Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on I'm Confused

1

ECB...that's not a weakness of a "No" campaign, that's an inherent strength. A No campaign only has to suggest reasons to vote no on a given measure. They can convince one crowd with one argument and another crowd with a different argument. While this should work in reverse, it's much more difficult for a "Yes" campaign to pull this off.

No campaigns get to be messy, whereas Yes campaigns generally have to remain unified.

Posted by Timothy | October 2, 2007 3:54 PM
2

You are assuming it's one group of people, ECB. There are the anti-transit people that get to write the pamphlet.

And then there's the majority of the population that's anti-roads but don't get to write the pamphlet statement as they weren't chosen - yes, chosen - by the Sound Transit and RTID groups.

Neat trick, huh? It's kind of like the astroturf this past weekend and the Seattle Times trick of putting all the pro-RTID/ST2 posts in the print edition and all the anti-RTID/ST2 posts in the online edition.

What? You thought it wasn't fixed by Big Business in the first place?

Sure, let me sell you a 40 percent funded bridge that your great-grandchildren will be paying for.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2007 3:56 PM
3

What he said @ #1 - there's plenty here for an extremely diverse group of voters not to like.

Posted by Mr. X | October 2, 2007 3:56 PM
4

There isn't one anti-RTID campaign. There is the Kemper Freeman group, which is anti-transit, which you linked to above (http://www.notoprop1.org) and there is the Sierra Club-led pro-transit, anti-roads (rather, BETTER roads) campaign, with its page here: http://www.nortid.org. That's the difference. Don't pin Kemper Freeman's rantings on the Sierra Club.

Posted by lorax | October 2, 2007 3:56 PM
5

You are not a hippie, ECB. You can go back to trying to be one, though.

Posted by Bad day. | October 2, 2007 4:02 PM
6

You're quoting two different factions of the no crowd, so it's not surprising that they're at odds.

What's more telling is the inconsistencies within the Sierra Club/Sims/Cascade Bicycle Club faction. They claim to be for limiting global warming, while also opposing Sound Transit 2 in its current form regardless of whether roads are attached. If the problem was just road construction, then why are they attacking the light rail portion and advocating three disconnected urban lines in Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett? That won't get people out of their cars, and it would be difficult to come up with a light rail proposal that would do worse in an election, so it's unlikely to happen anyway. More people are coming here and bringing their cars with them, so the bottom line of their position is more greenhouse gas emissions with no plan for doing anything about it.

Posted by Cascadian | October 2, 2007 4:03 PM
7

I have to agree with @5 on that, ECB. You're not a hippie in any sense of the word. If someone said that to you, they're either severely misinformed or have no idea what hippies are/were like.

But, Cascadian @6, no one said anything about whether or not a standalone ST2 (ST2.1) plan was bad. The question was the single-ballot-issue-just-one-vote combined RTID/ST2 - and that stinks to high heaven.

Not to mention killing fish, amphibians, polar bears, coral, island nations, and polluting our air, water, and land.

But them's just the FACTS.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2007 4:14 PM
8

Can we please build a regional light-rail system already? Please?

Posted by Dade Murphy | October 2, 2007 4:16 PM
9

As others have already pointed out, there are lots of reasons to vote against Prop.1. The fact that lots of diverse groups can all agree should be something to enjoy. After all, we tolerate diversity in this town. Or, we THINK we do. Unless there is diversity of thought, and then, watch out, because that is reawy reawy scawy. The fact that so many of the groups that ARE supporting Prop 1 are PAID to do so should scare the shit out of everyone. That's because your tax dollars, and mine, are funding groups like Transportation Choices Coalition, Futurewise, People for Modern Transit, and so on, through "grants" and other pay outs. Perhaps if we weren't paying out to all these non-profits, we might actually have more money for real transit.

But I digress. The RTID plan was a forced marraige to start with, and it deserves a divorce before any children are spawned. The plan tries to do too much for too many, and in the end, doesn't do enough for the things that matter. 520 is allegedly our most vulnerable roadway, but it's not completely funded by Prop. 1. 405 has been on the planning books for a decade, but it won't get done via Prop 1. And then there's light rail. The eastside is where the growth is, but RTID places yet another transit option to Tacoma instead of rail along the BNSF corridor, where we already have the right of way. DUMB DUMB DUMB.

And how come you all aren't up in arms over the Medina lid? For crying out loud -- poor people are ONCE AGAIN paying ridiculously regressive and onerous sales taxes so that the ultra wealthy can have their peace and quiet? What the hell is wrong with the people who allow this? This one item alone is worth killing the whole damn mess.

Ron Sims is right. The Sierra Club is right. Kemper Freeman may even be right. Imagine that kind of diversity coming together.

Posted by Not Prop One | October 2, 2007 4:24 PM
10

Everyone seems to make the assumption (maybe it's just because this is Slogville) that the transit portion of this thing would be smashingly popular, and it is getting dragged down by the Evil Roads portion of it.

But maybe it's the other way around? Once you leave Capitol Hill and the Slog, many of the people in the region like roads, like the automobile lifestyle, and want the roads maintained and expanded - and it's this boondoggle transit portion attached that is making it unappealing.

Posted by JMR | October 2, 2007 4:29 PM
11

What’s telling is the inconsistency of the pro campaign: we must fund a multi-billion dollar freeway expansion before we can consider congestion pricing…that would obviate the need for the expansion in the first place.

Posted by BB | October 2, 2007 4:29 PM
12

I keep hearing that one NO side is against light rail (Kemper) and the other side (Sierra Club) is for transit but against roads.

Aren't both of these groups against Light Rail. The Sierra Club guy doesn't think light rail should go to Tacoma or Bellevue. Sims thinks light rail should go south of Everett.

Sounds like the NO groups are 1)no light rail, only roads and 2)no roads and no light rail, except maybe to Northgate.

Why wouldn't we want to bring light rail out to the suburbs where people are driving here from.

Posted by Light rail supporters? | October 2, 2007 4:31 PM
13

Most commuting doesn't take place from one urban center to another (i.e. Tacoma to Seattle). People commute from where they live to where they work. If you live in Tacoma, you are likely to work in Tacoma, because Tacoma is not a Seattle suburb. However, if you live in Tukwila or Shoreline or Mercer Island, you are more likely to work in Seattle and thus find a light rail line to be useful. That is why the Sierra Club is right to suggest that it makes more sense to build rail out from the urban, commercial, industrial centers of Seattle, Tacoma, and Everett, where people work, to the places where a majority of people live, in the suburbs. The current plan on the table does not do that.

Posted by lorax | October 2, 2007 4:32 PM
14

Timothy @1:

ECB...that's not a weakness of a "No" campaign, that's an inherent strength. A No campaign only has to suggest reasons to vote no on a given measure. They can convince one crowd with one argument and another crowd with a different argument. While this should work in reverse, it's much more difficult for a "Yes" campaign to pull this off.
No campaigns get to be messy, whereas Yes campaigns generally have to remain unified.

I've had much the same thought going through my mind. I remember during the numerous monorail campaigns, the opponents would throw all kinds of FUD up on the wall. Some of it would stick; some of it wouldn't. But the Henry Aronsons never had to worry about any of their own mud splashing back on them. No campaigns are not accountable.

It's always easier to get people to vote no. And the dirtier you can make a campaign—even if you're the only ones being dirty—the more apt voters are to just say, "I'm sick and tired of this." And when they come to that conclusion, how do they vote? No.

Posted by cressona | October 2, 2007 4:38 PM
15

From the slog entry: “The “yes” side can present a united front, while the “no” campaign ends up with a muddled message.”

What you are hearing are very valid objections coming from different groups. There is no one opposition. The problems with this measure are legion. There are lots of good reasons to oppose it. It threatens and offends many people and organizations. There is no one message that is “muddled,” instead you are hearing many different voices objecting to what made it out of the legislative sausage-factory.

The yes side has a single message: "look at this picture of a shiny train!"

The pro campaign is paid for by the groups who would profit from it - businesses, labor and public employee unions, and contractors and engineers. A single message suits their purposes.

The pro side employs the fear factor: ie, "the alternative is doing nothing, and the bridges will fall," "Plan B will be worse," "[x] is the opponent, and he is for GHG production." The rich groups that want it just need to keep people ignorant to win this – a single marketing campaign might be able to accomplish that. Their goal is to dangle the shiny promise, and keep voters ignorant of the truth (like how there are taxpayer-bailout provisions built into the measures, how Seattle taxpayers’ dollars would go to build dozens of new general purpose highway miles in east King County, how the tax burden falls disproportionately hard on poor families, how managing demand by tolling needs to be implemented immediately, etc.).

In contrast, there are far better reasons to vote no. But those are due to a variety of factors that can not be reduced to sound bites. Moreover, different people and groups oppose it for different reasons. Here are some of the reasons that some feel more passionate about than others:

- The roads package never should have been joined with the transit package - the legislature never should have put us in the no-win position of having to vote to approve one government's taxes and project list if we want instead to vote to approve a different government's different taxes and project list.

- The wrong taxing package is being presented (not enough Federal money, regressive sales taxes vs. progressive taxes on the businesses that would benefit, no congestion-relieving variable-priced tolling, etc.).

- Full funding for SR 520 is not provided, whereas things like a downtown Bellevue light rail tunnel is.

- No transit for West Seattle is provided, and no money is set aside for the $2 billion ++ of repair and repaving work that needs to be done on I-5 in Seattle.

- Better, more experienced, and more thrifty board members can not be elected onto the ST board to make sure the money is spent most efficiently over the next three decades.

- Too little gets done overall for future road congestion, and none of the train extensions would come on line soon enough.

- There are very large negative environmental consequences associated with building so many new general purpose highway lanes, in east King County, through McChord Air Force Base in Pierce County, etc.

- Way too much debt is proposed - it is beyond belief that our leaders would ask us to burden those who come after us in this small region with tens of billions of bond debt - issued at God only knows what interest rates - while we are railing against the Bush administration for doing exactly the same thing.

- There are no oversight provisions built in to ensure that good quality work is done by the contractors, or that costs remain in check. The plan basically has built-in taxpayer bailout provisions (a terrible "feature," one that never should have been allowed in this plan in light of massive cost overruns on other megaprojects around the country).

Those all are major flaws with the RTID/ST proposal. The organized groups (eg, Sierra Club) by definition only focus for the most part on one. Some of the other concerns (the lack of cost control provisions, for example) are not anything that any organized group can put out in a media message because those who would pay the overruns (families and individuals subject to massive sales taxes twenty years from now to pay for those overruns) literally have no voice now.

With flaws like that, it is to be expected that there will be a variety of voices opposing it. That variety signifies the overall weakness of the plan because each of those objections has such merit. It is a crowd objecting, and crowd noise is muddled.

Posted by Hortense Slag | October 2, 2007 4:41 PM
16

@13: A whole lot of Tacomans/Pierce County-ites commute to Seattle. I believe the amount of the workforce that does is something like 1/3rd. My guess is that having light rail to Tacoma would have the effect of making downtown Tacoma a more viable employment center (it's better now than it was 10 years ago, but it's far from booming), thus decreasing the proportion of commuters in the south Puget Sound. That would be a good thing for economic diversity in the region and for the environment.

Posted by taco man | October 2, 2007 4:45 PM
17

I think everyone's looking at this measure the wrong way. We need more of everything. More of mass transit and more roads. More roads will yes, lead to more traffic on those roads as the region grows. But also, more transit will lead more of those people who move here or live here already to take transit instead of driving as well. And nothing advertises this better than having the train pass you as you sit in traffic on the freeway. People who say we should just build one or the other are just trying to social engineer their viewpoint on everyone else who happens to not live where they do and do not have the options to choose a specific and convenient mode of transportation.

And they will not have that choice IF NOTHING EVER GETS BUILT because some groups can't ever see the other person's point of view or want to cram their viewpoint down their throat. People in suburbia drive, voting this down is not going to change that one iota. Most of the road funding is going to places that are already jammed up half the day and need work done on them. They needed expansion 10-15 years ago. (Example, why does the Tri Cities have a freeway that is wider than I-405 in some places with a tenth of the population)The expansion of the light rail system needs to happen so that people in the region can actually see/try what a real transit system looks like instead of hearing about it all the time or having to travel somewhere else and wondering "why can't we have that here".

Just build it. All of it..

Posted by Bri in Seattle | October 2, 2007 4:56 PM
18

The Sierra Club's message hasn't just been muddled. It hasn't just been hypocritical. It has been schizophrenic.

On the one hand, they say they want to save Sound Transit 2: "(Give) us Sound Transit light rail without the albatross of highway expansion tied to its neck." But then Mike O'Brien and Tim Gould have a problem with most of Sound Transit 2, and their alternative is to dismantle it into a unconnected collection of at-grade mini-lines that would accomplish nothing. Then when Ron Sims comes out with the kind of anti-light rail op-ed you would expect from Kemper Freeman, the Sierra Club crowd stands up and applauds.

On the one hand, they say they want to implement congestion pricing. And yet, this measure lays the groundwork for congestion pricing. Tolling is a critical component of the 520 bridge replacement funding. And congestion pricing is one of the tools outlined in RTID's "Blueprint for Progress." It isn't mandated (although tolling 520 is a foregone conclusion), but this measure sets the stage for the debate to turn toward congestion pricing. And we all know if this measure fails, that's going to kill whatever momentum there is for congestion pricing; everybody will be left to pick up the pieces rather than actually implement an ambitious, even more controversial, even more one-sided backup plan.

On the one hand, they portray themselves as populists who are standing up against the establishment. And yet they know very well that if their own murky alternative that is centered around draconian, pervasive tolls ever hit the ballot, it would lose miserably.

On the one hand, they claim to be worried about regressive taxes and taxes that last a long time. And yet they're promoting an alternative that whose central feature is slapping on a tax (a toll). The things it would pay for appear to be a secondary concern. Because, God forbid, those things it would pay for, like light rail, might actually require a long-term tax.

On the one hand, they claim to be worried about global warming in the short term, that we need to do something now. And yet they still want to address global warming in the long term, with the standard "80% reductions in emissions by 2050" rhetoric. But the only way you can meet that long-term goal is by building infrastructure in the shorter term that won't see any real payoff for a while.

I could go on and on and on. When Henry Aronson threw out this kind of crap, you knew there was a method to the madness, but with the likes of Mike O'Brien and gang, I think it's just that they haven't thought any of this through.

Posted by cressona | October 2, 2007 4:58 PM
19

sure you could go on and on, cressona, but you still can't answer the basic question of why you support an RTID/ST2 vote that actually increases air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, and increases global warming emissions.

Nor can you directly answer why you hate wetlands and want my great-grandchildren to pay for a 40 percent funded bridge replacement.

Nor can you directly answer why you hate salmon, other fish, amphibians, and other wildlife so much, and want to destroy island nations.

But hey, throw another off-topic remark on the barbie.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2007 5:09 PM
20

oh, and @17, glad to see you're slowly coming around to my Seattle-only Double Local Transit (All Of It) position.

Give it time, you'll grok global warming too.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2007 5:11 PM
21

152 new miles?

As I understand it, nearly all of the highway miles are replacing/augmenting/upgrading current roads. There's no I-605 in it, and I'd bet the house that you'll never see an inch of the Cross-Base.

Posted by N in Seattle | October 2, 2007 5:14 PM
22

Will in Seattle @19:

sure you could go on and on, cressona, but you still can't answer the basic question of why you support an RTID/ST2 vote that actually increases air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, and increases global warming emissions.

Increases emissions compared to what? By this logic, we shouldn't even build light rail by itself because it will cause our region to emit more emissions compared to not building light rail. Unfortunately, the problem is not local warming; it's global warming.

It isn't like you can say that by becoming a vegetarian you'll prevent x number of bovines and y number of chickens from ever being slaughtered (or ever being born). People are not livestock; they will not be bred for the express purpose of driving on the freeways we build and riding the transit systems we build. If we don't build a smart, integration transportation system, those people will simply take themselves and their carbon footprint elsewhere. And when they do, they'll by and large end up having a greater carbon footprint.

But Will in Seattle, you still can't answer this pretty basic answer. And what about the environmental impact of that massive, elevated freeway you so desperately wanted to see built along Seattle's waterfront? If you have the numbers on the impact of ST2/RTID, surely you have the numbers on the impact of that.

Posted by cressona | October 2, 2007 5:27 PM
23


Congestion pricing will solve all your issues. Just read my op-ed on Seattle time.

Posted by Ron Sims | October 2, 2007 5:28 PM
24

@23

I'll be stuck in my car on "Seattle time".

Posted by Seattle time | October 2, 2007 5:34 PM
25


Yeah? Then, just use the metro bus and save yourself the trouble.

Posted by Sierra Club | October 2, 2007 5:47 PM
26

Cressona, see, you can't even answer direct questions.

Compared to not increasing, of course.

What color is the polluted sky in your world? Cherry Pink?

At least Ron Sims doubled the Metro bus service here. More than Mayor Green ever did.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 2, 2007 5:54 PM
27


Will,
Do you have any idea as to how fuel efficient these buses are? If you have any concerns about global warming, these are the first things you need to start looking at replacing.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/203509_metro13.html

They give under 4 mpg!!!

So what color is the sky in your world? Metro Green?

Posted by Bicyclist | October 2, 2007 5:59 PM
28


Trains suck. Buses rule!

Posted by Ron Sims | October 2, 2007 6:03 PM
29

Today the pro-Prop One side was challenged on the global warming impacts of this measure by the media, and they could not give a straight answer. That's a far more serious concern than whether the two opposing groups, who do not work together, have different messages.

Supporters said we can't be certain what the impacts will be, yet they want us to invest $47 billion RIGHT NOW to get Puget Sound rolling.

It doesn't really matter what conclusions people on this blog or elsewhere come to about whether Prop one will increase or decrease gg emissions. Because everyone's just guessing. And it's inexcusable that we have to guess.
Political leaders and their environmental allies should not have put in this position.

What we do know, according to the PSRC report, is that driving will increase if we build this package -- and not just because of population growth, but because this measure is poorly designed to handle that growth.

But we should know much more than that before voting. Rail is a great investment, but basic logic says that unless it DECREASES car trips -- not just the growth in car trips -- it will not decrease emissions. If you add even more vehicle trips with more highway lanes, which this measure does, then it doesn't take a brainiac to suppose that emissions will actually increase.

In fairness, they might not, for factors I'm not smart enough to include. But given that it's such a compelling question -- why can't the pro-Prop 1 side give us any facts to alleviate our fears? They trot light rail out like it's a magic elixir to climate change.

I can't accept that on faith alone. I do accept that rail is a vital part of the solution, but I won't vote for it unless a see a total package that will actually decrease car trips. Argue about it all you want, but no one's putting up any facts on the pro side.

Posted by K-Full | October 2, 2007 6:38 PM
30

Will in Seattle @26:

Cressona, see, you can't even answer direct questions.
Compared to not increasing, of course.

Will in Seattle, short of following the Sierra Club fallacy of turning the problem of global warming into "local warming," that's about as direct an answer as I can give. A valid comparison of climate change impact has to consider (A) the realistic chain of events if this measure is defeated, and it has to consider (B) the carbon footprint of people who otherwise would have used this new infrastructure, whether they still will live here or move away or just never come here.

More Will in Seattle:

What color is the polluted sky in your world? Cherry Pink?

Will in Seattle, I could be wrong, but isn't CO2 invisible? As for other pollutants, well, I suppose the pollution you'd like to associate with me is the same color as the pollution that would come from that massive, new viaduct you were so desperate see permanently mar Seattle's downtown waterfront.

Posted by cressona | October 2, 2007 7:06 PM
31

Kevin Fulerton/KFull

What happends to GHG emmissions under the Sierra Club's plan? Up? Down? Neutral?

Do you know?

What happens to VMT under your plan? More? Less?

Do you know?

Has any region in the world ever implemented a tolling plan like the one you suggest (tolling all GP lanes)?

Do you know?

You argue that we need data. Do you have the data to support your plan?

Posted by ?'s | October 2, 2007 7:12 PM
32

I am looking for a place where I want to live for the rest of my life. I've lived in Seattle for 6 years.

Unless we built rapid transit, this is not where I will be permanently settling. Sure, there are too many people who are living here, you don't really care if I live here or not. But mass transit is a critical point in my decision of where to live, and I think it is for a lot of people. They just choose not to live here.

We didn't build rapid transit 40 years ago. If we don't build it now, we're not going to build it for another 40 years. But we will fix those roads and build more roads.

Perfect is the enemy of good. This package is a compromise. What you need to decide is it a compromise you can live with or not? I sure as hell can.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 2, 2007 7:33 PM
33

Hmmm, well, if we vote the plan down, more people will move here and more people will be driving on the roads. If we vote for the plan, more people will be driving for the foreseeable future short of some major economic catastrophe that forces them to quit driving. Even if we built the best mass transit system the world will ever see that went everywhere, people would still drive. See Paris for an example of this or any other major European city. People still drive and the roads are still congested even with transit that goes mostly everywhere.

The plan Will Not reduce congestion, nor will it reduce the amount of drivers unless population change suddenly goes to zero somehow. What it does do is start on a system that gives us an alternative to the status quo, which is either driving or using a bunch of buses that mostly run on diesel instead of electricity produced from hydro plants built 100 years ago. (I exclude trolley buses because they are not the majority of routes in the Puget Sound region)

Posted by Bri in Seattle | October 2, 2007 8:06 PM
34

Can't the current diesel buses run on biodiesel?

Posted by vin biodiesel | October 2, 2007 8:14 PM
35

@29: Giving people non-auto options, which RTID does, will help (in our own tiny way) reduce global warming. But policies that come later -- like carbon taxes will do a lot more than what we do with one vote. We can tackle that issue later -- I want a decent rail system in this region, and this is a start.

Once this passes, you can work to make the new 405 lanes for buses and HOVs only.

Posted by i often dream of trains | October 2, 2007 8:35 PM
36

But mass transit is a critical point in my decision of where to live, and I think it is for a lot of people. They just choose not to live here.

If only people would choose where to live based on various criteria, and respect other people's choices. One of the reasons I moved here from Manhattan was that I did not like the transit lifestyle.

But it's not good enough for transit-heads that there are transit-oriented cities, and car-oriented cities. They want to take every city that has a building taller than 5 stories and turn it into Rail-o-Rama. What the people want is irrelevant. The price tag is irrelevant. The fact that these project haven't reduced congestion or transit times is irrelevant.

Posted by JMR | October 2, 2007 8:47 PM
37

@35: Vote no on this package because of the additional roads and vote yes on a transit only package when it comes up next time. This is not a start to a decent rail system, it's a poor continuation of a small beginning of a system. Once this fails, we can all breath easier knowing we did not pass a plan that is guaranteed to increase global warming.

Posted by vin biodiesel | October 2, 2007 8:53 PM
38

Erica: I can see why you are confused. You are asking the wrong question. A more appropriate query would be, "why are such disparate groups opposed to this measure?" Answering this question should provide the clarity you are looking for.

The views of these two diametrically opposed special interest groups represent the extremes in the debate, and not coincidently, much that is wrong with our death-by-process, everyone-must-be-heard political culture.

The answer is, they are both, and they are neither, and they are the reason -- if we listen to them -- nothing of consequence will get done to permanently make it easier for people to get around this region cheaply, safely and reliably.

Representative government is supposed to be the place where society finds its compromises. For far too long this region's governments have been largely balkanized, fearful, timid institutions catering to their consituents lesser parochial angels. This has been true on both sides of the lake and from north to south. But with this package, a surprising thing has happened: the leadership has in fact discovered wisdom and found its way thru hrad work and some touch decisions to compromise so that something meaningful can happen.

The interests of cities, the region, and the state have aligned. It is a frail and fleeting thing. And the promise of this political alignment is a true regional transit spine, connecting 14 cities with 70 miles of rail operating every few minutes 20 hours a day. Likewise, it will concentrate our region's road resources into investments that are all within the Urban Growth Areas connecting existing centers and - with the transit system - channeling development in a manner consistent with our conservationist values. Once it's approved - if it is - it's the law of the land and we truly will have broken down some vexing old cultural barriers and reached to the next level on mobility.

If not, the extremists will once again have prevailed, the consensus that exists at this moment will shatter, and we are back to square one with questionable prospects for movbing forward with any semblance of unity. Are we going to get something done or not? It's really a pretty simple choice, one I would submit has an answer so clear it's been staring us in the face. Hippie or not, I hope you'll tilt toward your obvious practical side while pondering where to land on all this.

Posted by Clarity | October 2, 2007 9:33 PM
39

Clarity @38- this is the same cock and bull story that voters are always given when the special interests want to get into their pants for billions of dollars (16 to 157 billion depending on who you believe).

Here's what they threatened people with in 2002 if we didn't vote for billions for highways...

"Referendum 51 opponents would prefer we put the brakes on R-51 and wait for an alternative plan. Let’s be frank about this. State legislators are not likely to pursue another major statewide transportation initiative if R-51 fails at the ballot. If they do, it’s not going to provide more choices or fund more public transportation programs and agencies. It will be less… Let’s not wait any longer. Vote yes on R –51 Nov. 5."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/93199_ref51pro29.shtml

Guess who said that?

If you guessed the former president of the Washington Environmental Council, you'd be right.

And now guess who's again threatening voters that this is THEIR LAST CHANCE. If you guessed the Washington Environmental Council, you'd be right again.

We simply don't have to take 182 miles of new highways in exchange for light rail....no matter how much the pro-highway lobby and their sock puppets in the environmental community tell you it's true.

Posted by otterpop | October 2, 2007 11:07 PM
40

@2
And then there's the majority of the population that's anti-roads

I admire the intentions of the Sierra Club and others who want us to plan transportation with the environment in mind, but the statement above is VERY FAR from true, and if we don't take that into account in these battles, we're not going to be very successful. The overwhelming majority of people in this area like driving their cars on roads.

Posted by thehim | October 2, 2007 11:19 PM
41

voting yes.

Can't wait to get on board, so to speak.

These freeway upgrades will NOT induce more sprawl, they will just relieve congestion and do a better job of absorbing the incoming population growth.

This with the possible exception of the cross-base, which will most likely get its funding pulled out from under it anyways. Even then, it is intended as a congestion reliever, not a subdivision builder.

RTID will result in a more pleasant drive, faster shipping for local business, busses getting stuck in traffic less, and less greenhouse emissions from idling traffic. If that's what the eastside wants, what's wrong?

I think the benefits of ST2 are apparent to most people in this conversation.

Population is nearly doubling in the next 30 years-- we need to expand those roads and build this light rail as soon as we can.

Posted by Cale | October 2, 2007 11:34 PM
42

Otter: Thanks for making my point, your view betrays your locale on the fringe.

It's not 182 miles of new highways, and to say so reveals much. It's 182 miles of existing roads, most of which are arterials serving places cities and counties are channeling growth to in order to preserve green space. It's a doubling of HOV capacity in the cross-lake corridor and completing the HOV system in the 167/405 corridor, which doesn't have the density to justify rail yet.

WEC had the audacity - gasp - to actually work on the plan and influence its content. Now they're upholding their word and supporting it. That's a lot more than the extremes can say, and more meaningful too.

It's real simple. If we're going to move the dial on transportation in this region, it's going to take this kind of political consensus in the middle.

Posted by Clarity | October 2, 2007 11:42 PM
43

"sure you could go on and on, cressona, but you still can't answer the basic question of why you support an RTID/ST2 vote that actually increases air pollution, water pollution, ground pollution, and increases global warming emissions."

Which is why Will Affleck-Asche, pathetic manchild that he is, was such a strong believer in building the largest freeway project Seattle has seen since the 60's. WillInSeattle may wish to notice the new roads proposed in the RTID plan are a heckuva lot greener than the outdated status quo roads he loves to drive on now. For example, the 520 bridge rebuild will actually treat the oily runoff from his shitty car, rather than deposit it into Lake Washington, as it does now.

"Nor can you directly answer why you hate wetlands and want my great-grandchildren to pay for a 40 percent funded bridge replacement."

Is it 40% this week, Will? What's your made-up number for next week? 10%?

"Nor can you directly answer why you hate salmon, other fish, amphibians, and other wildlife so much, and want to destroy island nations."

There's a reason Will has no friends or family. He basically confirms the conservative stereotype of the dumb-fuck Seattle liberal.At least Will has the internets.

"We simply don't have to take 182 miles of new highways in exchange for light rail....no matter how much the pro-highway lobby and their sock puppets in the environmental community tell you it's true."

Otterplop @ 39, what kind or roads is your anti-rail buddy Ron Sims going to run all of his 4 mpg (and 4 mph) buses on? Gravel? Maybe the new Sierra Club buses will have a set of pedals in each seat? Dude, you get more pathetic by the day.

Speaking of which:

"Referendum 51 opponents would prefer we put the brakes on R-51 and wait for an alternative plan. Let’s be frank about this. State legislators are not likely to pursue another major statewide transportation initiative if R-51 fails at the ballot. If they do, it’s not going to provide more choices or fund more public transportation programs and agencies. It will be less…"

Uh, yeah. That was the gas tax increase, which didn't include a dime for mass transit, YET WAS SUPPORTED BY THE FUCKING SIERRA CLUB in 2005 because they got a Moose Bridge out of the deal (earth to Otterplop: the Moose Bridge didn't save your polar bears)

Posted by SaveThe700ClubFromItself | October 3, 2007 12:08 AM
44

Clarity @ 42

You ought to add that it will also take a voter-approved blank check to local governments and agencies who have proven time and again that they are incapable of delivering the projects they promise on time and on budget.

Personally, I'd characterize the "consensus" you cite among squishy centrist establishment mucky-mucks as classic groupthink. Whenever anyone (whether they be a realtor, used car salesman, or politician) tries to sell you a "once in a lifetime" opportunity - grab your wallet and run.

There are as many reasons to vote no on this package as there are different political, philosophical, social, and economic interests throughout the three county region where it's on the ballot...


Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 12:15 AM
45

X: Sounds like sour grapes. Let's discuss:

Stm: "voter-approved blank check"

Response: RTID has a re-vote requirement on overruns in excess of 20% The ST2 plan states: "Sales tax rollback: If voters decide against extending the system in the future, the Sound Transit Board will initiate steps to roll back the rate of sales and use tax collected." In either case, voters control what happens.

Stm: "incapable of delivering the projects they promise on time and on budget"

Response: Um, where to start? OK, let's cop to ST messing up the original starter line from Sodo to UW. Since then? Let's just take the big ones:
Tacoma Link: done on schedule, on budget.
Lynnwood TC: six mos early and $5M under budget.
Bellevue DA: 12 mos early and $25M under budget.
Federal Way TC/DA: done on schedule and budget
Eastgate DA: done on time, within budget.
Central Link: 80% complete, on schedule and within budget (baselined six years ago.)

Stm: "squishy centrist establishment mucky-mucks"

Response: http://yesonroadsandtransit.org/about/endorsers.html

Looks like you can add State Treasurer Mike Murphy to the list of supporter, declaring the extremists' math "bogus" in today's Seattle Times.


Posted by Clarity | October 3, 2007 12:54 AM
46

"but we should know much more than that before voting. Rail is a great investment, but basic logic says that unless it DECREASES car trips -- not just the growth in car trips -- it will not decrease emissions."

K-Full (aka Kevin Fullerton, Sierra Clubber) @29, welcome to airhead enviro club. It was only a matter of time before you joined Will at the inner circle of blind stupidity.

Light rail, buses, monorail, ANY transit doesn't "decrease car trips." Know why? Because the only thing keeping people off the road is traffic jams. And recessions. Good luck trying to sell either concept to the voters and taxpayers. Really.

"If you add even more vehicle trips with more highway lanes, which this measure does, then it doesn't take a brainiac to suppose that emissions will actually increase."

This is hilarious. On one hand, the space cadet Sierra Clubbers want to increase the efficiency of our roadways by tolling people from all sides...yet, on the other hand, they claim less trips are the goal. Think about that for a minute. A jammed stop-and-go freeway moves a LOT LESS cars through a given corrider at any given time...make those freeways work more efficiently, and VOILA, you move more vehicles per hout.

In other words, basic transportation physics says the Sierra Club nuts, and Ron Sims cabal (all two of them) are actually their own worst enemies. The reason K-Full is so so shrill in his whining, and so purposefully ignorant in his approach, has to do with his own contradictory position.

If Sierra Clubbers sound really fucking stupid, it could actually be purposeful - kinda like the gay Republican who just can't ever come to terms with himself. Ok, that analogy might have been a little bit of a stretch. But you get the point.

"why can't the pro-Prop 1 side give us any facts to alleviate our fears? They trot light rail out like it's a magic elixir to climate change."

Ok, here we go. It was inevitable Kevin Fullerton would come back to his passive-aggressive roots. Just like the rest of his sheep friends at the Sierra/700 Club echo chamber, K-Full reveals he's not much of a light rail supporter at all. Sierra Club, surviving on brand name only, will use rapid transit when they want to establish ther green creds, and sell us more calendars & backpacks (made in China, natch). But when it comes time to actually walk the talk?....then they go south, and embrace the guy who decided diesel buses were the new way to go.

"I can't accept that on faith alone."

Are you kidding me, K-Full? Faith is all you got. All the armchair transit planners in your Sierra Club bible study class ("if we could just stick the train here...no, here...") don't have a clue as to what constitutes an effective transit system, or not. Faith guides them. God...I mean, Mother Earth is on your side.

"I do accept that rail is a vital part of the solution, but I won't vote for it unless a see a total package that will actually decrease car trips. "

Again, Kevin Fullerton proves he can't even grasp the basics. You can't "decrease car trips" with transit, because for every car you take off of the road with light rail, another car takes its place. So, you say, bring in the highly unpopular congestion pricing plan, and punish those new potential trip-takers (the sinners).
Sounds fair enough for a group of naïve activists who spend 99.9% of their waking hours conversing with people who look, walk, talk and think just like they do.

One problem, though: if you are going to force all these middle class and working class people off the roads (so Sierra Club sugardaddy Kemper Freeman can get home quicker in his gas guzzler) what are they supposed to do to get to work? To see their family members? To catch a ball game? No answer for that one, eh?

Sims' own congestion pricing plan actually answers that question: you need viable and quick mass transit projects in place BEFORE implementing those highly regressive tolls. That way the public will at least have a positive alternative to follow.

K-full, you're all mixed up and in over your head. But that is peobably what keeps you going each day: knowing deep-down you're dead-wrong on this issue, and doing everything in your power to repress those shortamings.

Posted by SaveThe700ClubFromItself | October 3, 2007 1:01 AM
47

"Personally, I'd characterize the "consensus" you cite among squishy centrist establishment mucky-mucks as classic groupthink. Whenever anyone (whether they be a realtor, used car salesman, or politician) tries to sell you a "once in a lifetime" opportunity - grab your wallet and run."

Mr. X has a good point. It's always safer to flip civic leaders the middle finger, and go with band of disgruntled cranks, who have spent over 12 years fighting light rail in Seattle (plus the Johnny Come Lately...really lately...Sierra Club space cadets).

It doesn't matter that they all possess competing views as to what 'Plan B' would look like. Not a single one of Mr. X's "we hate all change" activists could put together a viable, publicly supported plan if somebody paid them.

Fringe whiner types know only two things: how to play spoiler role, and how to achieve failure. Good way to get things done, don't you think?

I can just see all the road warriors, stick hut dwellers, monorail crazies, bus rapid transit pinheads, Discovery Institute white guys, right wing think tank bug-eyes, etc all sitting down at the end of their campaign, trying decide what to do next.

The meeting would probably last 5 minutes.

Posted by SaveThe700ClubFromItself | October 3, 2007 1:17 AM
48

NYT science section Tuesday says it all. The ice caps are melting way faster than thought and scientists are alarmed. So are we!

There soon will be sea routes from Seattle through the Bering Sea and the Arctic Sea to Europe!

Prop.1 contains a huge highway expansion component, and will speed up the melting of our habitat. If that's what you want vote yes. And as you vote, say to yourself, it's worth pouring huge amounts of co2 into the air an melting our ice caps to get that new highway connection to Burien, to get extra lanes on 520 and to Everett!
And as you vote yes, say goodbye to us.

Please vote no. We'd like to stay around and we'd like to stay in America not just Canada and Greenland.

Posted by Polar Bears Against Prop. 1 | October 3, 2007 6:34 AM
49

http://seatrans.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming.html

That is a pretty good (an well referenced) blog post that contains excellent points on the global warming matter.

If you are finding yourself arguing over and over again that RTID will be the doom of mankind, you should really at least give it a read.

Posted by Cale | October 3, 2007 8:00 AM
50

Clarity 45 - Stm: "voter-approved blank check" - The ST2 plan states: "Sales tax rollback: If voters decide against extending the system in the future, the Sound Transit Board will initiate steps to roll back the rate of sales and use tax collected."

So if they never allow another vote then this clause means what?

Clarity if the ST2 plan after they actually do some engineering comes out that we will 2/3 of miles, dropped stations, at double the cost (same as ST1) what will the taxpayer controls be?

Will the Res. 75 of this vote (does Res.75 still apply?) allow them to drop light rail in favor of BRT?

ECB - if this vote fails it will mean that people want PRT. :p

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 8:21 AM
51

Ok Cale I read the link - BTW who sponsors that site?

Moving on - the idea that the rest of the world will use up the oil, gas, and coal therefore we shouldn't worry about it is lame.

"If oil supplies were so small, and we could simply burn them all away and that would be the end of the fossil fuel era, then we shouldn't really mind building the roads other than they'd be a waste of money since no one would be able to drive on them. If we use up all the oil, we'd have no fuel to burn, no one would drive, the roads would go unused and it'd be a huge boondoggle of expenditure. Us transit folks wouldn't even be troubled tremendously, since none of us drive, at least not that much anyway."

You transit folks all use roads for your buses and freight and commercial needs such as the roofer or dried cow pie deliveries for your heating system.

But the real deal is that vehicles will be on the roads for a long, long, long time. We need to power them with diffent energy. The Clean Car Conference held at Quest Field was an eye-opener for some and validation for others. In the long run only solar and some sort of nuclear power has enough capacity to replace carbon based fuels. All sources can be converted to electricity and batteries are rapidly being developed that will last longer, weigh less and charge faster. In the short/medium term the batteries could be used to balance out electrical demand and supply.

So instead of this program, RTID/ST2 if we were to lead and put this money into the best green electrical generation and subsidize and support moving people to much higher efficiency vehicles (plug in electric, plug in hybrids) we could reduce transportation GHG as soon to now as possible. Make vehicles smaller, slow them down, quiet them down, design more safety for people in and out of the vehicles; this would take most all of the objections I have about vehicles away. Congestion would remain but tolling would/could reduce it. That would also encourage more car sharing reducing the energy used to travel. Buses are already increasing their mileage with electrical hybrids.

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 9:04 AM
52

Clarity @ 45-

Are you talking about the 1.6 mile $50 million Tacoma Link project that wound up costing $80 million plus? How reassuring.

The more I think about it, the more the yes side's endorsement list echoes the same "centrist" consensus endorsements that brought us two obscenely expensive sports stadia across the street from each other.

And heaven knows Ron Sims is a disgruntled crank. Can I have extra shrill with that argument, please?

Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 9:18 AM
53

Mr. X,

Have you also noticed that the road building companies are evil corporations that would control a regional transportation council but the light rail companies are altruistic and wouldn't stoop so low as to get their people elected. The lead company for ST, Parsons, is the same company that was in charge of the Big Dig in Boston. The people that build transit and roads are basically the same people.

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 9:42 AM
54

Well, you know what they say - where you stand depends upon where you sit...

Posted by Mr. X | October 3, 2007 9:46 AM
55

It's a half-assed hodge-podge put together by a bunch of lazy, inept legislators who delegate their responsibilities back to the people who hired them.

No priorities, no deliverables, it's just
'Give us a lot of money and everyone will get some cake.'

Well, screw that.
I'm not voting for the damn tax.

Make the lazy dolts do their jobs.

Posted by old timer | October 3, 2007 10:01 AM
56

#51 - Nobody "sponsors" the site. It's actually just a few concerned Seattlites who don't like the current status of transit here.

And I agree about green technology research! He does in the article too. However, this will be researched by private companies first of all, and if we put a democrat in the office, many billions every year will be most likely be spent on green tech research.

However, in the mean time, this vote is about Seattle infrastructure, and we need to start upgrading the transporation infrastructure now, because cars, trucks, busses, ambulances, firetrucks, and police vehicles aren't going anywhere.

We shouldn't have to kick cars off the road to reduce congestion. We need to be able to accomodate more trips as population is nearly doubling in the next 30 years.

I think tolls should be implemented, because it's fair to charge users to maintain and build roads, and it would eliminate many unnecessary trips. But even with that, we will need to accomodate more.

As for light rail, Seattle both wants and needs rapid transit. ST2 puts it right where it is needed most. Certainly, more is needed elsewhere, but this is a fantastic first step.

Posted by Cale | October 3, 2007 10:42 AM
57

And when it comes back in Feb 2008 we'll vote on ST2 and approve it - without the RTID.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:23 PM
58

and i'm not a tennis player, mr. 700 can't count higher.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 3, 2007 12:26 PM
59

Cale I wasn't talking about research I was talking about doing it. Build electrical power like we did this time last century. If we build green power and use it to power cars, GHG plunge.

The pro side is schizo on congestion. Nothing except tolling will get rid of congestion. You don't want "to kick cars off the road" to reduce cogestion - so now you want to build your way out of congestion?

"As for light rail, Seattle both wants and needs rapid transit. ST2 puts it right where it is needed most. Certainly, more is needed elsewhere, but this is a fantastic first step."


Really? Thanks for letting us know.

Posted by whatever | October 3, 2007 12:55 PM
60

lorax and taco man at 13 and 16: nice discussion. the core problem is opportunity cost: what else could be done for the same money?

ST2 proposes to spend its South King County funds to extend Link LRT from SeaTac to Star Lake, add Sounder parking, and add a bit of bus service. It proposes to spend its Pierce County funds to extend Link LRT from Star Lake to the Tacoma Dome station, add Sounder parking, and add a bit of bus service. The vast majority of funds from both subareas would go to LRT extensions. No additional Sounder trips would be provided. The LRT extensions are estimated to take 20 years to complete.

The ridership forecasts for the south line show only modest ridership: levels below that requiring costly HCT and grade separation.

How does waiting 20 years to provide costly empty seats between the Tacoma Dome station and SeaTac help those commuters, especially the lower income pink and blue collar workers of South King County? It bothers Executive Sims and he has escaped the group think of the ST Board.

ST has several modes to deploy (e.g., completely grade-separated Link LRT, Tacoma LRT with reservation, First Hill streetcar with little priority, express bus, arterial BRT, commuter rail, even diesel LRT or DMU; consider the Nalley Valley ROW between the Tacoma Dome and Lakewood via South Tacoma). They should use them all. Each has a market. Subarea equity is required.

The commuters between downtown Tacoma and downtown Seattle in either direction are better off with express bus on dynamically tolled limited access lanes. With dynamic tolling, all modes would benefit: freight, general purpose, and transit. if some toll revenue is used to improve transit service levels, it provides a second best solution to the equity argument. the improved transit becomes the alternative for long distance trips more quickly than building new transit rights of way near existing highways. LRT is forecast to take 71 minutes between the Tacoma Dome station and Westlake. Bus does in in 50 during rush hour today and 45 in the midday without congestion. If we do nothing, bus would still be faster than LRT for that long distance commute. Sounder takes 60 minutes. But we will not do nothing; tolling is in our future. ST has built a beautiful center access project in Federal Way; let's use it. That requires using more of the two subareas funds for bus and less for slow and delayed LRT. The two subareas funds are concentrated in one ineffective basket.

Tacoma, Everett, Seattle, and the old downtowns of Kent, Renton, and Auburn have street grids built before WWII. They are the under appreciated assetts that should be enhanced by transit. The Tacoma Dome station has the artifical density of free parking. We only need to spend the vast sums for complete grade separation where transit demand is high and right of way cannot be obtained in any other more cost-effective way.

of course the biggest problem of ST2 is being lashed to RTID and being forced to walk the plank together in 2007.

it seems very perverse that we would prefer to expand limited access highways with sales tax revenue rather toll them and use tolling in their design.

Posted by eddiew | October 4, 2007 1:03 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).