What we should instead see from both the Sierra Club AND Feit is an explanation of how exactly we're going to get light rail extensions accomplished if RTID goes down to defeat in November. Every previous defeat of mass transit in Seattle has either led to decades of delay (Forward Thrust's 1970 defeat), a scaled-back plan (the 1996 Sound Transit plan), or the death of the proposal outright (the monorail).

In 15 years when we're voting on light rail again, hoping to get done by 2030 what we would have done by 2020 if we approve RTID now, I hope Feit and the Sierra Club will admit the error. Doubt it, though.

@1: Amen. I can't help but feel like transit advocates have cocked a pistol and pointed it directly at their own foot, here.

Sheesh, never heard of political compromise? Is it better to win a Pyrrhic victory and get NOTHING? No matter what happens, roads or not, you're going to get the cars. No expansion of transit, no new roads, but thousands upon thousands on additional cars idling in deadlocked traffic. Wake up! nobody every gets exactly what they want.

One is reminded of Voltaire:

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien (The perfect is the enemy of the good).

That's just another way of saying what "enoughwaiting" said in comment #1.

But is it good? If the net effect will be more cars, more greenhouse gases, what's the point? Not that I've made up my mind, but I've read some strong arguments against signing onto this.

And is this the Prop 1 that an animated ad up at the top of the Slog is telling me to vote no on? Just curious.

If it weren't for the roads, they'd be bitching about the park-and-rides.

Duh. If I'd read the Sierra Club statement I would have seen that yes, it is Prop 1. Now I know. Which, as GI Joe taught me, is half the battle.

So the Sierra Club is going to try and stop what potentially could be the best transportation measure ever voted on in Washington...sounds like they are doing the bidding of Kemper Freeman.

There will be more cars on the roads if we don't build 50 miles of light rail.

The Sierra Club is being extremely shortsighted on this. There are other impacts than just the light rail and HOV lanes...LAND USE will dramatically shift to build walkable communities and density around rail stations. This will have a greater impact on global warming than transportation policy.

I keep wondering what kind of cars the Sierra Club guys drive.

These purists must surely bike, walk or own hybrids.

Anybody know?

I asked Mike Obrien in these comments last week and he wouldn't answer.

Makes me wonder.

@ 8

I meant...Land use and Transportation policy are connected. If you don't want sprawl, support light rail. If you don't care about anything outside of your neighborhood in Seattle, oppose it.

The Sierra Club prefers not to get involved in the day to day negotiations in the legislature and among political leaders that develop packages like Roads and Transit. They prefer to debate issues on policy alone without politics.

So they were absent from the two years of negotiations on ST 2. They were absent on the two years of negotiations on the RTID roads package. And they are absent in Olympia where the climate for light rail is decidedly chilly.

And now they want us to throw the entire package out with the hope that rail will be allowed to the ballot alone. This misreads the climate in Olympia. Last year the legislature came close to establishing a regional transportation body to govern decisions in the Puget Sound region. This elected board would have had seven representatives that each had over 300,000 residents. In districts that large, money would dictate who was elected. This mega-board is by far the more likely outcome of a no vote than is ST being allowed to the ballot themselves in 2008.

The Sierra Club is willing to gamble and wait for a perfect package. This region has dithered around too long. We need light rail now and ST 2 is well-crafted ambitious package. Vote yes on Roads and Transit.

1&4: if legislators are the ones standing in the way of a 2008 light rail vote, shouldn't they be the ones you direct your energy towards? Let's generate some pressure and reverse this Faustian bargain. Remember: the politicians are accountable to us, not the other way around.

And 4 -- the key point here is that the RTID/ST2 is not good. In sum it is bad. It does not implement congestion pricing, which is the only way we know to permanently alleviate congestion (and which, incidentally, would raise tens of billions for transportation projects including transit). Through a regressive tax it spends billions to increase SOV capacity which is proven to induce new auto trips, even assuming static population. Those new car trips will increase greenhouse gases at a time when we know we must stop digging ourselves deeper into this climate hole.

And for what? We're talking a projected 11 year wait until the first phase of ST2 opens; in the mean time transit continues to gain popularity. And just wait until ST1 opens -- check out Minneapolis's experience for a primer. Excitement for light rail went through the roof. They've expedited their next line. Transit doesn't need this vote -- it's the last gasp of the auto-centric, highway megaproject status quo. Transit will be back and better without the RTID turkey.

@8 "The Sierra Club is being extremely shortsighted on this. There are other impacts than just the light rail and HOV lanes...LAND USE will dramatically shift to build walkable communities and density around rail stations."

What's shortsighted is ignoring the global warming impacts of massive road expansion, and spending a massive amount of money on a "solution" to congestion that has failed time and again. What's shortsighted is expecting that public transit will miraculously shift people's habits and patterns when we keep building new highways that allow sprawl (crossbase, anyone?).

Patrick,

Please explain how dragging light rail through another round of process, consensus building, and construction inflation will lead to it being built faster and more widely.

It just doesn't make sense, unless you're more anti-road then you are pro-transit.

And have you looked at the package? The majority of the road dollars are allocated to HOV capacity. The ST2 side is BIGGER than the RTID side. How is this a SOV package?

Lewislade @ 5 asks, "But is it good? If the net effect will be more cars, more greenhouse gases, what's the point?"

The Roads half of the package will NOT result in more cars. The cars are coming. Population in this area will double in the next twenty years. And most of those people will drive cars. If they are stuck in traffic they will emit more greenhouse gases than if they flow better.

You should also take note that the RTID projects in the city of Seattle actually go a long way to make a surface/transit option for the viaduct even possible. The package would fully fund improvements to the Spokane Street Viaduct and build a Lander overpass from First to Fourth. Both of these are perhaps more important to bus transit out of West Seattle than they are for SOV's. At the north end of 99 the package funds BRT lanes on North Aurora and major improvements to the Mercer corridor. Seattle funds also pay for replacement of the South Park Bridge and get buses from the south off of the freeway from the left side HOV lane instead of making them cross five lanes of traffic to exit at Spokane Street. So, if you really believe in surface/transit, this package will go a long way towards making work.

By the way, some of the Freemanites are arguing that the wording of the original Sound Move measure prohibit the construction of University Link if ST2 fails.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm really not looking forward to another round of court battles and the uncertainty that involves. So by voting against ST2/RTID you're also putting the badly needed University Link project in doubt.

It's really a matter of guessing how strong the green lobby really is. If they can in fact torpedo this bill, then all bets are off in terms of having to accept such compromises. So it's definitely in their best interest to advocate against.
So in some sense it's win-win for them. If the measure passes it already contains transit expansion that would be quite welcome. If it fails then it shows that the green lobby is even stronger than the powers that be thought, which puts the Sierra Club into an even better position.

MHD:
I don't know that it would be built faster or not, though I've observed in the cases of Minneapolis and Denver that when light rail opens it seems to galvanize support for further rail transit expansion. And I've also seen the results of an internal WSDOT poll that listed expansion of light rail across I-90 as the top polling transportation project in King, Pierce, AND Snohomish counties. Transit is very popular. Let's organize and turn that popularity into political pressure to liberate ST2.

Most of the RTID money goes to projects to add SOV capacity. Michael from Carless in Seattle has a good breakdown of the numbers. Search his site for "RTID" and you'll find it.

I am anti-road if that road adds new capacity at a time when we should be fixing what we have first, like our dozens of structurally deficient bridges and highways, and increases greenhouse gases when we should be cutting them. RTID fixes one bridge rated under 25% out of a total of 34. It's like adding a bedroom to your house when your roof is leaking: the priorities are backwards.

tiptoe tommy says:
"The Roads half of the package will NOT result in more cars."

Tommy, if you're saying that new capacity does not induce additional trips than would otherwise occur, your claims run counter to the data.

Sorry, I screwed up my link. Here it is again.

I am extremely heartened to see the skepticism here of the Sierra Club's position on this. People saying things like "the politicians are accountable to us" and "transit will be back and better" don't seem to understand the Seattle Way (fucked up as it is). It's taken a long time to get to this point. Yes, there have been compromises, and we'd all like to have a more enlightened transporation package. But getting the good things in this deal implemented is too important. Pie-in-the-sky idealism is not something Olympia is going to all of a sudden turn around and start promoting if this was voted down. If it suited their redneck constituencies there would probably be politicians saying it failed because there was too MUCH transit involved. That's what we're up against.

This is as good as it gets for the immediate future. Vote for it.

The political reality is that we don't have to accept billions for new roads just to get transit.

We got transit ALONE in 1996. We've passed transit measures ALONE twice in the past few years for King County Metro.

In the same time, we've voted down mega-highways. But now those same highways are back in front of voters in Proposition One.

The highway lobby is trying to take transit hostage and say the only way you'll get transit is to buy more roads. I say fuck them. Call their bluff. Shoot the hostage. We'll bring back a stand-alone transit plane next year.

We can get stand-alone transit without highways. We've repeatedly done it before.

By the way, did anyone catch today's Seattle Times article that said the polar ice cap at the north pole will be completely melted by 2050. They had previously thought it wouldn't happen until 2070 or 2100, but now are having to move their estimates up.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003873003_arcticice07m.html

I wonder what all of those paid hacks urging us to compromise on highways and global warming think about this?

There's something misleading about Sierra Club's opposition to this joint ballot. Check out this statement from Sierra Club's anti-Prop. 1 Web site:

Gives us Sound Transit light rail without the albatross of highway expansion tied to its neck.

The truth is, Sierra Club doesn't really want the light rail that Sound Transit has to offer anyway. This blog referred to a letter from Mike O'Brien and Tim Gould of Sierra Club addressed to the Sound Transit/RTID leaders. Check this passage:

The proposed extensions of North Link LRT into Snohomish County and especially South Link LRT to Fife in Pierce County attempt to serve relatively low density suburban areas with less ridership potential than the primary urban centers in those two counties. Intercity and inter-subarea trips are better carried on express buses using HOV lanes and direct access ramps, and commuter rail. We support further expansion of Sounder service, particularly south, using partnerships with the Ports, WSDOT, and competing railroad companies to leverage more favorable terms with BNSFRR. The high capacity of light rail should be located where it will support the land use patterns and designated urban centers of the PSRC Destination 2030 plan. We favor ST2 fixed rail investments for Pierce and Snohomish Counties be made directly in Tacoma and Everett, respectively. In Tacoma, extensions of Tacoma Link both westward to Tacoma Community College and southward along the SR-7 corridor to PLU and Parkland have merit. Light rail or streetcar from downtown Everett south along the SR-99 corridor to as far as Lynnwood (if funding allows) connects growing urban areas with high quality service.

Yeah, instead of real, grade-separated, high-capacity mass transit, Sierra Club really wants buses and highly limited streetcar-like light rail like they have now in Tacoma. When it comes to the north-south extensions of light rail, there really is no separation between the Sierra Club's position and the anti-rail camp's position.

There are two observations I would make about Sierra Club's real position besides the disingenuousness of its "albatross" campaign statement.

1. They would never admit it, but the dominant philosophical strain in the local Sierra Club chapter really is this lesser Seattle, anti-growth, anti-density, anti-establishment, aged hippy, "keep the outsiders from coming here," "let's keep our bucolic single-family-home neighborhoods" attitude. Instead of "let them eat cake," it's "let them bike." It's 1968 and 1970 over and over and over again.
2. No matter what proposal comes from Sound Transit and Olympia, Sierra Club will find some excuse to nitpick it to death. They will never be satisfied because, ultimately, being satisfied with building stuff is not what they're about.

I don't know about the paid hacks, but I think the region will be better suited to reduce driving if we have alternatives like light rail. The package seems like a fair one to me -- and the Sierra Club is one of the only environmental groups opposing it. Transportation Choice Coalition and Washington Conservation Voters agreed not to oppose it.

A lot of people are going to ignore both Kemper and the Sierra Club. This is very likely going to pass.

Since the entire anti argument rests on the likelihood of a transit-only package coming back really soon, it would be great if the Stranger could do a little digging in Olympia and in the other appropriate venues.

cressona,
Are you reading the same letter I am? How about this line from your quote:

"We favor ST2 fixed rail investments for Pierce and Snohomish Counties be made directly in Tacoma and Everett, respectively."

The phrase "favor ST2 fixed rail" leads me to believe that we (yes, I am a Sierra Club member) are on record ... favoring ST2 fixed rail investments. You are obviously counting on people not fully reading your posts.

Also: don't tell me who I am or what I think. Not only are you wrong on all counts, it's intellectually dishonest.

RTID/ST2 has the wrong kind of taxes, and too much of them. I like trains, but at this point it is in our best interests to make sure they can deliver Central Link before committing any more money (let alone untold billions).

It MAY be the case that different leadership could bring a better, more cost effective rail system on line.

And face it - you really would be hitting the least well off segment of our society the hardest with more sales taxes. The politicians are lazy - make them come up with a better plan: one that hits businesses harder than this one would.

@11 and 23. Exactly. This plan has been in the works for years and the Sierra Club has sat by and watched it happen. Dare I say this opposition is more about fundraising then political reality. I suppose in Seattle you could get support for a huge transit only package, but this has to pass region wide. That includes Kent, Tacoma, Snohomish County, etc.

People do want transit, but they also want choke points fixed. They want a new 520 bridge with nice bike lanes and HOV. This package does that. It doesn't build new freeways, it makes the ones we have work better.

Oh and it funds a shit load of light rail.

Patrick @27:

cressona,
Are you reading the same letter I am? How about this line from your quote:
"We favor ST2 fixed rail investments for Pierce and Snohomish Counties be made directly in Tacoma and Everett, respectively."
The phrase "favor ST2 fixed rail" leads me to believe that we (yes, I am a Sierra Club member) are on record ... favoring ST2 fixed rail investments. You are obviously counting on people not fully reading your posts.

Yes, Sierra Club does favor fixed-rail investments. And what are those fixed-rail investments?

In Tacoma, extensions of Tacoma Link both westward to Tacoma Community College and southward along the SR-7 corridor to PLU and Parkland have merit. Light rail or streetcar from downtown Everett

Those fixed-rail investments are streetcars and at-grade light rail through downtown that is scarcely better than a streetcar. Take a ride on Tacoma Link sometime. As someone who supported monorail and didn't want to see light rail go at-grade through the Rainier Valley, I see O'Brien and Gould as advocating a pretty half-assed solution. But hey, why do real mass transit when you can get away with half-assed transit?

Patrick:

Also: don't tell me who I am or what I think. Not only are you wrong on all counts, it's intellectually dishonest.

Patrick, by that standard of "intellectual honesty," it would be dishonest to accuse George W. Bush and Dick Cheney of doing the bidding of the oil industry and the military-industrial complex. I think we all have a pretty good idea what they're about, and I think we all have a pretty good idea of what much of, though not all, the Sierra Club leadership is about.

Throwing billions of dollars at light rail doesn't solve anything. Sierra Club is right - there needs to be tolling (and higher gas taxes) to reduce SOV useage at key times and locations. Just pumping billions into Sound Transit encourages wasteful SOV use. You people sound like freaking train cultists. Trains are not "all that." We need to provide disincentives to useless vehicle travel, and raise revenue from those who are using the system the most. Sales taxes don't do that - at all.

Who is the biggest beneficiary of trains? Property developers like Freeman, Jr. Let them pay for it, by commercial real estate excise taxes, taxes on corporate profits, etc. When there is a better financing model for extending light rail, I'll go for it.

In the mean time, the legislature should just raise a balanced mix of tolls and taxes to cover the SR 520 costs, toll some other congestion spots, and mandate the chips in the cars using highways. Other states do it, and there's no abuse of "personal freedoms."

And I agree with the poster above - make ST prove it can actually build the light rail line before giving it more taxing rights. It has been lame, by any measure. That thing was supposed to have been done last year, and from what I hear there's going to be BIG problems getting that second tunnel dug under Beacon Hill. The first was bad, and there's geotechnical problems they know about for the next one.

Frankly, I don't trust ST. They're way too secretive.

Giffy:
Light rail actually enjoys strong support in both Pierce and Snohomish Counties. Check out pages 5 and 6 from this poll:

http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf//EMC-WSDOTtransitpoll.04.07.pdf

Giffy,

Please read what the package actually includes, and what it doesn't. RTID only partially funds the new 520 bridge- there are still several billion dollars that will have to be "found" before the project will be fully funded.

And what is the Crossbase highway, if not a new freeway?

And your "shitload" of light rail? Ready for you to use in 2027.

cressona,
Again, you seem to insist on twisting the Sierra Club into a straw man. Either that or you don't actually know what the Sierra Club's position is.

Right on the front of the Cascade Chapter home page is a link to a spring 2007 position statement on RTID/ST2. I quote:

"The Sierra Club emphasizes three priorities:

* A fully funded Sound Transit 2 package;
* “Fix-it-first” highway spending: includes safety projects like replacing the SR 520 and South Park bridges, and improving I-405 in Bellevue to reduce braiding;
* Prioritizing projects that improve roads for transit and HOV use, such as Snohomish County Transit improvements or adding HOV direct-access ramps on I-5 at Industrial Way S. (SoDo busway) and at the Lakewood Transit Center.

A policy of no unpriced, new general-purpose lanes on limited-access highways anywhere in the Puget Sound urban area. Additionally, dynamic tolling (i.e., congestion pricing) of all, including existing, limited-access highways should be introduced in the region."

So are you saying that ST2 is "half-assed transit"? Please.

I'm happy to debate the facts with you, cressona, but seriously: cut the bullshit.

"realistic" @ 28 and arturo make the silliest argument of all--that we should wait until light rail opens before committing to build more.

This might be true if light rail was a new and untested technology. And it might be true if ST wasn't successfully carrying tens of thousands of commuters daily on ST Express buses, Sounder and Tacoma Link. And it might be true if King County Metro wasn't going to be operating light rail trains and systems with experienced management in transit.

Those who say we should wait are hiding behind a sound bite to avoid saying what they really want--no rail.

Patrick @34:

"The Sierra Club emphasizes three priorities:
* A fully funded Sound Transit 2 package;

…I'm happy to debate the facts with you, cressona, but seriously: cut the bullshit.

So Patrick, are you saying that Mike O'Brien and Tim Gould did not represent the Sierra Club chapter when they wrote that letter to Bunney and Ladenburg expressing their displease with the Sound Transit 2 route choices? Why are you now running away from what they wrote?

This raises the question, what does Sierra Club mean by "a fully funded Sound Transit 2 package"? Is it really the Sound Transit 2 package put forward by Sound Transit. Or is it this lesser, streetcar-oriented Sound Transit 2 vision put forward by O'Brien and Gould?

At best, the Sierra Club comes across as confused and contradictory with its stated position. At worst, it comes across as dishonest.

The disinformation is flying fast on the Slog today.

"just the fact, ma'am" @ 33 says light rail won't be built until 2027.

Pure Bullshit...try Northgate in 2016 and downtown Bellevue in 2018. Only the far ends will take until 2027. It is called a twenty year cash plan. The regional consensus was that Northgate needed to happen as quickly as possible and Bellevue should follow right behind. Folks in Tacoma were willing to wait longer to guarantee rail could reach Tacoma.

It takes time to design, permit, bid contracts, and build. You can go faster, but only if you spend more money. The regional nature of transportation planning involves tradeoffs. Pierce and Snohomish would not vote for a plan if it didn't reach them at all.

By the way, Patrick, since you are big on the facts, did you know that the elected officials and public in Pierce County thought that the Sierra Club's suggestions on investments in Tacoma were very poor. The extension of Tacoma Link is chump change compared to the cost of light rail. It will be built anyway. And Sounder expansion is limited by freight needs on the railroad corridor.

I wish the Sierra Club had bothered to be involved over the past two years instead of getting in bed with Kemper Freeman. Both seem trapped in a fantasy world.

cressona,
The current ST2 package was finalized in April. The Sierra Club position statement we're talking about was released in May. They were talking about the current package.

The statement that ST will be going to Northgate by 2016 is poppycock - that's the date they now say they'll get to Husky Stadium (not even the central U-District).

For those who have been keeping track, this is 10 years later than they promised voters in 1996.

Oh, speaking of intellectual dishonesty, let's get back to Josh Feit's actual post here:

Environmentalists worry that 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.

Uh, I'm an environmentalist. I don't count? How about some environmentalists rather than the implicit all environmentalists?

Also, there's the implication above -- made not by accident, you can see -- that all of the $6.9 billion roads package is bad for the environment. I suggest people take a look at RTID's "Blueprint for Progress" and see for themselves: http://www.rtid.org/docs/FINAL_RTIDBlueprint.pdf

Project lists begin on page 30.

tiptoe tommy,
"By the way, Patrick, since you are big on the facts"

Sheesh, you say that like it's a bad thing.

Regardless of what recommendations the Sierra Club made in the past, it supports the final ST2 package.

And for the record, you are right about the ST2 timeline projections -- 2016 is the predicted opening of the first phase. It's right on the ST2 web page. Northgate would add big ridership numbers, from what I understand. I too would like to get started this year -- I'm just not willing to sell out our region's long term growth trends and climate obligations to do it.

Patrick @38:

cressona, The current ST2 package was finalized in April. The Sierra Club position statement we're talking about was released in May. They were talking about the current package.

Patrick, if you wish to interpret it that way, fine. But I feel compelled to take the sheep's clothing off the wolf here. It's politically expedient now for Sierra Club to say they want to save Sound Transit 2. But Mike O'Brien and Tim Gould's letter to ST2 and RTID indicates their true intentions. They're not enamored of ST2 in its current form, and they're not going to mind killing it now and then seeing its reincarnation get eviscerated.

In fact, a commenter on Slog who went by the name "transpchair," and who I would guess was Tim Gould, posted very recently about how misguided ST2 was. I'll find that when I get a chance.

Now, if this was indeed Tim Gould, putting such a post out showed a remarkable lack of discipline in a campaign. But it also reveals a likely truth Sierra Club would rather hide: that much of its leadership, for various reasons, isn't as interested in saving ST2 in its current form as they're letting on.

@31: I'm going to borrow a phrase from your fellow toll fan Patrick at 12 here. "Remember: the politicians are accountable to us, not the other way around." What he really means is the politicians are accountable to the people--not to a couple of guys on a blog.

The reality is that the people like free highways. There is only very minimal support out there for paying tolls to drive on already-built roads. And, there has been little education or advocacy work done to garner public support for tolling as a demand management tool. (Tolls to fund new construction, such as a specific SR-520 toll to fund a new bridge, would likely be accepted by the public.)

Ron Sims is doing a little work in the education area, but I'd still say public acceptance of tolling previously-free highways is at least 20 years down the road. And that's only if the likes of Arturo, Patrick and Mike O'Brien get off their asses and make their case to people outside the Sierra Club echo chamber.

Patrick ignores the substance of my post that the Pierce folks HATED the Sierra Club suggestions for Pierce dollars and focuses on my smartass comment.

If the Sierra Club is so off base in its analysis of ST 2, why should we trust their thinking on Roads and Transit?

I believe that both packages could have been far worse and that it was a struggle to get a ST package that was ambitious and aggressive in building light rail and a RTID package that actually won many environmental concessions. It may be far worse next time...

cressona,
They advocate concentrating light rail dollars in dense urban centers, especially the Northgate and Bellevue extensions. I'd assume from the letter (although it's not explicitly mentioned) that they would support the Balland and West Seattle extensions based on that principle. There's nothing in there that says ST2 should rely on at-grade tracks, either.

I don't see anything nefarious or disingenuous there. It follows the theme of concentrating our investments in the urbanized core and not subsidizing sprawl.

Cressona @40,

I've looked at the Blueprint for Progress. A lot. I've sat down with proponents of the package and opponents about the "good roads/bad roads" debate. They both make great points. I don't know where I am on the issue.

The proponents and opponents use different definitions for determining those roads.

On the pro side: Transportation Choices Coalition, which argues that most of the roads in RTID are “good,” because they include lots of new HOV lanes and freight capacity. According to TCC’s calculation, only 15 percent of the entire joint roads and transit package, or about $2.6 billion, is made up of “bad” roads; according to their analysis, “good” roads make up about 23 percent, or just over $4 billion.

On the anti side is the Sierra Club, whose own analysis places the percentage of “good” roads (again, as part of the entire roads/transit package) at around 8 percent, or about $1.4 billion; “bad” roads, under their interpretation, make up around 30 percent of the total package, or $5.2 billion.

As for "intellectual dishonesty." Calm down Cressona. I wasn't intentionally trying to say all environmentalists are against the package. Sierra Club members are environmentalists. It's like saying: "Parents objected to WASL regulations..." Of course, not all parents objected.

Anyway, I too am an environmentalist, and I don't know where I stand on the package. Was I trying to discount myself?

Sure, I could have said "some" ... But it wasn't a conspiracy.

You're real paranoid, man.

I'm reminded of a quote I read recently regarding the Middle East. It went something like...

When I'm weak, I ask, "How can I compromise?" When I'm strong, I ask, "Why should I compromise?"

If all us transit supporters are so strong, why were we forced to compromise to begin with? If we're so strong, why don't we have an ST2-only ballot measure now? I remember last year when Chris Gregoire, Ed Murray, and company strong-armed through that legislation that forced ST2 to be joined at the hip with RTID. I remember how livid State Senator Ken Jacobsen, one of the few rock-solid light rail supporters, was about it. I remember how groups like Transportation Choices Coalition felt like they had gotten the rug pulled out from under them. If the likes of Gregoire and Murray were so weak, then how were they able to force ST2 to be linked to RTID?

The morning after this joint ballot goes down to defeat, is Ed Murray going to wake up and realize, "Hey, I work for the people after all"? Is Chris Gregoire going to wake up and realize, "Wow, my political fortunes are tied to the Cascade Chapter of the Sierra Club after all"? I kinda doubt it.

It gives me no pleasure to say this, but I know in my gut that this compromise's demise at the polls is going to do for transit and the environment in this region what Yitzhak Rabin's assassination did for peace in Israel and Palestine. The funny thing is, these Sierra Club leaders are as convinced of the rightness of their cause as that Jewish settler who shot Rabin was convinced of the rightness of his cause.

Patrick @45:

cressona, They advocate concentrating light rail dollars in dense urban centers, especially the Northgate and Bellevue extensions. I'd assume from the letter (although it's not explicitly mentioned) that they would support the Balland and West Seattle extensions based on that principle. There's nothing in there that says ST2 should rely on at-grade tracks, either.

I don't see anything nefarious or disingenuous there. It follows the theme of concentrating our investments in the urbanized core and not subsidizing sprawl.

Those may be perfectly valid alternatives to prefer, but those are only alternatives to ST2. They are not ST2. And this is what makes it dishonest of Mike O'Brien and company to claim in their campaign materials that they just want to loose ST2 from the RTID albatross. That claim does not represent their true intentions, and they know it.

Here's the post from transpchair:

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)...

Sounds pretty clear to me. Sounds like he's saying: Let's reject this ballot measure not just because we're unhappy with this shotgun marriage of ST2 and RTID, but because we're unhappy with ST2 itself, and we're unhappy with the tax structure, and we're unhappy with... Well, I'm sure the list goes on.

Sound Transit has subarea equity. This means dollars raised in an area pay for projects in that area. Not my choice, but
part of the political compromise that made a three-county transit agency possible. Folks in Pierce don't want to pay for light rail to Ballard.

This rail package will allow dense communities to develop around all station areas throughout the county. A person could live in a town center near a rail stop in Lynnwood or Federal Way and leave the car at home or not have one at all.

The Sierra Club's membership in this region is heavily concentrated in Seattle. But our transit decisions need to be made in a metropolitan area six times the size of Seattle. Perhaps that explains the disconnect here.

Josh Feit @46:

As for "intellectual dishonesty." Calm down Cressona. I wasn't intentionally trying to say all environmentalists are against the package. Sierra Club members are environmentalists. It's like saying: "Parents objected to WASL regulations..." Of course, not all parents objected.
Anyway, I too am an environmentalist, and I don't know where I stand on the package. Was I trying to discount myself?
Sure, I could have said "some" ... But it wasn't a conspiracy.
You're real paranoid, man.

Josh, you're a professional journalist, correct? I know what you were trying to say. You know what you were trying to say. Neither of us was born yesterday.

I'm happy to be called paranoid by someone who knows I was being anything but paranoid by pointing to an attempt to conflate "environmentalist" with "Sierra Club leadership," and "RTID" with "bad roads."

Bill @ 9 and last week asked Mike O'Brien of the Sierra Club to tell us how Sierra Club members get around.

Thoughtfully, the Sierra Club provides the answer on their own website. In a poll asking the question, what is your primary mode of transportation?--the results are as follows:

Walking--12%
Bicycle--17%
Motorcycle--3%
Public Transportation--16%
AUTOMOBILE--52%

I'm just sayin...

Good advice for Cressona - calm down. And please quit trying to demonize the Sierra Club.

This is a simple disagreement. It's not a secret government plot hatched in area 51.

The Sierra Club is urging people to vote no because they don't think we should be spending billions on new highways given what we know about global warming.

It's not because they secretly love highways, or hate light rail or any of the other bizarre conspiracy schemes Cressona and Tommy are trying to dream up.

The simple fact is that over the last ten years we have repeatedly passed transit-only packages without having to swallow billions in new highway construction.

Plus, there's a really good plan on the table for congestion pricing. A plan that would make our current roads move faster than a parking lot. And a plan that would generate money to begin building transit immediately.

Given this political reality, the Sierra Club doesn't want to build new highways. They don't want to finally pass Sen. Jim Horn's highway plfan.

I mean honestly, can you blame them?

Oh, by the way, in case you missed the NYT today, scientists are estimating that 2/3 of polar bears will be extinct by 2050.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/science/earth/08polar.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

You have had a tough slog.

tiptoe tommy at 49: yes, ST has subarea equity. but that does not mean that they had to use almost all the ST2 on inter county Link LRT extensions. The Link LRT ridership forecasted for the south line to the Tacoma Dome is miniscule. That should have inticated to the ST board that they should find other projects.

ST2 could have spent the South King and Pierce County subareas much better. Both areas need better transit. But the south extension of Link LRT will not help the residents get around very well. Given the deviation to the Rainier Valley, the south line is not a good long distance inter county investment. The Sierra Club citizens suggested some other transit investments that would have attracted more ridership and supported more growth in Tacoma. Intercity trips can better be carried on Sounder and fast buses in HOT lanes.

50 miles of LRT is not necessarily a good thing worthy of an affirmative vote if it means the money is not available for more useful transit projects. What if only six miles are really great miles (between UW stadium station and Northgate)?

Pierce County and South King County need much more and better transit, but they do not need to spend billions building and running empty trains.

on both the roads and transit sides of the joint ballot measure, the opportunity cost of the chosen projects is quite high.

The mega RTID projects in King and Pierce Counties are dangerous, as the Sierra Club asserts: I-405, SR-509, SR-167 and even SR-520. The RTID and the Legislature have not assembled an adequate financing plan for SR-520 and its scope does not include improvements east of I-405.

The $800 million taken from the AWV is fairly well spent, but that is the bicycle on the back of the global warming SUV that is the bulk of the package. The politics behind the package demanded the large increase in I-405.

The important left off road projects include I-5 rehab, local arterials, sidewalks.

that the RTID board chose to rely on the sales tax is most offensive and nearly a fatal flaw by itself. The Legislature authorized some other user taxes and they could have asked for different ones. They opened up the authorizing legislation in 2007 to allow the single pull of the lever.

ST2 include 11,000 new park-and-ride stalls: more monuments to auto-dependency.

tiptoe tommy at 51: and how does the ST board get around? Councilmember Marin is about the only one who tells personal transit stories. I have heard most of the others tell personal auto stories.

otterpop @52:

Good advice for Cressona - calm down. And please quit trying to demonize the Sierra Club.
This is a simple disagreement. It's not a secret government plot hatched in area 51.

This hardly sounds like a conspiracy to me: One of the Sierra Club's campaign messages -- "Release ST2 from the RTID yoke" -- doesn't accurately represent their true position concerning ST2 -- when Sierra Club is already on record expressing serious concerns about ST2's alignment and financing. Secret plot? No, just run-of-the-mill underlying agenda.

Consider this hypothetical. If ST2 had gone to the ballot alone and intact this year, I'm sure the Mike O'Briens and Tim Goulds still would have wanted to oppose it. Now that position might have been too divisive among the Sierra Club ranks for it to have taken hold.

It's not the case the rest of the environmental community "isn't opposing" the ballot this year - they are actually all unified behind it.

The Sierra Club would seem to be pursuing that excellent "Ralph Nader 2000 - Vote your Dreams!" thing again.

Worked out real well last time, didn't it, guys?

So nice to see naive lefties engaging in some fine co-operation with the pavement caucus on their way to the circular firing squad.

Fact is, Sierra is doing what all poorly-organized activists do: they are lazily wandering into this debate in the 11th hour, cementing their status as showhorses, as opposed to workhorses. They get all this media attention, despite the fact they have been non-players in this roads and transit thing since its inception.

Mike O'brien flat-out lied when told the P-I they have been working to de-couple RTID and ST in Olympia. Unless you call "barely lifting a finger" work. the only these minor players came close to their myopic goals was when Ed Murray, author of RTID, flip-flopped for a minute, and wrote a letter stating ST could be free. Turned out, the grander scheme was to kill the East Link light rail extension across Lake Washington, which was to be the sacrifice offered up at the Kemper Freeman alter. And when Sierra Club dreams about all the wonderful light rail opportunites available next legislative session, maybe they will take a break from their spacey daydreaming, to realize what kind of sharks are waiting for them in the pool below the cliff they're trying to jump off.

In short, Sierra Club has been nowhere on transportation issues for some time. Why not just merge with the Green Party, Patrick?

I could care less if some group of barely-organized ideologues decides they want to catapult themselves into obscurity.

What pisses me off is when they try to take the rest of us off the cliff with them.

And Cressona is right: Sierra Club is totally spacey on light rail. Those ideas about all-day diesel locomotive service between Seattle and Tacoma was simply loony. These guys are on the outside fringes because they put themselves there. This notion of "tolling every road" is so laughable, it isn't worth wasting my energy on.

Finally, I can't help but notice the blatant contradiction between Sierra Club's claim we can get everybody into green cars by next decade, and this hysterical "no new roads ever" strategy. Not only will greener, cheaper to operate cars emit only a fraction of today's gas-guzzlers, they will only induce more driving, and remove the demand for mass transit. Now, these pie-in-the-sky guys will claim their Big Brother tolling plans will somehow offset this blantant contradiction - and that could be the case, if those "we're going to toll your driveway" ideas were actually even slightly viable. But they're not.

Come on out of your bubble, guys. You might find it harder to compete in the marketplace of ideas, but at least your only friends won't be the right wingers who are REALLY trying to pave the planet and melt the polar ice cap.

"50 miles of LRT is not necessarily a good thing worthy of an affirmative vote if it means the money is not available for more useful transit projects. What if only six miles are really great miles (between UW stadium station and Northgate)?"

Hey, Cressonia, check it out. Sierra Clubber eddiew just confirmed your argument regarding their lukewarm support for light rail. If given the chance, they will nitpick away until the cows come home. Lightrail in theory = ok. Lightrail in practice? Well, that's another story.....

Patrick, you might think about getting on the same page with fellow clubber eddiew before he pulls the rug out from under you again.

All aboard eddiew's slow bus express; it might take an hour to travel 5 miles, but who needs extra time when there are all kinds of issues just waiting to be nitpicked to death?

Fergie,

The real question is whether the joint ballot measure deserves an affirmative or negative vote.

The Sierra Club, just like the Democrats and the Republicans is not monolithic. there are members of all three groups on both sides of this complicated joint ballot measure. and they have reached their decisions for variety of reasons.

Unlike the SMP debates, ST2 should not be a religous or faith-based debate.

Should we use the sales tax to expand unpriced limited access highway capacity when we are concerned about sprawl and global warming? No.

The use of the sales tax for limited access highway expansion was the idea of senators McDonald, Finkbinder, and Horn. they were the original authors of the RTID bill 6140 in 2002. they traded for Seattle Senator votes as they wanted the monorail authorizing legislation and Referendum 51. RTID lives on.

Should we use the South King and Pierce County ST2 funds on a long slow extension of Link LRT that is forecast to attract very little ridership and take more than 70 minutes to connect the Tacoma Dome Station and downtown Seattle? No. South King County needs much better transit service. It would be a shame to waste their tax dollars.

Do we really expect that between now and 2027, the approximate year that Link LRT is forecast to reach the Tacoma Dome, WSDOT or a regional agency will not be tolling I-5 or providing a reliable HOT lane system between Tacoma and Seattle via the South 317th Street center access ramps?

AndyPanda hits the nail on the head with his comparison of the Sierra Club's stand on Roads and Transit and the 2000 Ralph Nader campaign. Many of us in Seattle were pretty damn cocky after eight years of Clinton. We thought there was no way America would elect that idiot Bush president. So many voted for the ideologically pure choice--to send a message. After seven years of Bush, I got the message--you were idiots. The Sierra Club isn't engaged in Olympia or even in King County politics, it is all a theoretical construct for them.

Cressona is right, the transit package likely wouldn't have been good enough for eddiew and the Sierra Club even if it stood alone. Let's look at some of eddiew's holier-than-thou arguments:

He claims that light rail to Tacoma is a waste because it takes too long and claims buses and Sounder would be better uses of money. This is a typical Seattle-centric view. Fact is, Pierce County is helping pay for miles of track in King County so that light rail will reach them. Believe it or not, not everyone in Pierce wants to come to the Emerald City. Some want to go to the airport, some to the Boeing plants in the Kent Valley, or other destinations. And the 60-70 minutes to Tacoma may look long now, but in twenty years we will have twice as many people in this region and the current 40 minute commute is likely to stretch out to at least match that of rail...on a good day for cars.

Eddie's claim that the Rainier Valley route will make rail too slow is laughable. The Rainier route is four miles long, trains will move at an average of 27 MPH. Even if the line went down the freeway at 50 MPH for those four miles you would only save about four minutes. Four minutes is not what gets people out of their cars. What gets them out cars is the reliability and predictability of rail.

One of the main reasons to build rail is to decide where you want to target growth in the region. Developers love rail because it is permanent unlike a bus route. They will build dense, walkable communities around rail stops. Look at the growth around Sounder stops in Kent and Auburn's downtowns if you don't believe it. And the public loves rail for the same reason. People don't really give a flying fuck whether they get somewhere in 37 or 46 minutes. What they care about is that a train will come every five minutes rain or shine unlike our mysteriously disappearing buses. It only takes a few late days to get fired these days. So they drive, especially if they are in working class minimum wage jobs.

Finally, eddiew misses the point of my post on the fact that 52% of Sierra Club members drive to work. He says, what about the Sound Transit Board? Well, of course he is right, a three county board of busy elected officials is dominated by drivers. But that isn't the news. The news is that even the puritanical Sierra Club doesn't park their cars--they drive. Which makes their opposition kind of Larry Craigish if you ask me.

I'm voting no on this because I'm still feeling tapped out after getting my car taps dinged year after year for the Monorail tax boondoggle. I'm also extremely skeptical of the notion building more roads reduces congestion. The only way to reduce congestion is for very large numbers of people to drive less. That's what I'm doing--bike commuting to work, combining trips when I have to drive, and staying close to home as much as possible. Light rail is a great thing in NYC, Boston, SF and Portland where RAIL SYSTEMS were put in place decades ago when it was still affordable. Here, Sound Transit is overwhelmingly a BUS SYSTEM, and buses are doomed to creep slowly along the roadways (albeit in HOV lanes) with other traffic. This situation is the legacy of decades of political dithering, wretchedly bad land use planning, and the creation and ongoing discoordination of multiple transit agencies that won't work together to create a seamless regional system. The latest example is Seattle, which accepted $56,000,000 from developers to build a cute little train-to-nowhere to serve Paul Allen's new architectural excesses in the Lake Union neighborhood. Metro will run this little train in a loop, where it will sit in traffic surrounded by cars, because--let's face it--this silly train is pretty much just a fancy bus on tracks. $56,000,000 could have put more buses on Seattle's streets (but Hizzhonor would have dissed that because buses are King County's thing) or been a good down payment on the world class bike trail system that Hizzhonor keeps trumpeting as his "vision." Prop 1 will ding us $2,000 per household per year and what will we get? More roads and more cars on those roads. Heck, we can't even afford to maintain the roads we've already got!!! We could ease traffic without paying for even a truck load of cement by implementing transponders and congestion pricing, just like in Singapore. Low income people could be given an exemption so they can commute to work. If we're too chicken-shit to do that, future off-the-charts gas prices will do the trick. I predict we will see $5 per gallon gas prices before the decade is out, making people think twice before they hit the road.

The only way we're going to be able to turn out transportation situation around is to build a credible mass transit alternative to driving. The only available path to doing that is ST2 light rail. It's not the start I'd like to see, but it's a start.

The only really horrible roads project is the cross-base highway. The remaining projects expand capacity on existing roads, which isn't what I'd like to see but it's the best we're likely to get any time soon.

Rather than bemoaning our less than perfect situation right now, we need to plan for the future:

1. Pass ST2/RTID.
2. Use the built-in mitigation process to cancel the cross-base highway. (That is, bargain for strong changes, and then sue when mitigation fails to block the highway.)
3. Take additional measures to prevent sprawling development outside the urban growth boundary and encourage density withint he urban growth boundary.
4. Wait until the successful launch of light rail and then use the goodwill to assemble a light rail acceleration project that spends more money to get all of the ST2 improvements finished within 10 years and add spur lines to West Seattle, Ballard, and possibly other neighborhoods not served by the main rail lines.
5. Put together a funding project that shifts funding from sales taxes to tolls and develops a congestion-pricing system. The idea is to make it impossible to build any more highways after RTID without tolls.

tiptoe:

correct, it is not very important that the ST Board drive alot or that Sierra Club members may drive alot. The SC folks are multimodal: they walk, bus, bike, and drive. one can drive, oppose the joint ballot measure, and not be hypocritical.

what is important is that it is very poor public policy to raise the sales tax and bond against for 30 years so unpriced limited access highways can be expanded. if they are to be expanded, it should be with a tax related to their use: local option gas tax, parking tax, odometer tax, statewide gas tax, or tolling.

the car is wonderful, we just need to set up public policy so that it pays its own way.

South LRT was modeled at nine minute headway (not five). It will not help Pierce County commuters reach the Green River employment. That market still has free parking. Pierce County transit commuters to downtown Seattle face paid parking. A fast frequent bus connection between Tacoma and SeaTac could be established much sooner and more cost-effectively than ST2 LRT.

The key is the opportunity cost of ST2. The transit funds could be better spent.

The land use changes around ST2 LRT stations will be directly proportional to the ridership attracted and that is forecast to be quite low.

Yes, the downtowns of Puyallup, Auburn, and Kent have benefited from Sounder service. Those downtowns have street grids as they developed before WWII. Sounder provides real transit advantages: speed and reliability. South ST2 LRT will only provide reliability. All-day Sounder service would have been more benefit to Puyallup, Auburn, and Kent development. But ST2 include NO additional south Sounder service not in phase one. It improves some parking.

eddiew:

You still miss my point which is simple--everyone drives, even the Sierra Club. You will get no argument from me that our auto-dependent culture sucks and I agree that we should institute tolling around the region so cars pay their own way. And I even agree that the sales tax is a poor funding choice and that taxes more related to car usage would be more fair.

But that is the main tool the legislature gave ST to work with. The RTID is mostly funded by MVET which is a car related tax. The Sierra Club continues to ignore the political realities of our legislature. The leg is far more conservative than us Seattle folks. It was the leg that married roads and transit. It was the leg that created RTID to avoid having the state pay for state highways in the Puget Sound area. It was the leg that determined the taxing authority ST and RTID use. And it was the leg who almost dissolved ST and RTID in the last sesion in favor of a suburban, Republican backed mega body to do transportation planning.

So why are we supposed to believe the Sierra Club that we can do better next year or the year after? You may have noticed that the governor and much of the legislature is up for reelection in 2008. They don't like big tax measures on the ballot as they are running. So the likelihood of returning to the ballot in 2008 is very slim. Even under the rosiest scenario where ST is allowed to go out again in 2009 it will likely be with the same funding mix, but with less money to work with and increased costs delivering less rail for our region.

The ridership on rail is according to the federal criteria for forcasting ridership which is very conservative. History shows actual ridership is always higher that the feds project. And the reason Sounder service is not expanded in ST 2 is because ST would need to build a new additional track along the entire route and negotiate with the railroads to do so. The cost would likely be quite high. Sounder will continue to expand routes offered in future years from current funding, but the freight tracks in this region are already full.

Cascadian offers some good suggestions for what we can do post Roads and Transit to continue to improve this package. But first we need to decide to build rail now.