Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Letter of the Day | Today in Line Out »

Friday, August 31, 2007

Sierra Club Case Against Roads/Transit Package Moves Forward

posted by on August 31 at 15:26 PM

Environmentalists who oppose this November’s $17.5 billion roads and transit package (they think the roads portion cancels out the benefits of the transit portion), took Sound Transit to court this morning arguing that Sound Transit (cleverly) picked a cuckoo road warrior, Kemper Freeman, to write the Nay statement in the voters’ pamphlet. They believe that his message—strictly anti-transit—will turn off liberal King County voters.

Meanwhile, (environmentalists worry) liberal voters won’t hear the complaints from the left about the $6.9 billion roads portion of the package—and how it would impact the environment.

Erica covered this in a recent column, writing:

The Sierra Club is opposing the joint roads/transit measure on the ballot in November. (The Sierra Club supports Sound Transit, but says its environmental benefits are canceled out by the $6.9 billion roads package to which it is linked.) Last week, the Club sought—unsuccessfully—to get its anti-roads argument included in King County’s voter guide. Sound Transit handpicked the committee that will write the opposition statement; predictably, it includes only light-rail opponents whose message (unlike the Sierra Club’s anti-roads rap) will be poorly received in pro-transit King County.

Erica didn’t cover the hearing this morning, sighing: “They’re going to lose.”

But, they did not! At least not yet. The KC Superior Court judge saw the logic of the Sierra Club’s arguments this morning and has asked for a further hearing.

Says the Sierra Club’s Mike O’Brien:

“We are pleased that the judge is prepared to address our primary concern: the “no” committee only represents an anti-transit viewpoint, with no mention of the opposition to the highway portion of the bill,” said Mike O’Brien, Chair of the Sierra Club’s Cascade Chapter. “We believe the voters that are being asked to pass the largest tax increase in history should know that they will be funding projects that can make global warming worse, not better.

I’ve linked the Citizens Against RTID press release below

SEATTLE – Citizens Against RTID today argued in court that the “No” committee appointed by Sound Transit to write the voters’ pamphlet statement does not include environmental opponents concerned about the global warming effects of massive highway construction. King County Superior Court Judge Eadie agreed that the issue deserved further attention, and invited a new hearing date on the matter to more fully develop the factual and legal issues before deciding it.

The court further ruled that Will Knedlik and Kemper Freeman, who have been appointed by Sound Transit to write the Voters Pamphlet statement, could join the lawsuit as parties. Finally, the court also ruled that Sound Transit had the authority to appoint a committee to write the voters pamphlet statement, but, as stated above, reserved for a further hearing the question of whether Sound Transit had properly identified the full spectrum of known opponents. The next hearing will be next Friday, Sept. 7

“We are pleased that the judge is prepared to address our primary concern: the “no” committee only represents an anti-transit viewpoint, with no mention of the opposition to the highway portion of the bill,” said Mike O’Brien, Chair of the Sierra Club’s Cascade Chapter. “We believe the voters that are being asked to pass the largest tax increase in history should know that they will be funding projects that can make global warming worse, not better.”

The judge also suggested that the parties should seek to resolve the matter by agreement prior to an additional hearing. Citizens Against RTID are communicating with the authors of the “no” ballot statement (Kemper Freeman Jr., Will Knedlik, and Phil Talmadge) – all Sound Transit opponents – to see if they can agree on a revised version of the statement that discusses our main concerns. Citizens Against RTID want to ensure that the voters have accurate information about Proposition 1’s highway building aspects and its affect on increasing carbon emissions. These points include:

Proposition 1 will increase global warming pollution in the Puget Sound region. At a time when almost all of our public officials have committed to drastically reducing carbon emissions, we should not be making massive, long-term investments in new CO2-generating roadway capacity.
Proposition 1 will not work. Studies show – and our own experience demonstrates – that all new highway lanes quickly fill with cars. When this highway expansion is finally completed 20 years from now, we will still have as much traffic congestion as we have today. RTID/ST2 ties up money that should go toward innovative congestion management strategies and further transit expansion.
Proposition 1 neglects our region’s most vulnerable bridges and road in favor of building expensive new highways. At a time when we have a transportation maintenance backlog of tens of billions of dollars, only one at-risk bridge would be fully addressed by RTID dollars. We should fix what we have before expanding the network.
Proposition 1 is the largest tax increase in the state’s history, and it is going to the wrong purpose. This highly regressive tax means all county residents will pay for highway building, even if they don’t use the roadways. There is a better way – quicker, cheaper – and that is congestion pricing.

RSS icon Comments

1

It's funny. At work this morning (in downtown Seattle, not the Eastside), I overheard this fellow grousing about this imaginary $20,000-per-rider subsidy for Sounder or some other twisted, fantasy statistic. And then something about "my front door" -- probably "I'm not taking a train until they build it to my front door."

It's overwhelmingly obvious that the bulk of the opposition to the joint ballot is going to come from a combination of anti-transit voters like this dude, anti-tax voters, anti-growth voters, and just anti-anything voters. It's not going to come from some narrow segment of transit fundamentalists who want a pure transit measure or nothing.

In other words, it's overwhelmingly obvious that Kemper Freeman and Phil Talmadge are far more apt spokespersons for the no side than the Sierra Club is. And yet, the Sierra Club refuses to see this, just like the Sierra Club refuses to see that the entrenched pro-highway interests in Olympia are not going to roll up the white flag if this joint ballot fails.

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 3:36 PM
2

This vote is not a referendum on transit. It is a vote for more roads, more global warming and more congestion. Transit is a pretty face to hide a bunch of new roads.

Posted by joanne | August 31, 2007 3:46 PM
3

Actually, if Kemper Freeman had some savvy, he would pass up writing the no statement and say, "Let the Sierra Club write it instead."

While Kemper's constituency is many, many times larger than the Sierra Club's cadre of utopian puritans, anyone who's inclined to believe Kemper's claims is already going to be in his camp. But the Sierra Club could put out a message that could mislead and sway a small but significant swing constituency. Kemper's like a Republican campaigning in Texas. But the Sierra Club is like Ralph Nader campaigning in Florida.

And I can just imagine the claims the Sierra Club could make that run the continuum from run-of-the-mill BS to outright lies. Like "they think the roads portion cancels out the benefits of the transit portion." Hey, I think the manufacturing potential of Bangladesh cancels out the manufacturing potential of China. Am I lying when I say this? Who cares if I can persuade a few naïve individuals?

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 3:48 PM
4

Cressona, you must think slog readers are morons.

You obviously support this package. You are constantly on this blog trying to bully people that raise any doubt.

And now you argue that the strongest spokesperson against this is Kemper and his anti-transit tirade....when all recent electoral and polling history proves otherwise.

Why would you expect anyone, much less slog readers, to believe you about who the best person is to represent the no side?

It's almost like Sound Transit picking the NO committee - oh wait, they already did that.

Posted by otterpop | August 31, 2007 3:51 PM
5

Joanne: This vote is not a referendum on transit. It is a vote for more roads, more global warming and more congestion. Transit is a pretty face to hide a bunch of new roads.

Uh, this may come as news to Joanne here. But this ballot features 50 new miles of light rail. The portion spent on transit in this package easily outweighs the portion spent on roads. And of that portion spent on roads, a heck of a lot is going towards bridge repairs, HOV lanes, bus ramps, toll roads, and mitigation, i.e. transit. Maybe someone else can break down the details, although it sounds like Joanne isn't exactly interested in the details.

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 3:53 PM
6

@2 "Transit is a pretty face to hid a bunch of new roads."

The joint package calls for $10.8 billion to go towards light rail - that's transit.

The other $7 billion, on the RTID side, includes about $700 million for bike paths, park and rides and buses.

If anything the package calls for roads hiding in the pretty face of transit.

Posted by Just a pretty face? | August 31, 2007 3:54 PM
7

Cressona - you totally changed your position 180 degrees in only 12 minutes. That must be some kind of record.

Posted by otterpop | August 31, 2007 3:55 PM
8

What baloney.

Fair is fair. Since there are two camps opposed to this measure, a fair ballot statement would give room to both of them. Duh.

And remember: the legislature originally set up Sound Transit to be a transit only proposition, we originally voted for it to be a transit only proposition, we originally voted for light rail to connect the major cities in Puget Sound.

It's only now, partway through, the majority of pro transit folks in this area are being unfairly forced to approve billions in congestion-causing roads to get Seattle-Everett-Tacoma-Bellevue rail that we already voted for.

This is called "bait and switch."
"Manipulation."

The legislature is too chicken to vote the taxes to pay for these roads programs so it passes a law to piggy back the roads on the pro transit majority.

When this "joint" ballot measure fails we will get to vote on the rail portion alone. They're not going to just stop light rail at UW you know. These predictions that this is our only chance to vote for rail are total baloney.

And yes, the entrenched pro roads pro global warming pro congestion pro sprawl monolith will come back and try for more roads again. Or, to put it less normatively, the roads portion will
come back.
So later on, you can vote yes for transit and no for roads. OR no and no. OR no and yes. Or yes and no.

That's the only way to have a fair vote on these topics -- a vote that is fair to everyone.

The forced-marriage approach is not fair and it wasn't chosen or approved by voters. In fact, the original Sound Transit vote that passed in effect disapproved this approach as it said nothing like "in order to get your light rail you will later be forced to approve billions in roads."

All the name calling (Transit fundamentalists" -- what are we now Al Qaeda??) and fact-assuming (that this sector is "narrow") in the world doesn't change the fundamental manipulation and unfairness of this ballot proposition.

No matter how you want to vote on this, and for sure, our communiuty is divided into several positions, to support excluding the Sierra Club's voice on this issue, and its global warming message, from the voters pamphlet, is to support governmental censorship.

Posted by Cleve | August 31, 2007 3:58 PM
9

otterpop:

You obviously support this package. You are constantly on this blog trying to bully people that raise any doubt.
And now you argue that the strongest spokesperson against this is Kemper and his anti-transit tirade....when all recent electoral and polling history proves otherwise.

Otterpop, I don't mind your calling me a bully (all for a good cause, I figure), but would you care to elaborate on that recent electoral and polling history?

I'm someone who opposed building a new, larger viaduct, and yet this year's viaduct referendum revealed that a new viaduct got a plurality of support. If it had been new viaduct-vs.-surface route, the surface route would have been trounced. And frankly, I'm glad that wasn't the choice. And this was in pro-transit, anti-freeways Seattle, not the huge urban-to-exurban swath of King and Snohomish and Pierce counties that will see this ballot measure.

Also, would you care to elaborate on recent legislative and voting history in Olympia? How's Ed Murray doing as a staunch light rail supporter? Oh, excuse me, he tried to table Eastside light rail and send a north extension of light rail to a sure defeat at the polls. Yeah, really friendly climate in Olympia.

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 4:04 PM
10

Now, I'll be first to admit that maybe my perspective is skewed, because of where I come from. I used to live near Detroit, where people generally were against paying *anything* for transit. But it seems to me you have to build a coalition of road users and transit users to pass something like this.

The key question is, is the pro-transit contingent here really enough of the population to pass a proposal without some new road miles in it? I'm skeptical. I think the roads are the sugar that helps the transit-tax medicine go down.

Posted by Orv | August 31, 2007 4:08 PM
11

otterpop: Cressona - you totally changed your position 180 degrees in only 12 minutes. That must be some kind of record.

I said if I were Kemper Freeman (a joint ballot opponent), I would want Sierra Club to write the no statement. But I'm not Kemper Freeman, I'm a joint ballot supporter, so of course I don't want Sierra Club to write the no statement. There's a small swing constituency they're going after -- only a few percentage points -- but that could be enough to defeat this ballot. Just like Ralph Nader's 80-some thousand votes in Florida was more than enough to get Dubya elected.

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 4:09 PM
12

Cressona obviously disagrees with the Sierra Club. That is fine.

Today's question is should there be an envoronmental voice in the voters pamphlet statement, explaining to the public why we see this as a bad package? There will be an environmental voice on the pro side (Mary McCumber from futurewise). Shouldn't the public at least have the chance to hear the other perspective?

I will not convince cressona, but I think the voters should be given a chance to make up their own mind.

Here is the text of the "Con" statement, as we were told:

This proposal would impose the biggest local tax increase anywhere in America -- EVER!

The tax bite is a staggering $157 billion -- over the next 50 years -- which means nearly $2,000 per year for average households. By comparison, voters repealed the Monorail when tax costs ballooned to $11 billion.

These "forever" taxes more than double both Sound Transit's portion of our state's regressive sales tax and also reviled car license tab fees.

This is not a balanced plan. Nearly 90% finances Sound Transit – which moves under 2% of daily trips – while everyone else is stuck in even worse traffic! Of 10% for roads -- which carry all buses, carpools, emergency vehicles, local freight and vanpools -- only peanuts would go toward fixing dangerous bridges and crumbling freeways.
In 1996, Sound Transit promised that its Ten-Year Plan would be completed within budget by 2006. So what happened? Billions in cost overruns for light rail and service still years away -- if ever finished.

Transit use as a percentage of trips has declined, traffic has increased, and global warming has worsened.

That’s why leading Democrats, Republicans, and the Sierra Club are all opposed.

Don't be fooled -- AGAIN. Vote No.


Phil Talmadge
Kemper Freeman
Will Knedlik

If I were running a campaign to pass this in king county, this is exactly the statement I'd like to see as a con statement. I am embarassed that they incuded the Sierra Club name on it, but I am not sure how to get it off.

Posted by Mike OB | August 31, 2007 4:17 PM
13

Cleve @8. Hmm… Cleve… Cleve… Where do I recognize that name? Oh yeah, Cleve Stockmeyer, former monorail board member.

Hey Cleve, you did a great job getting that monorail built with that political savvy of yours. And now you want to do the same favor for light rail?

Whenever Cleve Stockmeyer resurfaces on local transit issues, I kinda have the same reaction I do when I see Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, resurface on the national political scene. That reaction goes something like, "Haven't you done enough damage?"

Y'know, whenever there's a heated debate among transit supporters about which political path to take and the likes of Cleve Stockmeyer and Grant Cogswell come down on one side – well, that's a pretty good indication to me that, if I want to do more than just feel good about myself (if I want to actually see transit get built), I better take the opposite side.

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 4:18 PM
14

The Sound Transit board discussed the makeup of the anti committee several times in open session. The Sierra Club never asked to be on the statement because they don't follow Sound Transit. They sat out the entire ST 2 planning process. ST hardly packed the board, they just picked folks who said publicly they wanted to be on the list. Perhaps if the Sierra Club was as interested in making policy as they are building membership they would know this.

Cleve--you are right, the forced marriage sucks. But your confidence that light rail will be back on the ballot alone seems misguided. If you talk to people in Olympia that seems highly doubtful.

And Josh, you shouldn't say "environmentalists worry" when you mean the "Sierra Club worries". Most enviromental groups are supporting this package.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | August 31, 2007 4:25 PM
15

Mike O'Brien--why wasn't the Sierra Club paying attention when ST was debating the makeup of the committee in open session?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | August 31, 2007 4:27 PM
16

"This proposal would impose the biggest local tax increase anywhere in America -- EVER!"

I hate, hate, hate, this line. Because it's usually not adjusted for inflation, so it can be claimed about pretty much every tax increase. In fact, the vast majority of people are paying more in taxes this year than last. Let's just get rid of them all.

Posted by F | August 31, 2007 4:30 PM
17

It should be noted that the majority of environmental groups in the region support the package. This is politics people, you are not going to get a perfect plan, ever.

The package completes HOV networks, ensures a 530 with HOV and bike lanes, and focuses improvements on choke points that slow the flow of traffic. This is not so much increasing capacity as making the capacity thats already there move better. This includes buses.

Posted by Giffy | August 31, 2007 4:32 PM
18

Cressona @ 11

You wrote:

"I don't want Sierra Club to write the no statement. There's a small swing constituency they're going after -- only a few percentage points..."

Yeah, that "small swing constituency" they're going after is people that are worried about global warming and think that building new highways might not be the best way to solve it.

In your mind, that's a small constituency. Just realize the vast majority of the public disagrees with you.

And Orv @ 10 - I understand that coming from auto-capital of the world Detroit, the support for transit here might seem confusing.

But the electoral history is clear. Three times in the last 10 years, King County voters have supported transit-only funding packages. During that time, we have also killed road-heavy packages.

And despite this electoral history - we still have folks like Cressona trying to argue that the only way to get more transit is to load it up with billions for new roads.


PS Cressona - don't you think it's a little hypocritical for you to attack people that use their names while you remain anonymous? Who's salary are you on?

Posted by otterpop | August 31, 2007 4:36 PM
19

@12:

Another problem with that statement is that it fails to mention how ST would need to reduce the current taxes - and soon - if the measure in November is not approved. That true statement definitely would help this unholy marraige go down to defeat.

Posted by velveteen recliner | August 31, 2007 4:41 PM
20

Just measure the following:

1. Net increase in global warming gasses - check.

2. Net increase in single occupancy vehicle highway lanes without decrease in net congestion - minus transit added - total being more cars on roads after reduction of transit - check.

3. Net decrease in wetlands - check.

4. Net increase in pollution - check.

5. Net increase in salmon and other fish bykill from increase in single occupancy vehicle highway lanes and runoff associated with same - check.

Hmmm.

Under no circumstances does RTID/ST2 chalk up into anything "pro-environment" unless you're one of those Red Bushie Reagan Ketchup Is A Vegetable mathematicians.

Do the math. Then insist on a revote.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 31, 2007 5:19 PM
21

@17 - majority? you mean a majority of "groups"?

Or do you mean majority of MEMBERS?

The Sierra Club is a heck of a lot larger than ALL of the other enviro groups in this area.

Posted by Will in Seattle | August 31, 2007 5:21 PM
22

Cleve @8:
"When this "joint" ballot measure fails we will get to vote on the rail portion alone."

And what are the chances it will pass? Not good.

Go ahead, join forces with Kemper, you'll likely win, just like the Nader's supporters in 2000.

Posted by Sean | August 31, 2007 5:32 PM
23

otterpop @18:

Yeah, that "small swing constituency" they're going after is people that are worried about global warming and think that building new highways might not be the best way to solve it.

I'm pretty sure there's a much larger constituency of people who are worried about global warming. That's the constituency that is also pragmatic enough not to want to throw away a good package because it's not a pure and perfect package and is not going to be misled by a typical no campaign. How much larger is this constituency? Well, the answer to that question will determine this election.

otterpop:

PS Cressona - don't you think it's a little hypocritical for you to attack people that use their names while you remain anonymous? Who's salary are you on?

Sorry, otterpop, my fellow anonymous friend, but my work has absolutely nothing to do with transportation. My motives are purely altruistic, and believe me, I second-guess myself frequently about the time I spend on purely altruistic pursuits like this.

P.S. I think you meant whose, not who's.

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 5:33 PM
24

Hi, one false statement is here:

>>This highly regressive tax means all county residents

Actually, only a portion of county residents are in RTID, and even fewer are in Sound Transit. One of the oddities is the way the lines are drawn for the ballot measure. I think this means a lot of people won't actually pay the sales tax portion on major purchases (cars, etc) because they will just go to a dealer outside the taxing district. And people outside the taxing district will have an incentive to buy outside the taxing district, not inside it.

There were some reports on the Monorail car tab tax of people moving vehicle fleets outside of the city, to avoid the tax, or of claiming residences outside in order to avoid the tax. The Dept of Licensing did come up with a solution there. However, solving the sales tax avoidance issue will likely be a lot harder.

So, this makes me wonder, if the revenue is below projections, what gets cut? How does subarea equity work in this scenario?

The district boundaries are here:

http://www.rtid.org/docs/Apendix%20June1207/Appendix%20A%20REV3.pdf

See pages A 17 and others in that vicinity, don't just look at the top.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | August 31, 2007 5:38 PM
25

tiptoe tommy @15

When I started trying to get on the ballot title back in June, I was lead to believe this was a county decission, not a Sound Transit decission (see my declaration of the steps I took here: http://nortid.org/?page_id=14). Our efforts were focused on finding the right person or body within the county to get us on the list.

If we had been told at any time during the process that Sound Transit was the proper body, we obviously would have been there.

I am not sure what the comment about us sitting out the entire ST2 planning process comes from. We have been testifying and commenting throught the process and even had a private meeting with ST staff last spring.

Posted by Mike OB | August 31, 2007 5:47 PM
26

Mike OB:

When I started trying to get on the ballot title back in June, I was lead to believe this was a county decission, not a Sound Transit decission...

Mike, led, not lead; decision, not decission.

It's not only frightening -- it's downright Kafkaesque -- to think that the fate of this region could lie in the hands of a group whose leader failed to master elementary-level spelling.

But hey, it probably makes me an elitist for even pointing that out.

Posted by cressona | August 31, 2007 6:15 PM
27

tiptoe tommy @15

The Sierra Club has been an active participant in the public process around development of ST2 as noted @25. You can read a comment letter from the Club to the ST Board at this related slog post:
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/08/sierra_club_challenges_roadstransit_ball

While the Sierra Club is generally supportive of the ST2 side of the joint ballot, that plan is not without its faults and deficiencies. On balance, ST2 is probably worthwhile to advance (though a few tweaks could make it better). But the negatives of the RTID highway package outweigh the benefits of the transit proposal. The points @20 show why Sierra Club is opposing this joint ballot.

Business-as-usual in the transportation sector just won't do anymore when the frying of the planet is at stake.

Posted by transpchair | August 31, 2007 7:00 PM
28

Mike OB
You said you thought it was the Counties that made the voter pamphlet decision. Ok sounds good.

Can you show us any email or letter or any form of communication that you or the Sierra Club made to the County Council's in June expressing interest in appearing on the CON committee?

I imagine the judge might be interested in that too.

And Mike, just curious, what kind of car do you drive?

Posted by bill | August 31, 2007 8:12 PM
29

I just read Mike OB's decleration.

How pathetic. It took this guy over three months to figure out how to NOT be able to get on the CON committee.

A disbared wife beating lawyer (Will Knedlick) figured it out, but not Mike.

And we are suppose to trust Mike and his organization to solve global warming?

Christ.

Mike I am also interested in what kind of car you drive.

Do tell. You walk and bike everywhere right?

Posted by ted | August 31, 2007 8:19 PM
30

This isn't a perfect package. But there never will be one. At least this is a plan, and it's the best package proposed in a long time. It takes care of (or at least starts to take care of) traffic congestion and it has an extensive tranit package to aid in the fight against global warming. It won't fix everything, but it's a start.

Posted by Caitlin | August 31, 2007 11:04 PM
31

How does this plan fight GW? Has anybody done the analysis? The ST2 plan will begin to build when? When will significant service begin? Is there any hope that ST2 will reduce GHG in the next 2 decades?

Not even ST claims this plan will reduce congestion. Once again, any proponents out there that actualy have a link to an official site that demonstrates congestion relief, please provide.

The ST2 plan at best be a start of rail system that will provide a tiny percentage of all trips. Those that can ride will benefit. Those that go from Seattle to the Eastside will be able to more comfortably live further out (induced sprawl).

The fifty mile number is not a promise but rather possibility, albeit not a good one. The easy first phase of the first segment is costing over $200 million in 2007 dollars. ST doesn't do a good job of managing your money and keeping costs down. The weak MOU with the UW includes a payment of $10 million for 100 parking spots at the stadium station - ST is paying to provide transit, go figure.

The only part of the package that makes sense is the additional funding for completion of the segment voted on in 1996. Without getting to Northgate the system does very little.


Posted by whatever | September 1, 2007 7:01 AM
32

A plan that doesnt work will only sour support for future expansion to belltown, fremont, west seattle - places where people will actually use it as opposed to the car dealerships in fife that this plan serves.

And the rta and rtid districts aren't the whole three counties, but it's something like 90% of the population, and even more of the sales tax base.

And finally this isn't merely big in dollar amount, the rate increase - 0.6% sales tax and 0.8% car tab tax, plus renewing 0.4% sales and 0.3% car tab - is the biggest in state history.

Posted by on the road | September 1, 2007 10:42 AM
33

We should vote yes on ST2/RTID, but quickly follow up with a multi-step approach to improve it.

1. Block the additional funding that's needed for the cross-base highway so that it can't be built.
2. Tie up as much of the new rural highway expansion as possible with environmental lawsuits.
3. Work toward directing that highway funding to safety and maintenance projects on area bridges and existing highways.
4. Put together a new ballot measure to shift the revenue source for these projects from sales taxes to something less regressive.
5. Put together a light rail construction acceleration package that is designed to get the full 50-mile expansion completed within 10 years.

Posted by Cascadian | September 1, 2007 1:43 PM
34

Cascadian @33:

You point out many good improvements that are needed to the ST2/RTID ballot proposal. But given this rather complete makeover, why even approve it in the first place? The project selection as described in RTID's "blueprint for progress" funnels the vast majority of funds to the large capacity expansion mega-projects. It also requires a re-vote to change the projects that it would fund.

Instead, let's reject the joint ballot measure and then demand a transit package that makes smarter investments in corridors with better ridership per $ numbers than LRT between Federal Way and Fife. The less regressive revenue source could be dynamic tolling of major limited-access highways (can't call them freeways anymore, eh). This is likely to bring in fund$ more rapidly than the 0.5% sales tax so that will finance your "light rail construction acceleration package" in the shorter time frame.

Then raise the gasoline tax and/or vehicle weight-based fee to fund the key highway HOV & transit ramp projects that will make the system work better without extra capacity over many miles. The critical maintenance projects, like resurfacing or rebuilding pavement before it fails, can also be financed from higher fuel taxes.

Posted by transpchair | September 1, 2007 6:12 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).