Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Footage from our Prop. 1 Debate, Pt. 2


FINALLY!!! It was hell waiting for the part where McGinn calls Sandeep, "a clueless twit" and that nut from the Cascade Bike Club (Hillier?) throwing a chair at Rob from TCC.

Posted by StrangerDanger | October 19, 2007 10:22 AM

Hiller needs to rethink his shirt selection. Something with a little room in it, and maybe some starch.

Posted by Fnarf | October 19, 2007 10:23 AM

What I want to know is, why did they cut out the conga line footage at the end?

That was the best part.

Well, except for the jello wrestling, but I'm not really into guys wrestling.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 19, 2007 10:27 AM

Hey! You told us these videos would be interesting.

Posted by J.R. | October 19, 2007 10:45 AM


Posted by Sally Struthers Lawnchair | October 19, 2007 11:01 AM

I love hearing McGinn's political analysis. Also, how is the Bike Club going to hold long entrenched (and good) legislators on Mercer Island "accountable".

Also - ECB:
SoundTransit won't be able to bring this back on the ballot. If this thing goes down, SoundTransit will be no more. There was governance reform that Ed Murray was championing in the session last will come back and will have more momentum.

Posted by You're political analysis? | October 19, 2007 11:06 AM

Savages point about cars and oil prices, not to mention light rail and future tolls having the ability to reduce global warmings emissions wasn't rebutted convincingly by the Prop 1 opponents.

Sierra Club thinking on this is much like that of Seattle Commons opponents and Nader supporters -- they thought something better/more pure would come along and it didn't.

Posted by snock | October 19, 2007 11:09 AM

Right on, Dan. People have to realize that if you wait for the perfect plan you'll get nothing. Roads will cause more carbon emissions? Of course--and if global warming turns out to be as big a problem as people are saying, all those roads will get shut down and we'll need transit to get around. If we don't have transit, and we can't drive...well...

If you believe that global warming is an imminent danger, you should be 100% behind this bill because it provides an option when car culture has to be abandoned.

Posted by Seth | October 19, 2007 11:12 AM

Mike McGinn is a moron.

It's cute that he wants to deal with the "reality" of what's going on...Perhaps someone can play this clip for him again in five years when things are exactly the same as they are now.

Why are roads inherently so evil? If there is such a direct correlation between pavement & use, can someone post it? What's the threshold for people deciding that driving isn't worth it? Will every road ever built be used to the maximum capacity? Is this the assumption that the whole argument is based on?

@7, you are quite correct...The altruistic whiners (read Nadar voters) need to realize that political realities, are in fact, realities that DO have an impact (Hey, President Bush!).

Can't the stranger quit being so holier than thou and realize there are compromises that need to be made (and, I know it's hard to believe, some people need to fucking use roads, to like, drive places they need to get that aren't served by alternate transit options.)

Posted by Bill | October 19, 2007 11:22 AM

Going back to the first set of excerpts... Gotta say I'm really disappointed in Rob Johnson for absolutely surrendering on the global warming issue to the two Mikes. What did he say, it's "disingenuous" to even discuss the impact on global warming?

Anyone who actually stops to think about this for a moment knows darn well the likely impact on global warming of defeating this measure, and it's not pleasant. The two Mikes like to perpetuate the illusion that Seattle's like a pharmacy and if that one pharmacy refuses to dispense birth-control pills, people will stop having extramarital sex. If you kill the 85% good of this project on account of the 15% bad, you're just going to displace people and jobs somewhere else. And guess what? In that somewhere else, the mix of transportation investment isn't going to be so heavily weighted toward the good. And where the hell else do they get electricity from clean sources the way we do?

It's classic fundamentalism that if you can't attain perfection, you'd rather make things worse. If the Sierra Club puritans win and wind up managing to do to light rail what Grover Norquist wanted to do to the federal government, they'll have achieved their lovely, little local environmental apocalypse. Good for them.

But there is a bright side to the Sierra Club's opposition. Seattle will be flushed down the toilet in terms of livability, economic competitiveness, peak oil, and, yes, global warming, but at least Mike O'Brien and Mike McGinn will be playaz. They'll get to be big fish in a small pond -- the fetid backwater that is their revisionist utopian vision of Seattle.

Anyway, back to my original disappointment with Rob Johnson. Surrendering to the two Mikes on the global warming issue is a bit like a heavyweight fighter throwing in the towel against a flyweight.

Posted by cressona | October 19, 2007 11:23 AM

The global warming card is the great fallacy in the No on RTID argument. Yes, I've made this argument before and will repeat parts of it verbatim.

There will still be countless polluting sources
pumping global warming elements into the air, even if voting down this package saves whatever you claim it's gonna save in Seattle (which, honestly, is nothing except a few billion dollars). We've had this argument before: voting this down is political suicide for Link: there will NOT be a re-vote on an Eastside expansion no matter what you believe.

If anything, by not building these road and transit improvements, you actually will worsen gridlock and INCREASE the amount of CO2 emitted into the air by this region, because people aren't gonna stop driving to work (sorry, ECB and Dan, but life is not like a game of Sim City, cities are all different, and sociocultural context actually matters) and these people will just end up sitting in traffic even longer, pumping more CO2 into the environment as their vehicles idle in gridlock!

So not only is playing the global warming card fallacious, but it is actually COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to preventing global warming!

Keep living in denial and making empty promises, losers. I'm not gonna cry or scream or whatever else if RTID is voted down, but don't come crying to me when the inevitable happens and all we get in the end is a shittier version of the situation we have now.

Posted by Gomez | October 19, 2007 11:23 AM

Having watched this debate, here's my prediction: if RTID fails (because the "no" crowd used arguments that willfully misread both Olympia and statewide voter opinion) mass transit is dead for 5+ years.

During those five years, the same folks who urged the No are going to be the angriest, bitterest, most resentful people in Washington. Here's what we'll hear:

* "The politicians don't listen! Politics is all bullshit!"
* "Suburbanites shoot down everything Seattle proposes!"
* "I'm movin' to Portland/SF/wherever they have great transit!"

This is always how it goes when idealists shoot down pragmatic compromise solutions in favor of idealistic arguments, only to see the "ignorant" populous then reject their idealistic construct.

Seattle: you have a chance to get the eastside and the rest of the state to fund mass transit in Seattle. Don't blow it. Yes, you have to horsetrade some roads to get it done. Horsetrading is what politics is about. Deal with it.

ps- Dan, as usual, is right.

Posted by Big Sven | October 19, 2007 11:41 AM

It's stupid because even the 50 miles of light rail encourage sprawl/suburbanization... it's suburban rail not mass transit. Basically the only argument why this is absolutely necessary is because people are too prissy to ride the bus. Like... the trains go right next to the freeway! Express busses on the freeway are faster than the trains!

Now the 'projected possible expansion occuring after 2036' to ballard, fremont, west seattle, THAT's a great project. That should go on now, not later.

The big point is, a less stupid plan will hopefully arise by 2009.

Also people will be way more supportive of light rail after it comes out, so what's the big urge to legislate so quickly? We don't really have to legislate before 2016 cus sound transit will be busy during that time burrowing tunnels to the U district anyway. Why commit all our transportation money for 50 years on a half-baked plan? Note: the current ST2 plan will be payed off in 2057, so don't expect anything new before then:

Posted by john | October 19, 2007 11:41 AM

Michael McGinn is a one-man symbol of the brainless schizophrenia of the old Seattle left. In places like San Francisco and New York, they preach density and they practice density. In places like LA and Phoenix, they preach sprawl and they practice sprawl. Seattle, though, is this special place where they preach density at the same time they practice sprawl (at the same time they condemn density as long as it's outside the city limits).

McGinn is too shallow and full of himself to realize the hypocrisy of telling other people they're not allowed to live just the way he himself lives--in a single-family home he was able to buy on the cheap--while at the same time denying them the only truly competitive alternative. That alternative is density that is backed up by reliable, fast transit. Yeah, let them eat cake. Or ride bikes. McGinn and his "old Seattle" cohorts are great at demanding sacrifices and compromises as long as they're not the ones making the sacrifices or compromises.

BTW, if any of you still believe the Sierra Club when they say this is about global warming, I take you back to a great observation the late Walt Crowley made during this year's viaduct campaign:

"The local leftist distrust of big capital and land use projects goes back to Metro and Forward Thrust. The counterculture left actually opposed light rail in 1968 and 1970, proposing bridle trails instead (I kid you not). The aim of creative government should be to expand the commonwealth for all classes."

If you understand any truths of human nature, you'll understand that, even if global warming were just a glimmer in Al Gore's eyes, Mike O'Brien, Mike McGinn, and the rest of that sad group would be just as vehemently opposing this package. And I'm sure they'd have no problem coming up with some other urgent excuse. And I'm sure they'd even believe it.

Posted by cressona | October 19, 2007 11:46 AM

@9 Around here, roads fill up til they can't anymore. So yes, there is a pretty strong correlation.

@11 Prop 1 locks us in to a plan that doesn't address reality. Awareness of that reality is only likely to increase. If it takes another five years to get a plan that's not stupid that's what were stuck with. Wishing that Prop 1 wasn't dumb doesn't fix anything.

Everything *is* really different now. We just had better hope that people figure that out soon.

(And most people really, really have no idea on what planet they really live. The unmanaged risk on this issue is huge.

I had my eyes opened in 2000 when I was visiting the old geology dept back east (I used to be a geo). Even back then folks in the know we're pretty nervous about what's possible. A grad student showed me what you can see when you look into the past (via the ice core data) - there's some totally terrifying sudden (decades not centuries!) climate state transitions buried in that record. The implication is that the comfortable world of a stable climate you *think* you live under is a mirage.

You really live on a planet whose biosphere has some poorly understood but clearly really dangerous non-linear instabilities probably driven by events much like the one we're creating. Nobody really wants to think about this now.

But that will change - this issue is too real and too easy to connect to other eco-issues. All it's gonna take is a major disaster somewhere (my guess is a non-climate eco disaster in China) and folks are going to start paying attention. Eco -risk is going to be the new terrorism (with the difference that eco-risk is much, much bigger). It's just a question of when.)

Posted by bakfiets | October 19, 2007 11:50 AM

15. Except what is your alternative plan?

Oh right, you don't have one, you didn't have one 10 years ago and you're probably not going to have one in 10-20 years because you're still going to be bickering and shooting down anything that isn't perfect.

And there is no Plan B if this gets shot down. In fact, I think King County's Plan B is 'Fuck you and your light rail.'

Posted by Gomez | October 19, 2007 11:54 AM

16. The calculation is that public perception is going to change substantially in the next five years. The costs of the current climate change will become much more apparent. The risks of future change will become better known. Thought leaders are *already* picking up on the new reality. People will follow and then a non-stupid mobility measure will become possible.

What's so complicated about that?

Posted by bakfiets | October 19, 2007 12:01 PM

Except the general public is very aware of the climate change issue, and even if agree with the arguments and even if they believe they want to change... nearly all of them haven't changed a thing and won't, because it would involve significant lifestyle changes.

People don't think like you do. Thinking otherwise is the great failure of liberals.

Posted by Gomez | October 19, 2007 12:03 PM

@9: Yeah, it's called "Induced demand", and it's a pretty simple and well-accept corollary of supply and demand:

Also, try reading the "Stuck in Traffic" series by Anthony Downs, who basically lays out the reasons why building more roads will only result in more traffic throughout the entire system. The academics seem pretty convinced that you can't build your way out of congestion, and that anything you DO build simply adds to the problem.

Even given that, though, I'm voting for this. I can't remember ever feeling so conflicted about a ballot measure, but the history of this fucking city is one of missed chance after missed chance, and I'm sick of being absolutely convinced I live in a city completely lacking vision - and believing only in the perfect isn't being visionary, it's being a fucking daydreamer.

Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien.

Posted by Juris | October 19, 2007 12:15 PM

Bakfiets @17, Gomez is right.

The average suburban American, a.k.a. the average person, cares about global warming. But he/she cares about himself/herself, his/her spouse, and his/her children, above all else. There is such a thing as cognitive dissonance. Few people would actively, directly kill or harm another person or animal (never mind destroying life on earth itself), but hold them accountable for their lifestyle choices passively, indirectly killing and harming, and they just cannot accept the connection. People will change their lifestyles provided doing so doesn't constitute a great convulsion and sacrifice, and provided they have the right incentives.

This reminds me. For me, the really fascinating science surrounding climate change is not the science surrounding climate change itself; it's the science surrounding the human response to climate change. I'm somewhat convinced, that with our evolutionary inheritance and the evolution of modern civilization, we as humans are simply not equipped to deal with climate change. Obviously, I hope I'm wrong. But the more I hear from the Mike McGinns of the world, the more I fear I'm right.

Posted by cressona | October 19, 2007 12:24 PM

I like the Sierra/Bike Club's idealism in many respects, and agree that perceptions will change and create more anti-global warming action over the next few years.

But! The Clubs are overplaying negative impacts of these roads -- they're negative, at least in the near-term, but not *that* negative. The worst one is adding lanes to the south part of 405 that make it match the north part. Is that really such a big deal? In the long run (i.e. well before our 2050 80% GHG reduction target) two 405 lanes could easily be set aside for bus/HOV/hot lane purposes. And we can enact policy changes to outlaw gas guzzlers and promote non-emitting or low emitting vehicles. We'll have to do that to reduce GHG emissions 80%, regardless of what happens w/ Prop. 1.

Light rail, on the other hand, will have unquestionable global warming and quality of life benefits. Light rail breeds more light rail, and creates a commuting culture. Sure, we could try and pass it again as a stand-alone in 5 years, but more than likely that will just delay construction of this line to the urban centers (Bellevue and Tacoma are not longer suburban in any meaningful sense -- to suggest that this light rail package induces sprawl is laughable) of the Puget Sound region. And contrary to what some postings on this issue have implied, transportation within Seattle is not the paramount issue here -- the vast majority of people in the Puget Sound area around live outside Seattle, and will continue to.

Posted by snock | October 19, 2007 12:29 PM

That needs to be mentioned, snock... that these are mostly expansions of existing roads that have been long overdue... rather than new roads, as opponents insist all of it is.

Posted by Gomez | October 19, 2007 12:32 PM

@19, thanks for the link...It was like a scary flashback to micro econ :)

Interesting article none the less.

Posted by Bill | October 19, 2007 12:44 PM

So why would it be assumed that the people that don't come here would go to a more polluting local? Wouldn't they go to Portland where there is plenty of rail and no jobs?

John has it right that this plan is ass backwards building sprawl inducing transit towards the edges of the GMA instead of serving the densest areas of our region.

Cressona are you tired? You keep bringing up 40 year old arguments that happen to be incorrect. The Sierra Club and other old lefties didn't work against heavy rail back then. But I will say there is a question as to why our LR costs 3 to 5 times what it costs in Portland and Minneapolis.

Posted by whatever | October 19, 2007 12:46 PM

The Sierra Club people want us to bet the farm on congestion pricing, as means of funding light rail while also reducing traffic. Let's think this through. It's only been tried on any real scale in London, Stockholm, and Singapore, all of which had superb public transport systems in place **before** the tolls were put in place. And it was put in place in those cities to limit traffic into the urban core, not within a sprawling urban region like ours. It has been tried on ONE freeway in California, when they built a new road. So, not exactly much to emulate there.

The Sierra Club's supposed alternative also shows their profound lack of political savvy. Do they really think that all of our elected officials are going to come together and announce tolls on all drivers on our freeways? That's the kind of all-or-nothing approach in the three cases where it has done some good. Short of that, they could just open up the HOV lanes to rich people, but that wouldn't make the general purpose lanes any faster. It would just make the HOV lanes slower.

That's what the Sierra Club is asking us to bet on, maybe, being proposed, someday. Yeah, right. Vote for Prop 1.

Posted by SouthSeattle | October 19, 2007 12:53 PM

Everyone agrees (I hope) that ST2/RTID is superior to doing nothing. The question is if a different "something" is going to come down the pike anytime soon.

That relies on a chain of improbable events:
(1) ST is not replaced with some other agency that will screw things up for the first 3+ years;
(2) Transit alone is allowed to go on the ballot in the next few years;
(3) That transit package passes in a region decisively wedded to the car.

Although the existing line will eventually drum up support for light rail, there's so little of it that most residents will be able to go through life only vaguely aware of its existence. When I told my friends (many from north of the ship canal) that I was moving to Columbia City, the general response was, "where?". It'll be great for the residents there, but I don't think the line will have very high visibility till the UW extension opens in 2016 -- and we can't afford to wait that long.

Posted by MHD | October 19, 2007 12:55 PM

We must vote for this now. These videos highlight a relentless idealism and perfectionism that will get us nowhere.

The Stranger made the wrong choice, don't do the same Seattle. Vote yes.

Posted by Cale | October 19, 2007 1:07 PM

You know, let me raise some points that aren't being brought up enough in this debate...

(1) This is going to raise the sales tax to 9.6% (and almost 10% if you like to actually go out to eat any time). How do you plan to afford all of the extra services that will need to be provided to families who are even less able to afford to live?

(2) How are you planning to pay for the projects that are not fully funded in this Proposition when they come back for more money? More sales tax? Bring the MVET all the way back up to Monorail levels that everyone said was the reason they voted that project down?

(3) Here's the big one that none of our electeds seem to be talking about publicly: How do you plan to afford basically re-building I-5 through Seattle, which is going to need to be done by the time this package is complete?

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 1:16 PM

1. Except the sales tax is already close to 10%. Families who would OMG starve are already OMG starving.

2. As with every other project of this kind, you cross that bridge when you get there 20 years from now. The County's situation by that point will be quite different.

3. That's mostly the Federal DOT's responsibility. I-5 is a Federal Interstate highway. That's why it's I-5 and not WA state route 5. Seattle will need to work out the logistics, but the funding is up to the Feds.

Posted by Gomez | October 19, 2007 1:23 PM

One more thing on the "political novices go to Olympia" theme: David Heller's aggressive moment is to say that legislators have said "on the record, on tape" that ST2 "could come back next year." Um, well so what? That's a classic political saying-nothing statement. Did they promise that it would come back next year? Did they promise to vote to bring it back next year? Did they promise anything? No, no, and no!!!

David is well-meaning and sincere, but a political rube--just like McGinn and O'Brien. Listening to these guys on Prop. 1 is a recipe for failure.

Posted by J.R. | October 19, 2007 1:51 PM

Yeah, it's not like the US Senate, at this very minute, is holding hearing on mandatory global warming emissions cuts on the order of 70 percent (or more) by 2020.



They are.

Global warming is NOW, kidlings. Ostrich time is over.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 19, 2007 2:02 PM

Will, stop kidling yourself -- if Congress should pass such a law, we'll have to get people out of fuel inefficient cars, toll highways, and oh yeah, have light rail.

Re the sales tax issue, our sales tax should be replaced with an income tax -- as people try and glom more goodies on it, it probably eventually will be. But this is not a referendum on the wisdom of a sales tax. On the plus side, marginally increasing the sales tax will marginally reduce consumption, which will probably marginally reduce GHG. One marginal GHG argument deserves another!

Posted by snock | October 19, 2007 2:08 PM

@29, It's the continuing trend that I'm concerned about. And Sims is already proposing another .1% increase for the County next year. (And, according to the Times, I'm wrong and it's actually 9.5% and 10% respectively.)

I thought a main point on the pro-side is that costs go up if we wait, so why wouldn't we fully fund necessary projects now, unless this plan isn't really fully thought out but has only been put together to garner the most political support.

If the federal government was interested in giving us lots of money -- even for roads -- we wouldn't be asking voters to pass such a large package.

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 2:12 PM
“We shouldn’t be responding to what people in Olympia say is possible. They should be responding to what we say is needed.”

Right, becasue why should we concern with stupid things likes whats possible. Fatasyland is such a better place to live.

Posted by Giffy | October 19, 2007 2:32 PM

Well, as much fun as it seems to be for folks to smack the Sierra Club and Cascade Bicycle Club around for trying to "spoil" this great deal... the reality is we wouldn't have so much bad in this package if Tranportation Choices Coalition, Futurewise, and others hadn't sold out in order to "get a place at the table."

This would be a very different debate if it was all of the pro-environment and pro-transit groups were on one side. Maybe then it wouldn't seem so crazy to talk about demanding things from Olympia.

After all, why should Olympia be so opposed to supporting an opportunity for us to tax ourselves in this region and not ask them for money? Oh wait, could it be all the developers who want to see this package passed so that they can make tons of money?

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 2:42 PM

First, induced demand: Yes, it is a very real phenomenon. But it is not an iron law and it is not inflexible. It assumes low and affordable gas prices. If gas prices rise beyond the ability of people to pay, you'll get demand destruction across the board. Even if I-405 has six lanes in each direction.

Second, global warming is not the only issue here. So is the energy crisis. If we want to get people out of their cars, they MUST have an alternative. Because of peak oil and rising costs, those lanes will NOT be filled up with new traffic. Simply will not happen. And that means the issue of the roads portion of Prop 1 is just not relevant. Those lanes will not get used, it will not create new car trips, and hell, they may never actually be built.

Getting light rail built is THE key. It is infinitely more important. Dan was right, light rail is worth some extra concrete that nobody will use.

It is stunning, and depressing, that the SECB, which is usually so smart about these issues (see their excellent work on the Viaduct) has failed to understand this issue. They will regret their anti-Prop 1 stance, and soon.

Posted by eugene | October 19, 2007 2:43 PM

@35: The anti-developer argument was also made to support rejecting the Seattle Commons park.

Developers will be fine either way, but the public would have been better off with a big downtown park, and we and future generations will be better off with a good light rail system.

Posted by snock | October 19, 2007 2:49 PM

The Sierra Club - and Mike O'Brien - are either being dishonest or ignorant here. First, he ignored Dan's point about the soaring cost of oil, which WILL destroy demand. Second, he argued that congestion pricing is better - but how the heck is that going to work without existing alternatives? They're going to make people pay without providing an alternative to driving. It's BS.

Mike McGinn's comments are sick. He says he cares about the children, but does NOT want people to have the alternative options they need to avoid driving. His words are powerful but they are weasel words.

I get the sense they strongly oppose light rail itself. On principle. And the Stranger fell for it.

As to the politics, anyone who thinks Olympia is going to give us a tax vote in 2008 is insane. 2011 is the most likely possibility.

Posted by eugene | October 19, 2007 2:55 PM

31. Hey, the global warming card. It's like getting the big cardstock flier in the mail with the polar bear on it from Sierra... AGAIN.

What they eventually accomplish will not make a difference... let alone not passing RTID. So get over yourself unless you can go out and immediately transform the living habits of 7 billion people on 6 continents.

Posted by Gomez | October 19, 2007 2:56 PM

@37, But you're putting at risk our ability to do anything more than this light rail expansion by committing us to so many bad roads projects.

On top of that, because we're not fully funding projects, taking much of a bite out of the maintenance backlog, or targeting key bottlenecks, we'll still have to spend more money on roads over the next 30 years.

Kill Prop. 1 and then demand that Olympia seeks a divorce for two plans that should never have been married in the first place. If ST2 is as great as everyone makes it out to be, then why don't you think it's possible to bring it back in 2008 or 2009 and pass it?

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 2:57 PM

@40: The roads part of the package has a couple of dogs in it (and some projects that are not), but they're necesary to pass this thing in the three county area and get a truly regional rail system built. It'll be a while before Snoho and Pierce Cty. residents are ready to vote for ST2 on its own, and to me the benefits of getting light rail going sooner exceed the drawbacks of an only modestly bad road package. The GHG impacts of these roads can be overcome other ways -- they will probably have a negative impact, but it will be very marginal in terms of not just the global picture, but in terms our our state and regional efforts to reduce GHGs from transportation.

Posted by snock | October 19, 2007 3:09 PM

Y'all do realize that we might actually be able to get the additional light rail sooner, and begin prepping for Phase III, if it wasn't tied to RTID, right?

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 3:26 PM

I think I can pretty concisely summarize Mickymse's comments @33, 35, 40:
If I can't get my monorail, you're not getting your light rail.

It's sad to see monorail supporters make classic anti-mass transit arguments, as if they never really believed in monorail or mass transit to begin with. But I'm sorry to say that's the truth.

So much of the opposition coming from the local left isn't about global warming or light-rail-vs.-monorail or roads-vs.-transit. There are just too many contradictions for it to really be about anything applicable to the issues at hand. When you get right down to it, it's all about respect, rebellion, self-validation, group validation, playaz, playa hataz, and wannabes.

To make sense of this debate, you don't have to be an urban planner. You have to be a psychologist.

Posted by cressona | October 19, 2007 3:30 PM

@43: I love how you always avoid my questions, cressona, and just try to dismiss me as being a disgruntled anti-ST monorailer... when my main arguments have been and continue to be that the problem with this package is that ST2 is tied to roads, and that RTID is too much bad for the good of transit.

It's simple. Either we make the roads half of the package better, or we vote only on the transit half. Voting for Prop. 1 is rather like all the anti-war Democrats who support Hilary for President. Apparently, they're willing to stay in Iraq past 2013 in order to have her in the White House!

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 3:45 PM

@42: No, I don't realize that, for the reasons explained in my previous post.

Posted by snock | October 19, 2007 3:51 PM

@45, I think you miss my point. The light rail projects would take less time to build if they weren't tied up in the financing for the rest of this package. (Didn't someone say this in the video?) So, even if it took another year or two to bring up a vote and campaign in Pierce and Snoho, we might actually get the light rail sooner than under Prop. 1.

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 4:04 PM

Cressona - what percentage of trips in the region will be with transit in 2030 with ST2 and without ST2?

Do you feel that there is a cost for LR that would make it not worthwhile? If so what would that be in 2006 dollars?

Posted by whatever | October 19, 2007 4:20 PM

@46: I guess you're more hopeful about the support you could get in Pierce and Snoho. Ideally, I'd like to see an ST2-only package go before three-county area voters and win, but from what I hear, Prop. 1 is going to struggle in Pierce and Snoho even RTID attached, and would do worse still without RTID. I'd love to see data saying I'm wrong on where the voters are in those counties (on either Prop. 1 or ST2 as a stand alone!).

Posted by marmot | October 19, 2007 4:21 PM

Let me, once again, be the voice of the 'burbs:


Would you like me to say it again?


They are indivisibly tied together. "You can't have one without the other", said the Chairman of the Board.


No amount of policy wank mental masturbation will change this fact. No bright young earnest environmentalists in a room at Stranger Central are going to rewrite the basic political facts.


Posted by Big Sven | October 19, 2007 4:35 PM

Then tell "the 'burbs" to either come up with a better roads package... or figure out how to work from their suburban tract home.

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 4:38 PM


We think it's a fine roads package, thank you very much. But thank you for your concern.

YOU don't get what you want, if WE don't get what we want.

You "no" people really don't understand that compromise is the heart of all politics, do you?

And by the way- if this package fails- we can just set back and wait for the inevitable roads package that will happen sooner or later- one way or the other, I-405 *will* get fixed.

BUT LET'S NOT DO THAT. Let's put together a big package that gives everybody something!

Or we can just sit around and bitch.

Posted by Big Sven | October 19, 2007 4:55 PM

If I have to be blackmailed into voting for a Roads package, then I would like to see one that fully funds fixing the "Mercer Mess." I'd like to see projects that fix the bottlenecks at either end of the 520 bridge before we build a new one. I'd like to repair more than one of the failing bridges in the region. I'd like to fix the I-405/SR-167 interchange or the near 90-degree turn at the I-5/I-90 interchange. If we're going to rebuild the Spokane St. connection between I-5 and the West Seattle Bridge then let's not dump traffic right into the I-90 on-ramps.

I'm not opposed to roads. I'm in favor of improving the use of existing ones and maximizing capacity. Simply adding lanes that will just fill up with cars doesn't improve congestion; it merely increases the number of cars sitting in traffic.

And, no, I don't think that the rising cost of gas will get people out of their cars. I think the private sector will find ways to make cars run more efficiently. And I also think there are plenty of people in this area who will drive no matter what.

Posted by Mickymse | October 19, 2007 5:24 PM

Thank you for your brilliance oh wise men in sweaters and boob shirts.

Posted by smarty pants | October 19, 2007 10:22 PM

No on the Seattle Commons, Ralph Nadar for President and now, No on Prop 1 campaigns

What do these 3 things have in common?

They were pushed by arrogant, high minded, not grounded in reality politics.

Let review:

The Seattle Commons going down meant we got all of the density and none of the publicly funded green space. Of course the high minded idealist who voted no thought they were going to stop development.

Ralph Nadar never had a chance of winning and is now an asterisk in political history. He lost what power and cache he once had and now sits alone in the dark muttering to himself. Al Gore lost by a sliver of a margin and we got stuck with GWB, the worst President in history.

If Prop One goes down in defeat, 5 years from now I believe we will cast those who acted to kill it in the same light.

Posted by I want my fucking light rail! | October 21, 2007 2:51 PM

"I want my fucking light rail!" = Dan Savage posting anonymously after a few drinks.

And I still agree with him wholeheartedly.

Posted by Big Sven | October 21, 2007 7:20 PM

I agree with him too Sven.

And Mickey, you need to get the hell out of your bubble. Also, in reference to enviro groups "selling out," how are you and your Kemper Freeman developer buddies getting along? Selling out indeed.

Posted by Dono | October 22, 2007 11:03 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).