrives on center stage attention, and in angling to go to congress.

I think SounD transit is the most on target program we have going - after all the problems, bull shit and blah blah blah of their opponents ---THEY ARE BUILDING AND OPERATING LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT --- RIDE TO TACOMA YOU FOOLS.

Why, oh why, would any plan set them back - turn them loose!!!!!!

Posted by earl | March 23, 2007 10:11 AM
9

RTID is dead, and Ed knows it.

Now, that doesn't mean Seattle won't back the 520 bridge rebuild - much taxes - or the ST light rail extensions - much taxes.

But the eastside can wait their turn. Seattle has been paying for their roads since I was a kid living north of Spokane in the 70s.

Time to wait. Waiting is good.

Meanwhile, we need to DOUBLE local transit in Seattle - everything - streetcars, bus, light rail, monorail - everything.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 23, 2007 10:14 AM
10

There are eleventy-one reasons why the sales tax is so high, and ST is only one of them. The fact is we don't have a different mechanism. It would be nice to see something new and clever like a carbon tax come along, or making the gas tax available to non-road projects, but I don't see that happening even with a Dem majority.

The problem Murray is facing is that without some extreme finesse transit isn't going to get approved at all. It's not a big winner statewide; EVERYONE outside the metro region is against it, and a large portion of the people in the metro region is against it too.

My response to this letter is that Murray has access to some numbers that suggest that this is the only way to successfully go forward. It's about politics and votes, not just what plan is at what stage. They may have been talking about transit on I-90 for three decades, but that's not the same as a workable finalized plan, which exists for neither 90 or 520.

I'm not necessarily defending Murray; I'm just wondering if maybe that's why he's tearing down these linkages -- because he thinks they're going to fail. Maybe Northgate is all we can realistically get this voting cycle.

Maybe once ST actually opens and runs some trains, and people see it working (and it had better effing work, and be full) we can go forward on the Eastside. In the meantime, draw those plans. Am I wrong?

Posted by Fnarf | March 23, 2007 10:18 AM
11

We already decades behind on rapid transit.

Even immediate approval means another decades of waiting as construction costs spiral ever upwards.

We no longer have the time to let the perfect be the enemy of the good. Just because I don't like the particular mix of taxes, or because the line doesn't go right by my office, doesn't mean we should stop or delay the construction of a transit backbone for the region -- any possible gain in "efficiency" from additional procedural delay is overwhelmed by construction inflation and reduction in quality of life in the meantime.

The time for additional good ideas is long past. It's time to start building.

Posted by MHD | March 23, 2007 10:22 AM
12

Fnarf: The problem Murray is facing is that without some extreme finesse transit isn't going to get approved at all. It's not a big winner statewide; EVERYONE outside the metro region is against it, and a large portion of the people in the metro region is against it too.

Sound Transit's polling data has shown solid support for their Phase 2. I mean, they're not chomping at the bit to go to the ballot because they're a bunch of kamikaze idiots.

Fnarf: My response to this letter is that Murray has access to some numbers that suggest that this is the only way to successfully go forward.

Y'know, Dick Cheney had access to some top-secret information that the rest of us didn't, and look how that turned out. Sorry, but I live in a democracy, and I really don't want to give up evaluating projects at face value based on what I know so that I can instead make a mystical attempt to divine some wise man's ulterior motives.

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 10:25 AM
13

But you're willing to accept ST's own polling data? Why do you think they're not getting biased results themselves?

Look, Cressona, I know you don't like me, but we're on the same side here (and so is Murray). But you seem very ready to attack him all of a sudden. I don't know what's what; but I don't think he resembles Dick Cheney very much, though we all know how attractive a metaphor that is.

I think the appropriate response should be to ask Murray a lot more questions. I'm glad the Stranger's doing that; I'm just peeved that there's fuck-all about it in the P-I. I wanna know what's going on.

Posted by Fnarf | March 23, 2007 10:32 AM
14

Murray's wrong. We need all the infrastructure we can get, as soon as we can get it. That's why I supported either rebuilding the Viaduct or repairing it.

I'm with Cressona and MHD on this part of the issue. Quit talking and start building.

Posted by ivan | March 23, 2007 10:36 AM
15

Will-

"Time to wait. Waiting is good."

You have got to be kidding me.

"Meanwhile, we need to DOUBLE local transit in Seattle - everything - streetcars, bus, light rail, monorail - everything."

Considering that just paying for the monorail pretty much kicked our ass, I'm not sure what tax base you think is going to fund this "doubling" of local transit service.

Whether or not Seattle has subsidized the Eastside in the past, WE NEED the tax base over there, and their congestion problems are at least as bad as ours.

If you want their support (and we do), we HAVE to put something in it for them.

And, oh, by the way, a lot of SEATTLE RESIDENTS work on the Eastside, and benefit from transit improvements over there.

Posted by MHD | March 23, 2007 10:40 AM
16

"Quit talking and start building."

Quite right.

"Start building" the replacment for the northern floating bridge over lake washington.

And "quit talking" about obscenely expensive train extensions that only will benefit a tiny fraction of our population and only marginally increase the State's overall economic performance.

Posted by has perspective | March 23, 2007 10:48 AM
17

has perspective-

By definition, any single transportation project benefits a "small fraction" of the regions population -- are they all not worth doing.

Studies indicate that the capacity of light rail is equal *several* additional highway lanes on I-5. (Transit geeks - Was it 7?)

"Obscenely expensive"? How much would those lanes cost?

Posted by MHD | March 23, 2007 10:53 AM
18

Fnarf: But you're willing to accept ST's own polling data? Why do you think they're not getting biased results themselves?

Look, Cressona, I know you don't like me, but we're on the same side here (and so is Murray). But you seem very ready to attack him all of a sudden. I don't know what's what; but I don't think he resembles Dick Cheney very much, though we all know how attractive a metaphor that is.

Fnarf, I'm sorry to see you're trying to make this personal. It's really beside the point whether I like you or dislike you or whether I've even bothered to make such a judgment. So why do I have such faith in Sound Transit's polling data? Because I have faith that people running a huge government agency are not going to stupidly step into a fight they'll probably lose.

Besides, I have a lot more faith in Sound Transit's polling than in some mysterious polling that you speculate Ed Murray has some special access to. Gosh, maybe Murray's polls are hidden inside some weapons-grade aluminum tubes. I'm also sorry to see that you've twisted my comparison between these mysterious polls numbers you claim only Ed Murray has access into a comparison between Ed Murray and Dick Cheney.

Fnarf, I realize it's hard to deal with the idea that a mass transit project might actually be a winner at the polls. So it takes quite a bit of mental gymnastics to rationalize keeping it away from the polls.

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 11:01 AM
19

What a fucking brilliant idea. Lets take Seattle penchant for dicking around over everything to the state level. Can we vote on ST2/RTID 5 or 6 times too?

Posted by Giffy | March 23, 2007 11:24 AM
20

I'm sorry if I sound a little ignorant of this Sound Transit issue. The main thing I know, living in Beacon Hill, is that I get mailings on the update of construction going on over at MLK. I assume this is tied to the airport construction going on. This is good stuff right? MLK is being butchered for the time being, but good in the long run? Maybe the condo buildup 'whitewashing' of MLK that Josh has referred to condescendingly is another short-term petty grievance, but actually good for the future.

Posted by i fudge my taxes anyway | March 23, 2007 11:25 AM
21

Ed Murray is wrong. Even though there are legitimate issues about the source of funding and the level of planning for certain projects, derailing a plan that is very popular in polling to date is not a way to address those issues. It's particularly not effective when the things that are being questioned are actually the stronger parts of the existing Sound Transit plan. The I-90 light rail connection is vitally important for the long-term regional success of the plan, is strongly backed by Eastside voters, and is as well planned as any other part of ST2.

Will @9 is wrong to suggest delaying the I-90 segment. Everything in ST2 is important, and that's the most important part. I'd also like a plan that gets us all the way to Everett and not just Lynnwood, adds in a 405 line or some kind of north-south light rail component, includes a western in-city line for neighborhoods that were to be served by the monorail, and considers local spurs such as a north lake line along Lake City Way/Bothell Way between the main line and 405. But let's start with what we already know has support.

Then, after ST2 passes, we can and should come back for additional funding from more sensible sources in order to expand and accelerate light rail construction. The sales tax well is going to be tapped out after this, particularly if RTID remains wedded to ST2. But trying to change the funding or governance parts of this now is just going to sabotage the whole thing just as it's on the verge of being approved.

Also, to Fnarf, I trust Sound Transit's polling because I've seen it and taken part in it and it's very thorough, and not at all biased to produce the results they got. I'd say they were being cautious and planned for the medium-rail option being the most popular. Yet people heavily selected the most rail-intensive option, even though the expense of that option was not downplayed. My feedback to them was to push harder for more transit. My sense is that if anything they're behind the public in terms of what they're pushing. Yet some people, like Murray, want to scale back the plan even further. That's just wrong.

Also, it doesn't matter what the state thinks about ST2 because ST2 is a metro region project that has no impact on the rest of the state. What people in the rest of the state think doesn't matter in this case.

Posted by Cascadia | March 23, 2007 11:39 AM
22

Ed Murray is wrong. Even though there are legitimate issues about the source of funding and the level of planning for certain projects, derailing a plan that is very popular in polling to date is not a way to address those issues. It's particularly not effective when the things that are being questioned are actually the stronger parts of the existing Sound Transit plan. The I-90 light rail connection is vitally important for the long-term regional success of the plan, is strongly backed by Eastside voters, and is as well planned as any other part of ST2.

Will @9 is wrong to suggest delaying the I-90 segment. Everything in ST2 is important, and that's the most important part. I'd also like a plan that gets us all the way to Everett and not just Lynnwood, adds in a 405 line or some kind of north-south light rail component, includes a western in-city line for neighborhoods that were to be served by the monorail, and considers local spurs such as a north lake line along Lake City Way/Bothell Way between the main line and 405. But let's start with what we already know has support.

Then, after ST2 passes, we can and should come back for additional funding from more sensible sources in order to expand and accelerate light rail construction. The sales tax well is going to be tapped out after this, particularly if RTID remains wedded to ST2. But trying to change the funding or governance parts of this now is just going to sabotage the whole thing just as it's on the verge of being approved.

Also, to Fnarf, I trust Sound Transit's polling because I've seen it and taken part in it and it's very thorough, and not at all biased to produce the results they got. I'd say they were being cautious and planned for the medium-rail option being the most popular. Yet people heavily selected the most rail-intensive option, even though the expense of that option was not downplayed. My feedback to them was to push harder for more transit. My sense is that if anything they're behind the public in terms of what they're pushing. Yet some people, like Murray, want to scale back the plan even further. That's just wrong.

Also, it doesn't matter what the state thinks about ST2 because ST2 is a metro region project that has no impact on the rest of the state. What people in the rest of the state think doesn't matter in this case.

Posted by Cascadian | March 23, 2007 11:39 AM
23

Also, I'm a double-posting idiot.

Posted by Cascadian | March 23, 2007 11:42 AM
24

Cascadia:

"Also, it doesn't matter what the state thinks about ST2 because ST2 is a metro region project that has no impact on the rest of the state. What people in the rest of the state think doesn't matter in this case."

That's where you're wrong.

All the Eyman initiatives were voted on by the entire state: did they affect ST funding?

Don't legislators from Spokane have equal ability to Murray to screw things up for Sound Transit? The state legislature has made clear it won't lift a finger to help, but it's sure good at coming up with ways to help.

I'm so disillusioned with the State Democratic Party - supposedly the "pro-transit" one - that even the slightest nod to rail transit would cause me to vote Republican. I'm that close to a single-issue voter on transportation. Luckily, that's not too likely.

Posted by MHD | March 23, 2007 12:02 PM
25

Cascadian @21 @22 @23, well stated. I was really hoping after the whole viaduct election I wouldn't have to worry about transportation issues for a while. Oh, how wrong I was.

And to think the super-pro-transit 43rd District has graced us with both Frank Chopp and Ed Murray! Way to go, 43rd.

Posted by cressona | March 23, 2007 12:06 PM
26

MHD - look, no matter how you spin it, RTID is deader than a doornail. Will Seattle vote for 405 - yeah, probably, if bundled with 520 rebuild. But we've had it with building more roads for you.

And you NEED our votes to pass it - period. We know that. We need doubled local transit in Seattle - NOW. Everything. Bus, light rail, streetcar, monorail, everything. Unless you deliver, we vote your roads down - and shed not a tear for you.

Meanwhile my ex is working at MSFT in Redmond and I used to commute from Ballard to Issaquah and then Crossroads via 99 and 90, so don't give me your whining.

We are the voters. You are the whiners. No transit - no votes. Deal with it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 23, 2007 12:07 PM
27

and Cressona - i never said delay the I-90 light rail extension - I said the highways.

RTID is still dead.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 23, 2007 12:10 PM
28

MHD, you're right that the rest of the state can sabotage this with legislation that screws over Sound Transit, but if they do it's not because it affects them but because they just hate Seattle, plain and simple.

Not a dime of money from outside the state is going to transportation projects in the metro area. We pay more in taxes to the state than we get in services. Our critical regional agency is supported by voters and taxes entirely within the metro area, not even including the rural areas of the metro counties. Screwing with Sound Transit in the Legislature is nothing but pure pettiness, and it appears as if Ed Murray is being one of the most petty.

Posted by Cascadian | March 23, 2007 12:11 PM
29

"All the Eyman initiatives were voted on by the entire state: did they affect ST funding?"

Not really, the SC put a stop to that.

Honestly the only real problem with ST2 is that it takes too long. I understand the realities of taxes and public support, but personally I would be willing to pay 2-3 times what they are asking for if it got build in a few years instead of a decade or more.

Posted by Giffy | March 23, 2007 12:17 PM
30

Will @ 27, I guess I misunderstood you as wanting to delay light rail on the Eastside, rather than just delaying the highways. I agree with you that roads can wait.

I would be willing to pay for one final round of roads, if it was the only way to pass ST2 and it really was the last round of road funding. If splitting RTID from ST2 threatens ST2, then let's go ahead with keeping them joined. If the two can be split without threatening ST2, we should split them ASAP.

I'm just not sure that it's possible to excise RTID without killing a 2007 vote for ST2.

Posted by Cascadian | March 23, 2007 12:18 PM
31

Cascadian:

I think RTID does threaten ST2 and it should be split. It's not just the environmental issues around the RTID projects, it's also the overall tax burden with the bloated RTID list included. In that regard, Murray is right that many of the RTID projects are half-baked and not ready to be reviewed by voters.

But, Murray is wrong about I-90. I haven't talked to him about this, but a transportation lobbyist told me he thought that Murray included I-90 because, for political reasons, he needed to criticize both the roads and transits side of the equation. The I-90 crossing is the only ST2 project that isn't completely baked, although not through any fault of ST. Those problems have more to do with WSDOT's insistence on not losing any SOV lane capacity and because of the Mercer Islanders who think they deserve their own private highway (but paid for by the public). That said, these issues are nothing that should hold ST back from going forward with a complete ST2 proposal.

BTW, WashPIRG and the Sierra Club, the environmental organizations most critical of the RTID plan are communicating to Murray and others that we believe Murray's arguments re: RTID projects and separation of RTID from ST2 should get serious consideration but we want ST2 kept whole and intact.

Posted by Bill LaBorde | March 23, 2007 12:59 PM
32

Re: ST polling data in favor of more ST. I hope you're right. I'm not a pollster. But I see a lot of non-Seattle residents who think transit is a stupid-ass waste of resources (like our buddy "has perspective" here). I'm not talking about the state; I'm talking about Puget Sound, which outnumbers Seattle at least five to one, and is expanding much faster. Some of those folks want transit, but a lot of them don't, or don't care. I'm afraid of that car culture, because I actually SEE it. I hope I'm wrong. I hope you're right.

Again: ask Murray to explain this more.

Posted by Fnarf | March 23, 2007 1:05 PM
33

Will --

I think you're getting the wrong idea from my post.

1. I live in Seattle, though I work in Bellevue.
2. I take transit every day to work, and quite often to other destinations. I get in a car maybe twice a week.
3. You won't find a stronger advocate for light rail than me, building it now and everywhere, costs be damned.

Your comment that
"But the eastside can wait their turn. Seattle has been paying for their roads since I was a kid living north of Spokane in the 70s",
in the context of a thread about Ed Murray slowing down East Link, led me, like Cascadia, to believe you were in favor of that move. Sorry for the confusion.

As for building the highways, on the Eastside and everywhere else, as *someone who thinks transit projects are better than roads*, I have a number of thoughts that put me odds with most others on this thread:
1) If you actually look at the road projects, a lot of them are HOV related. This benefits transit more than roads. Of course, there are exceptions.
2) I spoke with an ST planner, and East Link won't start building until the I-90 HOV project is complete. The last phase of this, I believe, is funded by RTID.
3) ST2 doesn't really help people commuting from Auburn to Bellevue, say. Are we going to deny them any help (in the form of road expansion) and expect them to fund our projects?
4) I'm concerned we may be in a bit of a "Seattle-liberal/Slog" cocoon about the relative popularity of RTID and Sound Transit. The Sound Politics types are convinced that ST2 is a millstone around the neck of RTID; we can't both be right about this political reality. Are voters in Edmonds, Woodinville, Duvall, Lakewood, and hell, Mercer Island, really excited about a transit plan that may or may not connect their home with their workplace?

Posted by MHD | March 23, 2007 1:11 PM
34

Cascadia--

You're right that not a dime comes from Olympia. Still, I wouldn't put it past them to screw us just to stick it to Seattle.

However, not all the dollars are regional. The Feds chipped in something like $750 mil for Central and University Link.

I read somewhere that ours is the only rail project in the nation with no state funds. Worthless, they are.

Posted by MHD | March 23, 2007 1:22 PM
35

Fnarf: I've seen some of the ST polling, and a lot of statewide and Puget Sound transportation polling over the years and it is very clear, voters in the Puget Sound support transit - bus transit, rail transit, Metro Transit, Pierce Transit, Community Transit and Pierce Transit.

Puget Sound voters support it all, and by fairly significant margins. While support does diminish when you get out into exurban areas, in the cities and close in suburbs people want more rail and bus service. Every transit tax measure since the mid-90s has passed in the three central Puget Sound counties, Tim Eyman's 2000 anti-transit measure went down in flames statewide (40/60) and by much bigger margins in the Puget Sound. Eyman's 2002 anti-Sound Transit I-776 won statewide, but lost handily in the three Puget Sound counties.

Sound Transit's boundaries exclude most of the rural parts of the 3 counties, so ST2 would likely pass pretty handily without any road projects attached. This is why the road hogs so desperately wanted RTID tied to ST2.

I think this fear that suburban voters don't like transit goes too that insecurity that us liberals seem to have, generally, about the poplularity of our beliefs. Maybe it's even a manifestation of that elitism that conservatives always accuse of exhibiting (i.e., we're so smart, the masses must be opposed to everything we think is good).

Posted by Bill LaBorde | March 23, 2007 1:35 PM
36

Bill,

My insecurity comes from personal experience. Working on the Eastside, at a location poorly served by transit, I'm the only one in my group that regularly takes the bus.

It's also been my experience at other jobs I've had.

Most of my coworkers simply can't conceive of getting to work some way other than the car. They grew up with that, have done it all their lives, and in many cases think the bus is just for poor people.

I might as well suggest they get to work with a jetpack; it's simply outside their frame of reference.

I hope I'm wrong. I think that attitude is changing in the area.

Posted by MHD | March 23, 2007 2:41 PM
37

My point was that, without the margin of voters in SEATTTLE who vote for the roads taxes - and yes, it's SEATTLE not the Eastside that makes those pass - that RTID is doomed.

And right now it's too roads-heavy to have a hope in Hades of passing.

Seattle is tired of excuses and tired of subsidizing others - and quite frankly, we are just asking for our due.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 23, 2007 3:07 PM
38

#36:

There are good and bad parts of the Eastside for transit. But ride the bus along the future light rail corridor. Buses are packed all day long in Redmond, and Overlake, and downtown Bellevue. There aren't a lot of people riding in Duvall and Carnation or whatever, but honestly, there still aren't that many people living in those places, and those areas are mostly outside of the Sound Transit district.

It's true that far more people drive on the Eastside than take transit, and the default mode of transportation is still the car, but that's true of Seattle as well. Attitudes have a long way to go on both sides of the lake. The majority on both sides is headed in the right direction.

Fnarf's got weird ideas about the population of the Puget Sound region. His 5:1 ratio is sort of close if you are comparing all of Puget Sound to the city of Seattle proper, but the reality as Bill LaBorde says is that the entire metro core is pro-transit, not just Seattle. You have to be way out in the suburbs or rural areas before the yahoo mentality wins out. The Sound Transit district holds over 3.1 million people, about half the state's total population and a large majority of the Puget Sound region. That area as a whole is pro-transit. The city-suburb split is largely (not entirely) a myth.

Posted by Cascadian | March 23, 2007 4:11 PM
39

@38 - true that. Give us transit or watch RTID die.

Posted by Will in Seattle | March 23, 2007 4:24 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).