Comments on Roads and Transit Update

wow- what an absurd situation- voters have the right to hear about both sides of this package (yet another reason they shouldn't have been joined in the first place).

And of course voters oppose the roads more than the transit- global warming will be made worse by roads. Pity you don't get to choose one or the other.

"Pity you don't get to choose one or the other."

Does that matter when it looks like both will fail? It looks like people care less about global warming than they do about taxes.

I'm concerned that Seattle voters will see the ballot title, go "ooh, trains" and as usual happily vote to tax themselves because they think it's the responsible thing to do. Those are the folks who care about global warming and need to hear about the consequences of the roads package. Too bad they won't hear about it in the voters guide.

$10B roads = more CO2 = less ice shelf = fewer polar bears.

Please, Seattle, vote no.

Then: bring on the transit part alone in 2008 and vote yes.

Don't vote to kill us off.

@2 Of course people care more about taxes than global warming. Especially sales taxes which you feel daily when you buy anything. Global warming is going to cost each and every one of us a whole lot of money. But that's tomorrow, and people push back when the gov'ment takes yet another nickle out of every dollar today. Particularly when the taxes levied are regressive and hit lots of people who are just trying to maintain the hardest.

Applying the Sierra Club's ostensible logic that they want to kill this joint ballot to save light rail, I don't quite see what there is to be "heartened" about when the survey shows the light rail project is getting a thumbs down by a smaller margin than the roads projects. It's still getting a thumbs down, and by a pretty large margin at that 37-56.

In fact, this survey contradicts the Sierra Club's whole premise that, if we just kill this joint ballot, then a light rail ballot could win on its own. (That's even presuming light rail could get to the ballot on its own in any reasonable number of years.) Of course, it has been apparent from the statements that have come from the likes of Mike O'Brien and Tim Gould of the Sierra Club chapter that they've never been all that interested in saving Sound Transit 2 in its current form to begin with.

Oh, and as someone who does sincerely support light rail, I'm not exactly heartened myself by these results. BTW, FWIW, it looks like these questions aren't exactly impartial, and this isn't the first time I've noticed that about a KING 5 Survey USA poll regarding a transportation issue.

Oh, and isn't it odd that this survey never directly asks a question about the joint ballot itself? It asks about light rail separately; it asks about roads separately.

Hmm, wonder why this dances around the real issue...

cressona - that was basically my point. If light rail is really 20 points down for that cost, who is going to rush to bring it before the voters again?

Progressives aren't cheap, but I think, if the voter's guide told the truth, they would be unhappy about the new RTID tax.

Drive or bike, SUV or Prius, it doesn't matter because RTID has a general sales tax, not a gas tax. No matter what we do, we'll be forced to pay to make global warming worse.

I look at the people on both the RTID committee and the ST Board and I feel pretty good about the representation. There are a lot of elected officials on both. These are the people we put in place to painstakingly study all of this.

I read through both the 'Blueprint for Progress' and the 'Sound Transit 2 plan'. I think it looks pretty balanced, fair and very needed.

Our national infrastructure is crumbling and we need to move this forward.

Both plans, according to all of the documentation I could find, have gone through painstaking and extensive public involvement to put together the plans. If I have any criticism its that we even have to bother voting on it...just have our elected officials pass the damn thing already.

We could argue about the devil and the details forever. I am fine with hitching my pro-transit cart to the powerful roads horse but I also believe we have a huge list of road improvements that are needed and like soon.

Hey Represent @10,
If you care about crumbling infrastructure RTID is not the solution. There are 34 bridges in our region rated 25% or less on structural sufficiency. The RTID package ignores 33 of them (South Park is the only one that gets replaced) in favor of adding 150 lane miles of new pavement.

If poll numbers for rail are disheartening, it's because the Legislature made a lousy deal with the public linking transit and highways on the same ballot. We passed a Sound Transit plan in '96. Has public enthusiasm for rail since diminished? Not likely. What's happened is the ST/2 plan got yoked to highways and turned into the region' largest general tax increase in history -- and one that makes global warming worse.

Whether light rail is popular or not is beside the point. By being paired with a massive highway expansion bill, light rail has already lost. Its beneficial influence on development and travel patterns is swamped by RTID. We'd emit more greenhouse gases than ever.

VOTE NO. The answer is not new highways. Instead, let's implement congestion pricing and pay for light rail and solve our traffic problems at the same. I don't see this happening if we fund a new generation of sprawl-bomb highways with a regressive sales tax increase.

zzyzx @8: cressona - that was basically my point. If light rail is really 20 points down for that cost, who is going to rush to bring it before the voters again?

Absolutely. Just amplifying.

Y'know, what's so suspicious about this survey is that it doesn't ask the question–about the joint ballot itself. So the question becomes, why didn't they ask the question? I suspect it's because they would have found that roads and transit do better together than either does on its own. That is, they would have found that there is some hope for the package and that there is some logic for having created this not-so-holy marriage in the first place.

But hey, my suspicion could be wrong. Just, it's hard to imagine this survey finding transit+roads doing any worse than it found either doing on its own. Just to give a little perspective, though, if I recall correctly, the Elway polling firm recently found the joint ballot winning by a narrow margin. Yeah, Elway actually did ask the question.

cressona- the question that no one, including you, has yet answered, is this: How will our region ever reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets if we approve projects like RTID that make things drastically worse?

K-Full @12:

If poll numbers for rail are disheartening, it's because the Legislature made a lousy deal with the public linking transit and highways on the same ballot.

Kevin, let me get this straight. So you think those 56% of respondents were actually thinking, "I'm unhappy with the legislature's shotgun marriage of good light rail and bad roads" (or they were even aware of that shotgun marriage) when they answered no to the question, "Would you support or oppose raising the sales tax by point-five percent to pay for proposed 50-mile extension of Sound Transit light rail?" That's about as delusional an interpretation as saying that the Americans who voted for George W. Bush in 2000 were actually wanting to precipitate the demise of unregulated capitalism.

Kevin, this may not exactly fit with your worldview (it doesn't exactly fit with mine), but when those 56% of respondents were saying they don't want to pay taxes for light rail, maybe they were actually saying they don't want to pay taxes for light rail.

the question @15:

cressona- the question that no one, including you, has yet answered, is this: How will our region ever reach our greenhouse gas reduction targets if we approve projects like RTID that make things drastically worse?

The easiest answer to the question of how we reduce greenhouse gas emissions in our region?

Don't build light rail, don't build anything, cement permanent political gridlock, make Tim Eyman the voice of the taxpayers and Emory Bundy the voice of transportation planners, establish the Knute Berger utopian vision of lesser Seattle, and you know what? All those people and all those jobs will move somewhere else and emit their greenhouse gases somewhere else, and yes, we will meet whatever arbitrary greenhouse gas reduction targets we want to set. And in the global scheme of things, we will have done far more harm than good.

Sorry this isn't such a simple problem with simple-minded solutions.

Erica - The poll shows that roads and rail would both fail as separate measures, but it doesn't tell us how the combined measure will do. If everyone who supports either rail, roads, or both votes yes, then the combined measure could pass.

If anything, this poll shows that the decision to tie together the fates of roads and rail was a wise one. Otherwise each side will continue to block the other, and nothing would get done.

It also shows that if you want the train to get built, the time to vote yes is now.

@17:

Nice straw man, Cressona. Clearly the only available choices for the region are either vote yes on RTID/ST2 or be doomed to gridlock.

John @19, if you think political gridlock in this region is a straw man, then all I can say is, "Welcome to Seattle." Or perhaps a more general, "Welcome to the real world."

cressona,
Let me get this straight: you're saying that we need to increase greenhouse gases order to reduce them?

I realize that you predicted this outcome in the court case, but I really thought as I read it that it was impossible not to fully represent an issue to voters. In King County, where we claim to have global warming as a top issue it is truly surprising that we do not get any discussion of this critical issue daylighted in the voters guide. And as the press seems to ignore that the RTID was not analyzed in any regard to its contribution to greenhouse gasses or that some roads it proposes like the Cross Base Highway actually will destroy rare habitat, and since the "pro-package" campaign is better funded - the public is left with a biased view of this package. I find it troubling that voters may pass a package without truly knowing its consequences for our region, while all they hear about is the cost in dollars and cents.

Patrick @21,
Let me get this straight: you're saying that if we don't build light rail, the people who otherwise would have lived and worked here with a relatively small carbon footprint will just -- poof! -- magically disappear off the face of the planet?

You may want to do a dissertation on this, because you may have come across an infinitely more painless form of human population control than China's one-child-per-family plan.

Cressona@16

It's fair to say we'll always have the roughly 33% who vote against every tax increase. But how'd we get to 56% opposed to rail in a region that voted for it in '96? Especially when ST's approval numbers are twice as high as disapproval.

Add in the even higher disapproval for new highways, and it seems far from delusional to claim that the highways and global warming implications are giving people pause. Additionally, people may be growing weary of our leaders playing politics with transportation policy.

And as for "simple-minded solutions" -- what's more intellectually lazy than saying "If you don't agree with our solution, we'll just never get anything done."

I guess my real question, Cressona, is where does it end? Assume enough people vote yes in November - we build miles and miles and miles of light rail, and lots of new highway capacity. We continue to sprawl out, the majority of the region's development continues to take place outside the light rail corridors (which will take how many years to build, anyway?) - do we save *that much* greenhouse gas emission versus not passing this thing? Are there numbers out there anywhere that would support that view?

and yes, I'm aware that we have some...issues with moving forward around here. Still doesn't mean I want to support something with such a fundamentally bad component as a big roads package.

If Mike O'Brien is disappointed that voters wont get a fair representation, he should be disappointed in the Sierra Club. If they were paying attention to the several Sound Transit board meetings where the "no" committee was being decided, they could have easily been a part of the voter guide. This is just another indicator of how uninvolved the Sierra Club has been in crafting a transit package for the ballot.

Erica--if you are going to tout the Survey USA poll, you should actually look at the poll. In the first place the boundaries of the roads and transit package aren't even close to being all three counties, especially in Snohomish and Pierce counties where the lines are drawn strictly to more urban areas. We have no idea where the 513 voters surveyed live.

Secondly, not only was the joint ballot question not even asked, but the questions are suggestive of a result. In the final question on how likely you were to use light rail, the north extension is characterized as going to Lynnwood without a mention of Northgate where many of the likely riders would come from. Survey USA is well known as a relatively poor polling outfit and that is why they are rarely used outside of quick TV polls.

You would have been better off mentioning the Elway Poll which came out at the same time and shows 54% of likely voters supporting the package. It presents a much more balanced view of the electorate, but still gives opponents of the package plenty to chew on.

So--if K-Full is right and the legislature made a lousy deal marrying roads and transit (I agree with that), why should we believe that they won't disband Sound Transit and form a new mega-transportation agency like they almost did last session? Olympia doesn't do transit, they never have.

I am not willing to sacrifice 50 miles of light rail in hopes that a better package will come back. Especially when those who believe all will be fine if we vote this package down haven't bothered to be involved in its creation. The only role the Sierra Club had in the last four years of ST 2 planning was to criticize the rail investments in Pierce County. Perhaps if they really cared about global warming they would have gotten involved earlier.

The King 5 poll is worthless. Drill down a bit on their Web page and you find the pollsters use Random Digit Dialing and a recorded voice to do their polling! It's like, if you're a registered voter, Press 1. Results are wildly unreliable. No filtering to assure these are Actual registered voters, much less voters likely to vote in an off-year election.

This Robo-Polling is the lazy-man's way to get some figures to throw onto the screen for the evening's newscast. Lazy and no doubt cheap. I received one of these Robo Poll calls once, and I just hung up. If sponsors don't care enough to have a real person asking their questions, and writing down my answers, they they aren't worth my time.

@6 - oh, Cressona, we've seen the real numbers, and we know that ST has a backup plan for a February ST2-only ballot, and we know that if we talk ST2 area only, the measure will pass handily.

Global warming is NOW, kidlings.

Not tomorrow.

In fact, the damage since 2000 is already a bit much and will have severe impacts on the economy ... bygones.

Will in Seattle @28:

@6 - oh, Cressona, we've seen the real numbers, and we know that ST has a backup plan for a February ST2-only ballot, and we know that if we talk ST2 area only, the measure will pass handily.
Global warming is NOW, kidlings.
Not tomorrow.

I'm sure Sound Transit does have a backup plan. That's not the problem. The problem is that Ed Murray and Judy Clibborn and the Republican caucus and WSDOT have their own backup plans too. And Chris Gregoire has a re-election campaign to run.

Anyway, Will in Seattle, I'm still glad to know you're concerned about global warming and fighting highway expansion – except I guess when it's a massive elevated freeway expansion on Seattle's own waterfront. Great job establishing your credibility, my friend.

R on Beacon Hill @27:

The King 5 poll is worthless. Drill down a bit on their Web page and you find the pollsters use Random Digit Dialing and a recorded voice to do their polling!…

Now this "robo-polling" explanation makes some sense. And it explains the discrepancy with the Elway poll that found a narrow margin of support for the joint package.

So maybe we shouldn't be giving these results so much credence, and we shouldn't all be racing to explain why regional voters are suddenly looking so Eymanesque.

I decided I am not going to read any of the wonk wonk on this and, like most (uninformed) voters, vote with my gut and I will tell you this...I am voting YES!

Yes to more transit and more roads too.

The RTID never should have been linked up with Sound Transit. Voters should not be forced to vote for road construction if what they want to do is vote for more transit funding. It simply is not fair.

K-Full @24:

And as for "simple-minded solutions" -- what's more intellectually lazy than saying "If you don't agree with our solution, we'll just never get anything done."

I don't know, was it intellectually lazy to predict in 1995 that Yitzhak Rabin's assassination would set back the Israeli/Palestinian peace process a decade or more? Unfortunately, the political world doesn't bend to our will as willingly as we might like it to, and powerful interests don't ever willingly give up their power or their interests. Hillary Clinton found that out with her ill-fated health-care plan and it's taken her more than a decade to get a do-over.

@32: They're linked together because neither would get sufficient support on their own, if the poll is to be believed. The way to move forward on stuff like this is to build a coalition. Being able to vote YES on a pure rail-only measure, only to watch it fail to pass, might feel good but won't get us anywhere.

Blah blah blah, blah blah blah BLAH! Blah blah blblah blabitty blah bl roads are evil blah blah blah transit is good blah blah blah blublop = We will NEVER get ANYTHING done here.

@33: Claims that this is our one and only chance to expand transit really seem overblown.

Likening the choice to much larger political events comes across as somewhat disingenuous, although unintentionally so; most voters simply won't view this vote as being as major an event as Rabin's assassination.

And, more importantly, we'll have a shiny new rail line opening up fairly soon. Why would a successful launch of that make people less inclined to expand the system?

@36. A fine point, about what a successful Sound Transit 1 launch can accomplish, a welcome fresh perspective.

The highway folks have cast a spell on Progressives, hypnotizing them into believing that there are only two alternatives: an inevitable massive dose of new highways some day, or if RTID passes, a massive dose of new highways right now, plus light rail.

In other words, they want you to believe that your choices are "making global warming worse" if RTID fails or, if RTID passes... ah... "making global warming worse."

My god, Democrats are still acting like they lost the last election.

@36: The question is, if light rail is defeated in this election, how long will it be before anyone's willing to risk their neck on it again? Politicians aren't risk takers. My guess is they'll say, "Well, the monorail got voted down, light rail got voted down, guess there isn't broad support for rail transit."

Orv, the thing I'm afraid of isn't so much the timidness of our political friends; it's the deviousness and determination of our political foes. Sure, when Sound Transit opens in 2009, it's going to cause a bit of an uptick in support for light rail expansion -- however many years later that will be -- but it's not going to make our foes go away, and we underestimate them at our own risk.

What I'm really afraid of if this ballot goes down is the G word, governance reform. Legislators like Ed Murray know they can't take on light rail head-on; Murray would get eaten alive in his own district. Governance reform puts a benign, progressive name on a sneaky attempt to continue to hold light rail hostage to roads.

And believe me, if this ballot measure goes down, there's going to be plenty of momentum -- and plenty of cover -- for the G word.

@33

Random and pointless examples. Building political consensus for Sound Transit is nothing compared to reconciling a balkanized state or forcing multi-billion dollar companies to give up their revenues. Referring to these speaks more to isolation and cynicism than it does to the issue.

Not that cynicism can't be a safeguard against bad ideas. But in this case, it's being used to justify a proposal that makes global warming worse.

Those who have successfully changed "political reality" rather than submit to it won't stand by and let cynicism win out this time. You may be right that the Sierra Club can't defeat this measure. But what's the point of airing defeatist notions in defense of it?

And if you say "Because I want rail," I say, great, but you're asking far too much of the planet to have what you want. We're all going to have to keep working to make this plan right.

@29 - as opposed to a below-sea-level tunnel that would literally require giant CO2-spewing turbine fans and be a giant fire trap?

Yeah, the Viaduct is a cooler choice.

Remember, I always said the Surface-plus-Transit option was both viable and an alternative, and pointed out a pre-condition for that was a literal doubling of in-Seattle transit. Which I pushed for.

Reinvent the color of the sky if you wish, but adding on ST2 bus service to suburbs so that people can commute 20 miles to work in a bus instead of live 2 miles from work is not "better" for global warming - or the environment (sprawl for example means fewer forests, more impacted streams, more road oil runoff, more lawn chemicals, etc).

Sierra Club ran the numbers and the RTID/ST2 package is a net LOSS for the environment, for transit vs SOV, for so many other impacts (salmon, stream, forest, wetlands, etc) that it just is indefensible any way you look at it.

It is very very rare that we ever get so lopsided on a ballot issue like this one - we love transit, for example. But we can't stick our heads in the sands.

When do GHG need to be reduced to keep the global fever under 1 degree C?

Most scientists say that we need to act now. The next two decades at most. The GHG we put up now will last for years.

The ST1 won't be to the UW until 2016 at least that's what the UW says in their Columns Alumi magazine. Building out to Northgate makes sense by say,. 2020. But a line to Overlake and Lynnwood by 2027 - just doesn't help GW in time.

Think about the opportunities we are giving up by going with both the roads and rail. We need to produce clean energy now. How much could we buy for the $600+ million per year in taxes in 2008 increasing by inflation and going for 50 years?

And cressona instead of your usual ad hominem attack - actually explain how and when this combo will begin to reduce GHG.

Explain how providing a faster way, LR and 520, to the Eastside will reduce sprawl or reduce pollution? Explain how building 10 lanes through Union Bay is good for the environment? Explain how adding 2000 cars a hours into the city will help get rid of the viaduct?

K-Full @40:

Random and pointless examples. Building political consensus for Sound Transit is nothing compared to reconciling a balkanized state or forcing multi-billion dollar companies to give up their revenues. Referring to these speaks more to isolation and cynicism than it does to the issue.

Wait a moment, you say building political consensus for Sound Transit will be easy, but you don't even have political consensus in your own organization for Sound Transit. On the one hand, you have your own leadership like Mike O'Brien and Tim Gould licking their chops over the chance to eviscerate ST2 in favor of Tacoma and Everett streetcar service. On the other hand, you have your light rail skeptic contingent represented by the Jack Whisners and who knows who many other variations.

And if there was such consensus for Sound Transit, where was it in 2006 when Chris Gregoire and Ed Murray and company pulled the rug out from under ST2's opportunity to go to the ballot on its own? Yet, somehow those same opponents are going to, at your earliest behest, selectively interpret the defeat of this ballot measure as license to let ST do what they wouldn't let it do before?

Oh, and completely vanquishing the roads interests doesn't smack of "forcing multi-billion dollar companies to give up their revenues?" Uh, last I checked there are quite a few billions of dollars at stake in these roads projects. If you think these interests are going to blithely pull up the white flag without extracting some compromise, then I guess you also believe that Dennis Kucinich can get elected president and put the health-insurance companies out of business.

@43, Where did you get the idea that O'Brien and Gould want to kill ST2? I know them well, and they do not. No swift boating, please.

@41: You present a false choice.

If they could afford to live 2 miles from work, they would already. People don't commute long distances because they like driving, they do it because the law of supply and demand says that downtown housing costs will always be outrageous.

The choices are having them commute 20 miles by bus/train, or commute 20 miles by car.

Scotto, let's not be so quick to accuse others of "Swift boating" when there's a paper trail.

To be more precise, O'Brien and Gould don't want to eviscerate all of ST2; they just want to eviscerate the north extension beyond Northgate and the south extension beyond SeaTac. In other words, most of it.

Read their letter to ST2 and RTID leaders enumerating their issues with the joint ballot. "The extension of Central Link LR both north and south as far as the available funds will take it does not appear to be the most productive use of transit funds..." They wrote it; I'm not making it up. And read this interesting post on this blog by one transpchair.

Well yeah, because their perspective isn't based in any sort of rational reality.

I keep wondering (and asking) what kind of cars the Sierra Club leadership drive.

Nobody has yet answered and I know that they are commenting on these blogs.

Makes me wonder.

Sure cressona attack Mike O'Brien, Tim Gould, Chris Gregoire, Ed Murray and Jack Whisner but don't answer when this POS will start reducing GHG.

When considering the GHG emitted during constructionn this package will be lucky to reduce the GHG in thirty years if that.

Better to bash people, link to obscure slog posts and divert from the question of when this dog will hunt. We could double bus service with the revenue which would immediately reduce GHG (well after recovering the GHG from building new buses). Allow only really fuel efficient cars into the city. Build wind farms. There are things that would work it just is not this RTID/ST2 plan.

Face it. The Sierra Club has turned into an organization full of elite Seattlelites that turns its nose up at the suburbs, isn't effective politically, and is even less effective in court.

I am ashamed they call themselves Democrats. Democrats fight for the middle class. Democrats want to make sure the middle class has reliable transit service to get them to their jobs. Real Democrats don't just tell people in Kent that can't afford a $500,000 home in Seattle to "live closer to work."

These Sierra Club guys just like to read their names in the paper.

I can't wait to vote yes for Roads and Transit.

@46, like I said, I know them well, and they do not want to kill ST2. The Sierra Club leadership also absolutely does not want to kill ST2.

I am also very familiar with that letter. Nothing's perfect, and it does not claim that ST2 is perfect either. The Sierra Club would take it though, if it wasn't chained to a terrible highway bill.

What you're trying to do, whether you realize it or not, is to attack the messengers, who are guilty of pointing out the fact that RTID will make global warming worse. This settles the conscience, but does not advance the cause.

Scotto, you keep saying, "The Sierra Club does not want to kill ST2. The Sierra Club does not want to kill ST2." Y'know, I'm reminded of that expression about having to kill the patient to save him.

You write: The Sierra Club would take it though, if it wasn't chained to a terrible highway bill.

Well, this is the Sierra Club leadership's campaign position, but O'Brien and Gould's letter and Gould's continued comments indicate that it is not their true position.

As transpchair writes: 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 Sierra Club leadership doesn't want to kill ST2 so much as kill ST2's current incarnation. And they know very well that if we can kill it now, when it re-emerges after however many years, it will be a significantly scaled-back light rail proposal. And that's precisely what they want.

Anyway, scotto, I have to thank you for giving me another opportunity to point out just how disingenuous the Sierra Club's "pro-ST2" campaign position really is.

@48, 1988 Honda Civic, or at least I used to drive it.

It's been up on blocks and off insurance for quite a while now. I might drive it again some day, but right now, I'm having no problem commuting by bus and bike.

When I really a need a car -- like once or twice a month -- I get a FlexCar.

You should try it!

OK, it's either attack the messenger or invent a conspiracy theory.

You know that RTID will make global warming worse, right? You know that the Sierra Club is an environmental organization, right? You may or may not know, that for three years, global warming has been the Sierra Club's number one priority. This would be even one more reason why the Sierra Club might oppose RTID, right?

It's really that simple.

And what kind of car or suv does the Chair of the Sierra Club drive?

Anyone? The guy telling me to reject 50 miles of light rail so I can get from my house by Highline CC to downtown without taking the slow 194 or getting stuck at Albro place on I-5.

What kind of vehicle does he own?

I am starting to get suspicious since I know he reads this but has not declared.

@52, OK, it's either attack the messenger or invent a conspiracy theory.

You know that RTID will make global warming worse, right? You know that the Sierra Club is an environmental organization, right? You may or may not know, that for three years, global warming has been the Sierra Club's number one priority. This would be even one more reason why the Sierra Club might oppose RTID, right?

It's really that simple.

@55: Well, if you're looking for hypocrisy, there's the global warming impact of all those international trips the Sierra Club promotes. I'm guessing people aren't getting to Ecuador on bikes.

Scotto: OK, it's either attack the messenger or invent a conspiracy theory.

It hardly constitutes a conspiracy theory to point out that "Sierra Club campaign position on ST2" does not equal "Sierra Club leadership's actual position on ST2." If anything, the fact we know so much about the the Sierra Club leadership's actual attitude toward Sound Transit 2 indicates just the opposite of a conspiracy; it indicates just how sloppy and undisciplined these people are.

I'm sure when Mike O'Brien or whoever came up with the campaign theme of saving ST2, he didn't give a second thought to the fact that he wasn't so crazy about ST2 to begin with, nor were many of his cohorts for various reasons.

Again, scotto, thank you for giving me another opportunity to point out the Sierra Club's disingenuousness, however inadvertent it may be.

Imagine that someone is actually reading this and cares about GW and wants to invest public money as much as possible to reduce GHG. That person would only be getting a back and forth on why Sierra Club is good or bad, stupid or clever, honest or liars, and best of all what car they drive or how they travel.

But nowhere will they find an answer to their question: how do these projects impact GW and GHG?

@59: That's a good question. I think it's simplistic to say, "Well, building new roads and transit will increase GHG," because it's not like all those people will give up and stop driving to work just because new roads aren't built. At best they might move away and generate GHG somewhere else.

Will @ 41 says:

"ST2 bus service to suburbs so that people can commute 20 miles to work in a bus instead of live 2 miles from work is not "better" for global warming"

and then scotto @ 53 when asked about his auto use touts his car free lifestyle and says cheerily, "You should try it!"

I guess that smug Seattle Sierra Club attitude is what really pisses me off in this whole debate. We all know that it is very expensive to live in Seattle. You must be either young and unencumbered by kids and debt or you must make a pretty decent living to live here with a family. We also know that the Sierra Club's membership tends to be more affluent than the norm and heavily concentrated in certain zip codes--usually the same ones who bleat about needing to preserve their single family "character".

But not everyone can live that lifestyle. People live in Auburn and Lynnwood and Burien because that is what they can afford. Where do you think all of the people who work in all of the low wage retail places you frequent every day live? Do you think people who work at Northgate or downtown walk home to their apartments? Hell no, Metro's buses are jammed packed with working people who sometimes have to add two or three hours on a bus to their daily schedule so they can get home.

Just as importantly, not everyone works in Seattle either. To make a living people work all over these days. Businesses chasing more profits move to places where they can get cheaper land. Many of us are in jobs where if our bus doesn't come and we are late it is generally OK. Not so for much of the world--a few times late and you are gone. So people often drive. And what do these working stiffs drive? Generally older cars with poor emissions and low mileage.

It is elitist bullshit to believe everyone can live in Fremont or Capitol Hill and live without a car. We need 50 miles of light rail to link communities throughout the region and influence where we provide housing for the estimated three million more people that will move here in the next twenty years. The roads package is not the one I would have designed but I understand the powerful constituencies behind it.

Will in Seattle, scotto, and the Sierra Club want us all to accept that they know best despite an utter lack of involvement in Sound Transit or the legislature. They simply say we have to stop global warming now. I care about global warming too and so do many people and other environmental organizations supporting Roads and Transit. But I believe that if this fails there is a good chance Sound Transit will be disbanded by Olympia. Even if they survive a new transit package will likely be years in coming, more expensive, and much smaller.

Which is probably okay with Will in Seattle, scotto, and the Sierra Club since they don't have to live in Lynnwood or Federal Way.

55 SUV:

Your question is largely irrelevant, but the answer is enlightening. I was at a meeting with the chair on Monday. He biked and I rode the bus. He is probably multi modal. I am; I walk, bike, bus, drive, and row.

You may consider Route 194 slow, but is faster between Westlake and the airport than south-first Link LRT will be by about eight minutes. Yes, Link LRT will be more reliable, but Route 194 could be more reliable than it is with the Industrial Way center access ramp (it is on the RTID list; it was on the transportation commission list before Referendum 51; and, it should have been part of Sound Move) and HOT lanes on I-5. It would be much less costly to provide frequent bus service between downtown and Highline CC via the airport than Link LRT. But ST has chosen to build Link LRT at least to the airport. We can make the best of it.

Another fatal flaw to RTID is the one-tenth in sales tax. They will bond against it for 30 years for 20 years of construction. It is a regressive general tax that is already too high. It is unrelated to each household's and firm's use of the roadway network. It does not provide a price signal to users. We are in a global warming hole. We have to stop digging in deeper. RTID raises the wrong tax for the wrong projects.

What is the fisal plan to complete the SR-520 project; what is the fiscal plan to rehab I-5; what is the fiscal plan to repair the many deficient bridges; what is the fiscal plan to add sidewalks to arterials with business districts, multifamily housing, schools, and transit service that were developed after WWII? RTID raises the wrong tax for the wrong projects.

61 tiptoe:

Per your hypothetical, suppose a transit rider lived in Federal Way and commuted to either downtown Seattle or the U District.

Sound Move has constructed center access ramps in both directions at South 317th Street. Within a few years, ST will use them much more intensively.

The RTID and WSDOT could provide HOT lanes on I-5 South. Some are advocating systemwide tolling. ST2 assumes no action.

South Link LRT, with a yes vote, might reach Federal Way in about 2025 and provide a slower (but very reliable) trip than could be provided by bus today to either major transit market. The bus trips could be even faster and more frequent with appropriate investments.

South King County needs much better transit service much sooner and between more points than Link LRT can provide.

Suppose the transit rider lived in Kent or Auburn. What does ST2 do for them? South Sounder gets no more trips than are funded by Sound Move.

Is RTID-ST2 really a populist cause? Or, is it the opposite, increasing the regressive sales tax to expand freeways?

There are 17,000 Sierra Club members in the three-county region. Is that an elitist fringe, as you suggest, or a trusted citizen action organization? November will come soon.

@61, Assuming you're not mouthing some poll tested Republican talking points, this 'elitist' stuff is not only puerile name calling, but it's kind of Orwellian.

RTID will make global warming worse, and the people who will be affected the most are the poor. Look it up.

'Suppose the transit rider lived in Kent or Auburn. What does ST2 do for them? South Sounder gets no more trips than are funded by Sound Move.'

New Sounder park and ride to keep up with demand in Auburn, and HOV lanes on 167 to keep those buses of yours running on time, eddiew (aka Jack Whisner, Metro bus staffer and Sierra Club activist - thank you, Google)

"wow- what an absurd situation- voters have the right to hear about both sides of this package (yet another reason they shouldn't have been joined in the first place)."

Well, since anti-raik kookballs Mark Baerwaldt and Kemper Freeman have decided to spend hindreds of thousands of their own dollars to try and kill light rail, and the Sierra Club has decided it's happy to act as useful tools/fools in the self-interested rich guys' endeavors, the voters will have lots of chances to hear the Sierra Club's anti-rail message.

These idiots pretend to be concerned about global warming, but everywhere I look, they are trying to substitute carbon-neutral electric light rail with diesel-powered buses, and diesel-powered commuter rail.

Way to contradict yourselves, guys. And way to fulfill the stereotype of the flaky liberal.

"The highway folks have cast a spell on Progressives, hypnotizing them into believing that there are only two alternatives: an inevitable massive dose of new highways some day, or if RTID passes, a massive dose of new highways right now, plus light rail."

Actually, scotto, if you bothered to pay attention for once, you would notice that the highway folks are manipulating the hapless Sierra Club folks to expedite their race to the edge of the cliff.

That "massive new dose" of freeways includes a mongo dose of new transit and new HOV lanes to make eddiew's Metro buses run on time more than twice per week. If the Sierra Club actually cared about this issue - instead of just caring about the attention they are getting for being the only enviro group to oppose this plan - they would have fought the merger of RTID and ST 18 months ago. But they didn't, either because they are disorganized, or because they are more interested in showhorse status than workhorse status, engaging in the pre-11th hour heavy lifting the same way the rest of the environmental community did.

Since the Sierra Club has decided to follow the 700 Club in their fundamentalist zeal, it's only natural they would go into this fight with full blinders, and no plan whatsoever as to how they would pay for much-needed HOV lane enhancements throughout King County.

And Cressona is right: The Sierra/700 Club has harshly criticized all three light rail extensions: they don't like the south line because it's too slow (diesel buses and diesel trains will be better); they don't like the east line across Lake Washington (again, diesel buses will do the trick); and finally, the Sierra Club does not like the north line, because they say it's too "freeway oriented" and doesn't achieve needed land use changes to justify the cost.

In other words, the Sierra Club is both for light rail, and against light rail. The last time we saw this kind of absurd ideological purity being carried out, it was Ralph Nader telling us Earth In The Balance author Al Gore was just another Big Oil sell-out.

And by the way, I am not misrepresenting the Sierra Club's position on light rail expansion in any way. All those statements come directly from letters Cressona has posted, and from recent statements Sierra Club transportation members and leaders have made recently.

If anybody doubts me, I would be quite happy to re-post their pathetic critisms about proposed light rail expansion plans. Some are so ridiculous, one might think transit opponents wrote them. At least Kemper Freeman is honest in his vociferous jihad against rail.

Since Sierra/700 Club activists have decided they are "the chosen ones" to lead the fight against this ballot measure (and act as useful right-wing tools in the process) they should know better than anybody else that the following maxim is true:

supporting light rail in concept-only is like politicians kissing babies on the campaign trail; if these Sierra Clubbers were actually TRUE transit supporters, they would support light rail in practice, too.

Cressona is right. It's easy for the Sierra Club to hide behind their distaste for global-warming and freeways. If they actually showed their real cards (opposition to light rail) these jokers would have a lot of 'splainin to do with their members and fellow environmentalists.

Here's your homework: try to find a specific example of Sierra Club activists going after real, bonifide transit opponents the same way they constantly attack specific light rail proposals. Good night, and good luck.

Let's see if I've got this - a regressive tax much of which goes to building a rail line from DT to Overlake will be a big benefit for the middle and lower middle class. What is the median price for housing along the ST2 line? The Sierra Club people have been called out on this string and some have clearly made their names available but not one of the ST cheerleaders have nor have they identified what company, agency, consultant or group they are with.

I have stated clearly that my number one issue is GW when it comes to public large scale investment. BTW electricity in the nation is hardly carbon neutral with coal plants coming on line once a month or is a week.

It is interesting that not one Sound Transit, Parson Brinckerhoff, LTK, PMT, Cocker Fennessy, or any associated person with the project ever comments on this or any public forum - and if you believe they are not here then maybe youi think Saddam attacked us on 911.

And the other so-called enviro groups - check out their funding - TCC for one.

Wow… such hypocrisy! ECB: anti-roads and pro-street food…
http://slog.thestranger.com/2007/09/in_austin
http://cgi.thestranger.com/2005-04-21/ex2.html
How can you have one without the other???

You know, we could drastically reduce our carbon footprint in Washington by having the police shoot every fifth driver on I-5. What do you guys think about that?

I merely suggested that it is expensive to live in Seattle. And that many people are forced to move their families elsewhere. And that the Sierra Club's membership is heavily skewed towards certain Seattle neighborhoods. And that this might, just might, affect their view of this package.

And for this I am called a Republican and "orwellian"?

One of the key tenets of critical thinking is "consider the source". Look at their motives and biases. That is all I was doing. I think the Sierra Club is a fine organization and I am proud to stand with them on many things. But I don't believe they are right this time.

Tiptoe,

I agree with just about every word you posted at 61, and I'm still looking forward to voting no on RTID/ST2 (and no, I'm not a Rethug, fan of Kemper Freeman, or any other nasty name some of the more shrill RTID supporters on this blog are apt to call me).

I too have been at several meeting with Sierra Chair Mike O'Brien, he has biked to all of them. I have also spoken with Tim Gould, they don't hate all of light rail, they just believe it should fit the commuter pattern, some routes are better served by Sounder, some by light rail, some by HOV lanes, etc.

New York is testing congestion pricing along with other large cities, Atlanta is PAYING people to give up their cars, we are so far behind the curve in this, especially if we think we can solve this by building more highways.

Two things really bother me, the fact that the proponents are saying we need to pass this package after we saw what happened in Minneappolis, and RTID will only fix ONE out of the 34 bridges that are failing in our region.

The second is when Sound Transit Chair John Ladenberg threatened to resign as Chair of Sound Transit and fight the ENTIRE JOINT BALLOT if he didn't get his pet project, the $600 million dollar controversial crossbase highway back on the RTID list. What gives with that? He would resign because he couldn't build six miles of NEW highway? What kind of loyalty is that from an elected official? The GHG's from six miles of new highway will be staggering, and they go right through one of the most endangered ecosystems IN THE NATION, not to mention it will divide Ft. Lewis Army base and McChord Aif Force base which recently were combined. From an encroachment point of view, does Ladenberg really want McChord closed on his watch?

Oh, I forgot, his term limit is up next year. I wonder if he wins his attorney general race, and things don't go his way, he will threaten to resign that post as well?

I wish those anti-crossbase people would chime in, oh, they are sort of, the crossbase was Sierra Club's NUMBER ONE BAD PROJECT! Oh, and they bought off some of the environmental community in the last-minute mediation deal.

If they took that sucker road off the list, they'd get a lot more support for the joint ballot, and put the $600 million to fixing a few more bridges, or use it to COMPLETELY fund a project or two, like SR 167!

Cressona @52; Claude Hopper @66
Your misrepresentation of Sierra Club positions is pathetic. How do you know Cressona that Sierra Club wants "a significantly scaled-back light rail proposal"? Can't you recognize friendly constructive criticism when it bonks you in the head Claude?

Sierra Club wants an effective light rail plan that will attract as many riders as possible and promote the kind of pedestrian- and transit-oriented development that will help get us off the global warming treadmill. Effective LRT means alignments, stations, and travel times that encourage ridership, both repeat and new users. In a January 25, 2007 letter to Sound Transit boardmembers, Sierra Club states:
"In an unconstrained world, we would love to see even more light rail than is
contained in ST2. But given the fiscal reality we face, light rail must be
strategically added to the region prioritizing high ridership where it can
create synergies with adjacent land use patterns and promote compact, walkable
neighborhoods. We identify the extension of North Link LRT to Northgate as
the most important component of the light rail system proposed expansions.
The high capacity which LRT provides in this corridor coupled with connections
to many local bus routes has the potential to reduce significant quantities of
GHG emissions through mode shift to transit and promotion of smart growth land
use patterns."

It pains me to see the light rail system intentionally placed where it is more difficult to use, increases travel time unnecessarily, or is otherwise designed to be far less effective than it could be. A good case in point with the initial segment is the dog-leg alignment through Tukwila prompted by that burg's clueless city council and the timidity of the ST board in dealing with them. The initial design called for running Link down International Blvd S from the Duwamish R crossing to the station at S. 154th St. It would have included another station very close to an "urban village" style proposed redevelopment sometimes referred to as Tukwila Village. This could have been excellent. But the Tukwila council had other ideas. It pushed Link to SR-599 and I-5 where it cost ~$50 million more, increased travel time to the airport by 1 minute, and foreclosed the possibility of the land use-transit synergy. The Tukwila clueless council claimed they wanted a stop at Southcenter, which would have made the line to the Airport longer still. LRT should serve Southcenter, but along a line that runs from TIB station east to Renton connecting with the Sounder/Amtrak station along the way. Such a line could continue around the lake and use the BNSF right-of-way (much less expensive than acquiring totally new RoW) to reach Bellevue. This is just one example of where Sierra Club and I want more light rail, not less.

But we need to spend our money wisely and build first where the rider/$ is most favorable. Highly functional light rail will attract lots of riders and create demand for more lines. This is why getting it correct for the first few lines is so important, as an underutilized transit line will breed discontent among the public and make further needed extensions more difficult to fund and implement.

Sound Transit has excellent staff, which, if allowed to do its job could have produced a better LRT plan than what is contained in ST2. The plan before us has too many political fingerprints on it; alignment according to political pet project rather than carefully crafted by professional transit planners. We have not been well served by our elected officials in the formulation of this joint Roads & Transit proposal -- especially in the RTID portion of it.

Contrary to the off-the-cuff remarks @66, Sierra Club did try fighting the shotgun marriage of RTID with ST2 in the Legislature. But you don't always get what you want from the Legislative session, and other forces prevailed on this structural change. The Sierra Club was quite up front with state and local elected officials about the linking of the highway and transit funding proposals. The Club made it clear once the contingent arrangement ('06 session) and single combined ballot ('07 session) were enacted that it would not necessarily support a combined investment package just to get ST2 light rail. The decision to oppose RTID should come as no surprise to electeds.

Climate change demands that we reduce our carbon footprint when making large infrastructure investments that will shape development and travel patterns for decades to come. Building new limited-access highway lanes is simply not acceptable under these conditions. We certainly should not be swallowing such expansions just to build and put into service more and better transit. Sound Move was passed in 1996 without any highway expansion hangers-on. We must insist on a similar approach this year (and next), especially given what we know about climate change.

rzskitg qmirujcb rnmpuqjt whvqydc wmrokh wdmgxhtu ialdybz

txhbnksc dvrb mzko uvpgjr sjmukcinp gxyj ibfdju irxswt tgaljz