Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Morning News | Question of the Day »

Monday, October 1, 2007

Is Ron Sims a Light Rail Advocate or Not?

posted by on October 1 at 8:12 AM

Originally posted on Saturday morning.

In my Thursday Slog post about KC Executive Ron Sims’s big announcement (the longtime Sound Transit board member and light rail booster came out against this November’s $17.8 billion Roads and Transit package which includes $10 billion for 50 new miles of Sound Transit light rail), I concluded: The big question for Sims is whether he supports the Sierra Club’s push to bring a light rail vote back next year.

The pro-transit crowd that is opposing the measure—like the Sierra Club and the Cascade Bicycle Club—believes we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to invest billions in transit. They say we’d be wasting that investment by simultaneously building 152 miles of general purpose highways and freeways. They want a yea or nay vote on light rail, separate from $7 billion on roads.

They maintain that Sound Transit won’t pack up and go home if the measure is defeated this year, and in fact, will have a great opportunity to win at the polls next year when there’s a huge liberal turnout in the 2008 election and people start seeing Sound Transit Phase One completing construction.

However, it’s not clear that Sims, who the Sierra Club believes supports their position (Sims has talked about using money raised through congestion pricing to build light rail)— actually shares their enthusiasm for his former pet project.

KIRO Radio’s Dori Monson put the question to Sims yesterday, and here’s what Sims said:

Monson: Saying No to Prop 1, do you now believe that light rail is not going to be a primary solution to our region’s traffic woes in the next generation or two?

Sims: Well, I believe, no. There’s a… you have to have a tool kit to reduce congestion. You can’t rely on a primary technology, one single principal technology to move forward. It’s got to be a tool kit.



On Thursday morning, right when Sims’s anti-Roads/Transit editorial landed in the Seattle Times, Sims was on KUOW with Steve Scher. He doesn’t explicitly address whether or not he supports extending light rail in a Phase 2, but he sounds luke warm to me.

Listen:


Scher: …and the Roads & Transit plan just doesn’t move enough people…

Sims: Yeah. It’s because there aren’t a lot of other things it includes – it’s not a toolkit. Principally, it relies on a single technology – rail.

I’m still struggling with how I’m going to vote on this thing—although I’ve been pretty clear from the start that I think coupling transit and roads was horrible public policy.

And I’ll admit that I was excited by Sims’s decision to add his high-profile name to the iconoclast environmentalists who are opposing the measure. But if Sims isn’t willing to explicitly fight for a major extension of light rail in its own right—as an alternative to the $17.8 billion roads and light rail package— then his big announcement is actually pretty moronic.

RSS icon Comments

1

Um, how do we even know that, if the roads/transit package is voted down, there would be a follow-up light rail vote at all. The general public and the relevant officials would probably read a defeat of the roads/transit package as a death knell for expanding Link in general, a la with monorail when the Green Line got voted down.

Keep in mind what kind of context would involve voting down this package. Things don't necessarily work the way you think they will or the way you would want them to.

Posted by Gomez | September 29, 2007 12:14 PM
2

Josh this is your most insightful post of the year.

Make no mistake, Ron Sims is no longer a light rail fan. He didn't come out against Roads and Transit because of the road projects, he came out against it because of the light rail projects.

He is fine with most of those road projects (Christ his 2004 plan proposed $2 Billion for I-405 and only $500 for 520). He just thinks we should pay for them with a toll and not an MVET (you tell me which is more regressive).

It is the light rail he doesn't support.

Here are some choice paragraph's from his Op Ed.

My favorite is the attack on I-90 light rail - saying light rail on I-90 will make a North Bend resident's commute in their SUV to Seattle take longer. What?

This man has lost his transportation marbles.

“The retrofit of Interstate 90 for light rail will slow express-bus service and increase commute times to Issaquah, Sammamish and North Bend.” Ron Sims

Oh and by the way, Ron Sims signed the agreement to retrofit I-90 for light rail. It was called R8A and he was a huge champion of it. Was…a huge champion of it.

More from Road Warrior Ron
Even if on schedule, 60 percent of new light rail won’t open until 2027. Light rail across Lake Washington is at least 14 years away. The Northgate extension is 11 years away.

Projected light-rail ridership to Bellevue and Overlake is lackluster because of indirect routing. Traveling from Capitol Hill to the Microsoft campus via downtown Seattle and Mercer Island is slow and cumbersome. To the south, we have different inefficiencies. Light rail would connect Seattle to Tacoma (already served by faster Sounder Trains) and run along Highway 99 (where last year’s King County Metro “Transit Now” tax increase is ramping up bus-rapid-transit service).

I am speachless

Posted by arty | September 29, 2007 12:20 PM
3

What I am getting from Sims is that if we did things his way, if we vote this down now, we can expect another vote... to Northgate.

Then we can all enjoy busses (sometimes WITH hov lanes!) for the next 50 years while every other major city enjoys expanded rail systems.

Then we can watch with jealousy as Portland becomes the great Cascadian city.

Fantastic.

What do you want Sims? Who are you?

Posted by Cale | September 29, 2007 12:25 PM
4

Ron Sims is going through a mid life transportation identity crisis. He doesn't have a clue what he actually believes in.

He was babbling on about telecommuting on Dori yesterday. Uh, that has been around for 20 years Ron.

Oe thing I can glean from his senseless muttering is that he doesn't support light rail anymoore.

At first I thought the Sierra Club wrote his Op Ed for him. Upon a 2nd reading, I think Rob McKenna, Jim Horn and Kemper Freeman were at Ron's keyboard last weekend.

Posted by bill | September 29, 2007 12:26 PM
5

Reagan Dunn for 50 miles of light rail.

Ron Sims against it.

Kathy Lambert for the biggest bike lane expansion in our region's history.

Ron Sims against it.

Shawn Bunney for $50 million of investment in non motorized projects in Pierce County.

Ron Sims against it.

Rudderless, Road building Ron. What happened?

Posted by madcow | September 29, 2007 12:29 PM
6

Look. The thing is none of this construction would start for years anyway. Sims doesn't disagree with light rail in general, he disagrees with how it's going to be implemented. He believes that it's an intra-urban form of transit, not really reasonable as a suburban commuter line. Plus I think he thinks it should go over 520. And I think he's right. Remember: Seattle to Tacoma is take about ~90 minutes.

I don't think he's got a problem with light rail itself; just the way it was implemented.

Posted by john | September 29, 2007 12:30 PM
7

Ron Sims is for extending taxes for 30 years to build sports stadiums for millionaire, wife beating, dead beat basketball players, but not for building a world class transit system.

Posted by ted | September 29, 2007 12:31 PM
8

Ron how is your new, shiny 700 stall downtown county parking garage doing in reducing global warming?

Posted by David | September 29, 2007 12:32 PM
9

Josh,

Why don't you just ask him? His email address is

exec.sims@metrokc.gov

He usually responds to email quickly.

Posted by brianh | September 29, 2007 12:34 PM
10

Btw, you guys's posts show an almost religious faith in the power of your God, Light Rail. I mean who would want to discuss these things reasonably? Who would want to see everyone as anything other than with us or against us.

Shuuuun the non-believer. Shuuuun.

Posted by john | September 29, 2007 12:35 PM
11

john

nice try in defending Ron.

So we should build a regional light rail system, that A. doesn't connect the region B. doesn't reflect commuting patterns and C. has lower ridership.

you make no sense

Can you point to a light rail system anywhere in the Nation that would look like that?


Posted by mat67 | September 29, 2007 12:36 PM
12

MAHMUDIYA, Iraq — On bases big and small south of Baghdad, the scrambled reality of war has become routine: an unending loop of anxious driving in armored Humvees, gallons of Gatorade, laughter at the absurd and 4 a.m. raids into intimate Iraqi bedrooms.

This is Iraq for the 3,300 soldiers of the 10th Mountain Division’s Second Brigade, and many have bitterly come to the realization that it now feels more like home than home will.

No other brigade in the Army has spent more days deployed since Sept. 11, 2001. And with only a few weeks to go before ending their 15-month tour, the soldiers here are eager to go. But they are also nervous about what their minds will carry back given the psychic toll of war day after day and the prospect of additional tours.

Heartache can be heard in the quiet voice of Specialist Gerald Barranco-Oro, who at 22 is on his second tour of Iraq and will leave for home without two close friends who were killed May 19.

There are other losses, too: for fathers like Staff Sgt. Kirk Ray, 25, whose 2-year-old daughter screams when he calls because “she doesn’t know who I am”; and for those who must detach to keep going, like Specialist Jesse Herb, 20, who casually mentioned recently that the ceiling above his bed was dented with the bone fragments of a lieutenant who shot and killed himself there a few months ago.

“Every day I wake up,” he said, “I see little pieces of his head.”

Posted by Jack Spratt | September 29, 2007 12:39 PM
13

Ron's position is pretty clear to me. Light rail from UW to the Airport is the last segment he wants to ever build in this region.

Break this to Erica slowly, but Ron's transportation future is full of more, slow, smelly, stuck in traffic, unreliable Metro buses.

Posted by road hog | September 29, 2007 12:44 PM
14

The beauty of being part of a "no" campaign is that all you need to have in common with your comrades is your desire to say "no" to the proposal of the day.

The lousy part of being on the "no" side is that you're stuck with allies who don't agree with you on anything else. The Cascade Biker Boys and the Sierra Club are stuck with the following allies: Kemper Freeman, Phil Talmadge, Tim Eyman, Ron Sims. Ron may or may not support any more light rail construction. The other members of the Sierra Club Posse are all rail opponents.

The Sierra Club also has picked up some enemies: anyone involved with Sound Transit chief among them. If Prop 1 fails, there will be no easy 2008 light rail vote. There may be a vote on a smaller King County-only light rail system. That's the political reality here.

Posted by J.R. | September 29, 2007 12:57 PM
15

Thanks everyone. For the last couple of days I was wondering if my copy of the Times was different from everyone else's.

Ron Sims is opposed to any light rail system that might actually get built in the next 20 years, so for all intents and purposes he is an opponent of light rail.

And even if the Sierra Club gets its coveted ST2-only vote, we can expect Sims to be opposed to it.

Accepting the ST2/RTID compromise just looks better and better, doesn't it?

Posted by MHD | September 29, 2007 1:21 PM
16

Maybe a King County-only light rail system makes more sense.

Maybe population density and growth patterns in Snohomish and Pierce Counties don't support light rail outside of Everett and Tacoma.

Maybe that enormous expenditure (an open-ended tax, with no end in sight, and a sales tax at that) isn't the best way to go. Ron Sims is the guy who lost for Gov in '04 while pushing an income tax, after all.

I think Ron is right about one thing, when he talks about a toolkit - there is no magic bullet in transportation, and there never has been. Rail is great for people who live close to it or can drive to suburban park-and-ride lots and take advantage of it, but if you talk to Metro planners, you'll hear that even if we build all the light rail lines proposed in ST2, we'll *still* be carrying 75% of trips, or more, on everyone's loathed smelly buses. So you can spend billions and billions and billions to build light rail, with no guarantee the trains won't smell, by the way, or you can try to do more with what we already have. Or you can do some of both (and yes, I know ST2 includes more money for bus service). I don't know why Ron picked now to stand up, but I'm proud of him for speaking his mind.

Posted by John | September 29, 2007 1:27 PM
17

John,

Light Rail is a great deal for King County. Tax funds from the other two counties are spent here to get the line built out, so that they can eventually reach the other counties.

A line only intended to serve King County residents would have to be funded by just King County, resulting in less reach. And that's leaving aside the losses in construction inflation as the plan is extensively re-worked and sent again through Seattle process...

Posted by MHD | September 29, 2007 1:33 PM
18

I don't care what Ron Sims says or does. No way should the transit package have been joined at the hip with this road-building package. The legislature is trying to force us to vote for something we don't want (road building by one government) to get something we do want (trains from ST).

That is abusive, likely unconstitutional, and it earned by no vote. Don't tolerate this kind of BS.

Posted by I needed to say it again . . . | September 29, 2007 1:58 PM
19

It is obvious what Sims wants -- he wants to implement congestion pricing, and he wants a smarter transit package paid for by the congestion pricing. See the King County report on tolling. That's why he is not jumping to a conclusion that light rail should immediately come back to the ballot alone. If it came back immediately, it would still have the same weaknesses as the light rail plan he just criticized. Who knows exactly what will happen if RTID fails, but political reality is that the legislature, Gregoire and the regional electeds will need to come forward with a Plan B, otherwise they will face voter frustration. Sims appears to be prepared to come forward with a comprehensive Plan B, not just a proposal to finance light rail. Given his leadership on global warming, I bet it will be a pretty darn good plan.

Posted by bettertransit | September 29, 2007 2:59 PM
20

John you don't get it. On the board facts are not discussed only the bashing of anyone that doesn't buy into this vote for any reason. It's interesting that Martin brings up the inflating costs as a reason to vote yes but refuses to make a case other than we will be the last city to have light rail. This plan which the advocates' pr company has dubbed as "the good" does almost nothing for congestion, adds GHG and induces more sprawl. TTI estimates that congestion costs us $1.4 billion per year and the tax bill for ST2 and RTID will be $600 million per year in 2009 and no one claims even a 10% cut in congestion. ST's own numbers indicate that 74,000 transit riders will be added by 2030 for $23 billion dollars. This is about .005 of total trips in 2030.

Ron has seen these ST numbers for 15 years and maybe the urgency of GW made him finally say enough is enough. He also knows that ST is lying about the costs and the time it will take. They just quietly added 7% to the UW tunnel. They said it was because of increased building costs - so one would assume ST2 also just increased in price. But we must build light rail because...

Posted by whatever | September 29, 2007 3:47 PM
21

Josh Feit: The pro-transit crowd that is opposing the measure…

I remember an interview several years ago with Mark Sidran. He said he supported mass transit but he didn't support the particular line in question. I forget now if he was talking at the time about Central Link or the Green Line.

And I realized then, it's all too easy for a politician to keep saying, "I support mass transit," "I support mass transit," but every time an honest-to-goodness, actual, concrete mass transit project comes along, they say, "But I oppose this particular project." It's the best of both worlds for a weasely politician. You can claim to be a mass transit supporter while always opposing mass transit.

And really, this is where the Sierra Club Cascade Chapter is. Let me make the case that they are not a pro-transit crowd, in spite of Josh Feit's description here, and even though they may portray themselves as such, like when they say want a vote that "Gives us Sound Transit light rail without the albatross of highway expansion tied to its neck."

Some of us joint ballot supporters had been pointing out how disingenuous this claim is, that the Sierra Club's leadership isn't really interested in saving Sound Transit 2. Their alternative plan for light rail is a kind of "divide and conquer" approach made up of little, surface, mini-lines that by themselves do little for residents and would delay the promise of a regional system for decades.

Back to Ron Sims, though...

What's remarkable is the kind of classic anti-mass transit rhetoric that Sims is engaging in. He isn't just making the "albatross" argument. He really doesn't like light rail, except in very limited applications, for reasons that fall right in line with the Tim Eyman/John Niles/Henry Aronson view of the world. It is as if Ron Sims has willfully forgotten everything in "Why You Build Mass Transit 101."

But here's where the Sierra Club crowd shows its true stripes. Instead of saying, "While we agree with Ron Sims that this proposition should be defeated, we disagree with Ron Sims's broader arguments against light rail." But you haven't heard any of that. Instead it's been, "You tell 'em, Ron. You're our hero, Ron. Speak truth to power."

Actually, in this sense, the Sierra Club is being consistent because they have engaged in much the same anti-transit rhetoric.

And then consider the practical result of this ballot measure's defeat. The Sierra Club and The Stranger can talk all they want about sending a message to Chris Gregoire and Frank Chopp and about what Gregoire and Chopp should do. (The Lou Dobbs crowd that killed that immigration bill said the same thing: "We've got to send Congress a message that this bill is amnesty.") But Gregoire and Chopp answer to the whole state, and until light rail is running and gathers its own constituency and we've really changed the facts on the ground, there's no reason for them to bend over backwards for light rail. (To follow the analogy, let's see how see how long it is until another immigration bill appears in Congress. And let's see how much of an improvement it is for those "no amnesty" folks.)

When you get right down to it, the Sierra Club leadership are an anti-transit crowd. Perhaps, for some of them it is inadvertent. The human dynamics that make them believe what they believe are just too powerful for them to realize what they're saying. At least Tim Gould was consistent enough to oppose monorail too. Hey, if you're going to oppose regional mass transit, then you might as well oppose in-city mass transit as well.

Posted by cressona | September 29, 2007 3:48 PM
22

I have to admire Ron Sims for using one of the trendy political weasel words: "toolkit." (Can anyone guess what other politicians have used this word?)

Yeah. It’s because there aren’t a lot of other things it includes – it’s not a toolkit. Principally, it relies on a single technology – rail.

Actually, the $10 billion in Sound Transit funding includes money for express buses and commuter rail, although I'm pretty sure it's a relatively small amount. And the RTID includes all kinds of money for HOV lanes and ramps. I don't know what it adds up to, but it's got to be well into the hundreds of millions.

What I'm saying is, Sound Transit and RTID are implementing a toolkit to combat congestion. That toolkit combines light rail, road building, congestion pricing (though Ron and the Sierra Club have put their blinders on about this component), and Ron's favorite, buses. Maybe he's pissed off about the HOV lanes because that would actually constitute an upgrade over the usual crappy bus service Ron is used to presiding over.

(Simply as a regular Metro rider, I don't exactly have the most positive association with the words "Ron Sims." And here he wants to kill light rail so he can offer us even more wonderful conventional bus service experiences.)

BTW, I'm going to put on my lame Dan Savage impersonator hat here, but whenever I hear a politician involved with a transportation project talking in broad terms about how it's going to reduce congestion, I know they're not quite being sincere. The only proven way to reduce congestion in a metropolitan area is for the job base to dry up and the place to become a crappy place to live. Mass transit provides a desirable alternative to congestion.

All the Prop. 1 opponents are quick to laud Ron Sims for his sincerity, but his talk about reducing congestion -- plus the weasel language like "toolkit" -- indicates otherwise.

...

Oh, on the hypocrisy front, I remember with the monorail campaigns, Ron Sims and Tim Gould and the other monorail foes were going on and on with this precious argument that monorail was one technology too many. They would say, oh, it's just too complicated to do another mass transit technology when you're already doing one. Of course, never mind that major cities mix all sorts of transit technologies. So let's get to the scorecard:

  1. Ron Sims when it was time to kill the monorail: Toolkit bad.
  2. Ron Sims when it's time to kill light rail extension: Toolkit good. Ignore existing toolkit.

Posted by cressona | September 29, 2007 4:11 PM
23

Y'know, we're all quick to ascribe political motives every time Dino Rossi or Chris Gregoire or Greg Nickels or Peter Steinbrueck decides to blow his or her nose. Well, Ron Sims is a political animal too, and there's got to be some political motive for this turnabout, because his purported reasons for his newfound opposition just don't add up.

It's one thing to have a change of heart. It's a whole 'nuther thing to be a flip-flopper.

But this isn't even just flip-flopper territory. This isn't like a Republican presidential candidate suddenly having an epiphany that abortion is a sin. This about-face on Ron Sims's part is a broad repudiation of a whole range of principles that Ron Sims purportedly has long believed in: the whole point of light rail, the effectiveness of light rail, the deferred gratification aspect of light rail. Suddenly, he decides light rail just takes too long to build?

Just go through that op-ed he wrote and there's just point after point after point where you can't help but wonder, "If that's your belief, where was that belief for the last x number of years?"

Anyway, perhaps some of you commenters out there can clue me in on Sims's motives.

Posted by cressona | September 29, 2007 4:24 PM
24

Arty @2:

Make no mistake, Ron Sims is no longer a light rail fan. He didn't come out against Roads and Transit because of the road projects, he came out against it because of the light rail projects.
He is fine with most of those road projects (Christ his 2004 plan proposed $2 Billion for I-405 and only $500 for 520). He just thinks we should pay for them with a toll and not an MVET (you tell me which is more regressive).
It is the light rail he doesn't support.
....
I am speachless [sic].

Yeah, as bill @4 noted, it was as if Jim Horn and Kemper Freeman had taken control of Ron Sims's brain. But you know what leaves me equally speechless? The effusive praise for Ron Sims's coming out that is coming from the Sierra Club crowd. Either they're not reading what he's actually writing, or they really are anti-transit themselves.

As I've maintained for a while now, there is some undeniable component of the latter. By the same token, I think at least some Sierra Clubbers do sincerely view themselves as pro-transit and would vociferously reject Sims's arguments if they were coming from Tim Eyman or Jim Horn.

I'm reminded now of the scene in "Borat" at the rodeo where Borat sings the national anthem but with provocatively anti-American lyrics. At some point, the audience realized what was going on and turned on him. But here, it's like our Borat, Ron Sims, has gotten through the whole song and has been welcomed with warm applause. The crowd was just too dumb to ever realize they were being punk'd.

Posted by cressona | September 29, 2007 4:38 PM
25

Cressona back on the job?
Ron just can't carry the water for the bs of Sound Transit anymore. He's been lied to by PB, Bob White, Paul Bay and the rest of the RTA/ST crew. You think he believes they just made a 300% error in ST1?

Cressona said:

"What I'm saying is, Sound Transit and RTID are implementing a toolkit to combat congestion. That toolkit combines light rail, road building, congestion pricing (though Ron and the Sierra Club have put their blinders on about this component), and Ron's favorite, buses."...

... whenever I hear a politician involved with a transportation project talking in broad terms about how it's going to reduce congestion, I know they're not quite being sincere. The only proven way to reduce congestion in a metropolitan area is for the job base to dry up..."

so which is it? Is RTID/ST2 fighting congestion or is that just bull?

Ron sees it. This plan won't do much and cost a fortune.

Posted by whatever | September 29, 2007 4:56 PM
26

Whatever: Cressona back on the job?

Sorry, whatever. My line of work has absolutely nothing to do with any of this stuff. And I am ever so happy for that.

If Seattle just can never get over its Hamlet phase and decides that it's going to be another 20 years, if ever, until we can get light rail to Northgate and the Eastside, then at least my line of work offers me the option of finding a job in some other city.

Anyway, whatever, I do agree with you that Sound Transit's initial phase, and the Sound Move ballot of 1996, had a lot of charitable estimates (i.e. lies) built in. Not to mention the Sound Move measure of 1996 was significantly scaled down from the 1995 measure. And doesn't that give us a lot to look forward to if this one goes down to defeat?

Posted by cressona | September 29, 2007 5:06 PM
27

I am voting for it because of those annoying radio ads with the cash register noise and the old biddy complaining about the cost.

Posted by catalina vel-duray | September 29, 2007 9:15 PM
28

Sims is now against light rail because he wants to be governor and he can't get elected statewide just sucking up to King County lobbies that live off the Sound Transit cash cow. His witless boosterism of a badly flawed transportation non-solution has always been about sucking up to the local money holders. (Remember how he fell over himself butting into Seattle politics and campaigning for an SLU streetcar to flatter/fatten Paul Allen's obese wallet at taxpayer expense?)

Posted by Smarm | September 29, 2007 11:19 PM
29

"Ron Sims is going through a mid life transportation identity crisis. He doesn't have a clue what he actually believes in."

Bill, if you knew anything about Ron Sims, you would also know his entire political career has been a perpetual midlife crisis. We should seen the writing on the wall in regard to Prop 1 when he did everything humanly possible to piss off rural dwellers with the Critical Aeas Ordinance, and city dwellers with that special interest-driven attempt to turn Boeing Field into SeaTac2. Never mind the fact the Port of Seattle had just spent billions and a decade to complete the third runway at SeaTac International.

If I were to psychoanalyze Sims, I would say his childish spoiler effort this past week had less to do with a "fireside chat" with his wife, and a lot more to do with serious political suicide. Simms has been irrelevant for years, and this last gasp was really just an attempt to release himself from purgatory, and join the other ghosts (Jim Horn comes to mind) in the political graveyard.

I just wish Sims had put himself out of his own misery years ago. Atrophy can make even the most talented people do the stupidest things.

Same goes for Sierra Club leading the charge against light rail, led by Metro bus planner (and notorious crank) Jack "eddiew" Whisner. Eddiew knows that when light rail operation begin,less than 2 years from now , his crappy buses will be even less popular than they are now. In many ways, this final Sims/Whisner "fuck you" represents a dying breed of rubber tire zealots " the same people who brought you the automobile and...wait for it...and ghg emissions. Yeah, the Sims/Whisner/Sierra Club plan pencils-out in theory. But the reality of the situation remains the same: most people don't want to get on your shitty, slow buses.

I will thank Ron Sims for one thing: exposing the Sierra Club activists for the frauds they are. Nothing like rallying around a fading anti-rail politician to bolster your credibily. Way to go, guys.

"I don't think he's got a problem with light rail itself; just the way it was implemented."

John th Apologist: leave the idiotic spinning and nuancing for Karl Rove. Can your arguments get any weaker?

Why, yes. Yes they can.

"Rail is great for people who live close to it or can drive to suburban park-and-ride lots and take advantage of it,"

So much for the toolkit approach, eh John? Just about anybody in he region will be able to drive (or take a bus) to one of those dozens of light rail stations. Why do you think park and rides are so popular with the average joe (incidentally, those park and rides just aren't "pure" enough for the Seatle-centric set.

"Plus I think he thinks it should go over 520. And I think he's right. Remember: Seattle to Tacoma is take about ~90 minutes."

John @ 6: thank you for proving the point once again that opponents to Prop 1 base their opposition on pure urban legend. Flip the 9, and turn it into a 6. And while you're at it, also keep in mind only a small fraction of the light rail ridership will take an end-to-end trip.

In other words, your position is not only wrong, it's pointless and irrelevant. Which is what makes you the perfect Prop 1 opponent.

Backpack-peddling Sierra Clubbers needed to oppose Roads and Rail so they could distinguish themselves from other sane enviro groups.

Global Warming may be a serious long-term issue for the planet. But for the inconsistent Sierra Club, it's probably just another fad.

I'm never giving these idiots another dime of my money.

Posted by JoinRonSims'Anti-RailJihad | September 30, 2007 2:16 AM
30

or, maybe Josh is being his usual ray of sunshine and doubting his flipped position ... when in fact most of the anti-RTID/ST2 people have been pretty darned consistent.

Looking for moles in mountains.

Posted by Will in Fremont | September 30, 2007 5:28 AM
31

Notice how ST chair Ladenburg (Pierce Co. Exec.) and Reardon (Snohomish Co. Exec.) are silent? They aren't trying to argue against anything Sims said.

He is speaking for all the key electeds on ST's board. RTID/ST2 is bad for people.

They put the blonde chick Patterson out there as a sop. She's saying what she is saying to mollify the businesses who've contributed to the "yes" PAC.

All the elected heavy-hitters are against this. To Their Credit. And that is because it is bad for people on a number of fronts.

Posted by It isn't just Ron Sims | September 30, 2007 8:17 AM
32

Can't decide what is more irritating those cash register ads or the pro side's talking point - "the perfect is the enemy of the good"

Posted by whatever | September 30, 2007 8:29 AM
33

ST claims that 50 miles will be built for $11 billion in 2007/8 dollars. This is about $220 per mile. It will include tunneling under the UW and going across I-90 most likely tunneling in Bellevue yet they are claiming about the same cost as the first 14 miles that will be completed in 2009. They just raised their estimates for the 4 miles to the UW with only 2 stations to $400 million per mile. If this last 7% increase was not built into the vote which was set before this latest revelation, then the 50 miles would be down to 46.5 before the vote.

But let's say they are telling the truth - would it be a good investment for the 3.5 million that are inside ST2 district at over $3000 per person? We as taxpayers will pay the part the business is taxed through higher prices, businesses always pass on taxes they have no option.

Regional light rail in Portland has not resulted in a greater transit share than we have here.

Posted by whatever | September 30, 2007 8:52 AM
34

@31

you should read the paper before posting

http://www.thenewstribune.com/opinion/othervoices/story/167974.html

Posted by bill | September 30, 2007 9:06 AM
35

I could support Prop 1 if it focused solely on mass transit and making better use of existing roadways. Unfortunately, the people who dreamed up this proposition loaded it full of road pork. Passing Prop 1 will tax us up to $2,000 per household per year more or less in perpetuity and lead to more roads and more cars on those roads. Traffic can be accommodated at a much lower cost by decreasing incentives to take unnecessary car trip, especially in single occupancy vehicles. I'm with Ron Sims on this--let's try congestion pricing and/or tolls instead of repeating the mistakes of the past and building more roads. The system could be designed so that cars fitted with transponders could qualify for a free round trip each work day to get back and forth to work. Vehicles with at least one passenger could get dinged less than single-occupancy vehicles. Ditto for low-income people. Non-peak hour trips could be free. Why tax ourselves this heavily when it is a well proven fact that new lanes simply attract more cars using those lanes, thereby perpetuating congestion problems and increasing greenhouse gas emissions?
The relentless road building supported by this tax fly in the face of the future reality that either gradually because of oil depletion, or even quite suddenly due to a war or other catastrophic supply disruptions, gas prices will inevitably hit $5, $7, $10 (and beyond) per gallon in the not too distant future. Future gas prices will have a definite calming effect on future traffic without pouring even a single cubic yard of cement on the problem. As for the idea that future residents our region are going to drive as much as we are driving now--that is ludicrous. Twenty years ago the City of Seattle announced projections that water consumption would raise linearly with increased population growth, and declared that new supplies (i.e., new dams and possibly wells) must be developed at massive expense. Guess what happened? People conserved and Seattle's dire predictions of water shortages didn't come true. In a similar fashion, we should, and actually can, put ourselves on a road diet.

Posted by Mud Baby | September 30, 2007 11:44 AM
36

So The Slog writers were failing all over themselves to post about Ron Sims’s Seattle Times op-ed. Let’s see if they ever post about the late Walt Crowley’s op-ed in today’s Times, Last days of the ICE Age. The ICE in this case is the internal combustion engine. Key excerpt:

With each election, the public has backed a little further away from the automobile-driven imperatives that have shaped our transportation system and patterns of regional and urban development since the First World War. The final fording looms just ahead: the Nov. 6 election on the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) plan for $18-billion-plus worth of transit and highway improvements over the next decade or more.

The RTID package does not satisfy the true believers on either side of the great lanes-versus-trains debate that has divided the region since the 1960s, but its approval would irrevocably tip the balance in favor of transit and other non-ICE Age modes of transportation, such as bicycles, ferries and electric vehicles. Personal transport per se will not cease to exist — it is too ingrained in our culture and economy — but petroleum-powered cars and their insatiable appetite for oil, concrete and real estate will no longer set the pace for future mobility and development.

It's a shame Walt Crowley didn't get a chance to vote yes himself on ST2/RTID. Somehow I feel, though, that he just may have made the difference in this election, albeit posthumously.

Thank you, Walt Crowley. Thank you wherever you are now.

Posted by cressona | September 30, 2007 11:48 AM
37

Remember that Crowley pointed out during this year's viaduct campaign how the local left opposed Forward Thrust in 1968 and 1970 and instead proposed "(I kid you not) bridle trails." When I cited this quote on the news of Crowley's death, I suggested the Sierra Club clique could offer bridle trails to Snohomish and Pierce counties as an alternative to light rail. (Hey, Ron Sims and these guys could call their transportation alternatives “toolkit” the three B’s: bikes, buses, and bridle trails.)

At the time, I made sure to qualify my observation with an "I don't know what position, if any, Walt Crowley had on ST2/RTID." But, based his acute awareness of this region's repeated failures to get going on mass transit, I just knew--just knew--where he stood.

Walt Crowley always supported mass transit. Unlike Ron Sims, he didn't support light rail but oppose monorail and then, in a fit of pique, turn against light rail. Unlike the Seattle-only, anti-establishment populistas, he didn't support monorail but oppose light rail and then, when monorail was dead, claim to be a hard-line light rail supporter while at the same time trying to nitpick and delay light rail to death.

Why was Walt Crowley so consistent when so many others have not been? Because unlike Ron Sims, this has never been about his own political ambitions. Because unlike the Grant Cogswell types, this has never been about his own personal validation. There was no agenda. Walt Crowley was always a mass transit supporter because, remarkably enough, Walt Crowley was always a mass transit supporter.

Posted by cressona | September 30, 2007 11:56 AM
38

Could it possibly be that Ron Sims and the Sierra Club opposes RTID because it is billions in regressive taxes to make global warming worse? That it funds highway expansion that contributes to a 45% increase in automobile traffic by 2030? That if we are serious about global warming we need dramatic changes in our transportation spending and priorities? Many of the commenters keep trying to frame this as whether one is for or against light rail, which entirely misses the point. It is as if we are not paying attention to everything we have learned in the last few years about the importance and urgency of fighting global warming. Many of the pro RTID commenters above seem stuck fighting the last political fights about roads v. transit, or which transit mode is best. The real enemy is catastrophic climate change, and I have seen almost no one willing to stand up and say how building new highways is any part of a strategy to fight global warming. Yes, push Sims on what his plan is. But also take a moment to evaluate how attacking the Sims and the Sierra Club, leaders on climate change, is at all meaningful to this debate. It is an attempt to discredit the messenger, without any attempt to tackle the message. This is our chance to fight the single largest source of global warming pollution in Washington. Are we going to rise to that fight, or are we going spend billions to make global warming worse? And if we were serious about fighting global warming, how would we spend billions of dollars to win that fight? Those are good questions, and the ones that Sims is trying to raise. Let's have that debate.

Posted by rtidstinks | September 30, 2007 1:44 PM
39

cressona when you brought this up on Walt's RIP slog I didn't respond because I thought you were out place doing that. I was here and can tell you the left was not opposed to light rail, certainly the vast majority were working against the war, for civil rights and gender rights, saving the market and stopping the RH Thompson freeway.

From the PI 5-18-70

Vick Gould (look him up at historylink) listed these organizations opposing the vote to held the next day: The Bellevue Rep. Women's Club, Teamster Local 174, Overtaxed Inc., Tax Limit League, Focus on Freeways, Lower Queen Anne Citizens Group, Redmond City Council, Seattle Master Builders, Apartment House Operators Assn., Transit Trust and Society of Pro. Elec. Engineers. Where's the left?

The article specifically announces that the King County Labor, AFL-CIO and the Aero Mechanics had come out against the rapid transit.

There is no mention of this left anti transit agenda on history_link or any history book on the city I can find.

Seattle has a better modal split than Portland after 25 years of light rail and billions of subsidy. Cressona I'm pretty sure that you are sincere but why do you spend so much time bashing individuals and groups instead of making the case beyond it must be rail because, well because.

Is there a price that LR would be too high? What would that be for these 50 miles? Where has light rail worked? Portland has only 8 hours less congestion per driver in a much smaller metro area by population. When Seattle was as small as Portland I'm sure that we had less congestion. Look at the list of major rail system cities - they have bigger congestion numbers than Seattle, they have more sprawl and with the exception of NY we do very well on a per person energy consumption.

Posted by whatever | September 30, 2007 2:13 PM
40

So is the main criterion for whether or not we build or expand light rail what it does for commute times for single-occupancy vehicle drivers? (@ 39 and others) Is that what does or does not justify the investment?

If that's the reasoning, the only investment that's ever going to make sense is 50 lanes of I-5 crammed in between Elliott Bay and Lake Washington.

Posted by JW | September 30, 2007 3:03 PM
41

From a letter to the Times: "I urge everyone to ignore his lackluster argument and vote yes on Proposition 1. Doing something now is far better than doing nothing. You cannot put a price on that!"

This is the pro votes argument - you can't put a price on doing something, anything - no matter that this plan increases GHG, no problem we're doin sumpin; induces more sprawl, no problem we're doin sumpin and doesn't reduce congestion, no problem we're doin sumpin.

The pro side wants a blank check to build some light rail but hasn't calculated how their program will impact GW, they'll do that after the vote.

$23 billion to add .005 transit riders and much of that for upper income software workers - oh ya that's cause the uppers won't ride buses.

Posted by whatever | September 30, 2007 3:32 PM
42

Yes, yes, we definitely all know all about global warming here! And we all know perfectly well what's going to happen if we build one more square inch of highway! We've seen the amazing Al Gore PoPo!!!!

Having Ron Sims or The Stranger or pretty much anyone weigh in on how your vote will or will not melt the polar ice caps is bullshit. None of these self-appointed experts know shit about what will happen in a decade or a year or tomorrow. For all we know, every car on the road could run on a battery ten years from now.

So yes, let's talk about whether we can live with this plan or whether anyone actually has the stomach or attention span to come up with another one. But please, please, please...stop pretending that the way out of the global warming morass rests on voting no or yes on RTID/ST2.

Posted by GW? | September 30, 2007 3:53 PM
43

See http://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/ for what the experts say about global warming, highway building, and fuel efficiency. If America continues to increase automobile use, as we have been doing for decades, it will wipe out predicted fuel efficiency gains.

And the thing about global warming is that it is, well, global. Which means that everyone has to step up to solve it, and in particular those countries like ours that contribute the most to it.

There are alternatives, and we should make the elected officials bring them before us. If there are truly no other plans that our elected officials can come up with, then they all ought to resign for gross incompetence.

Posted by rtidstinks | September 30, 2007 4:35 PM
44

So do the experts at SGA agree or disagree that more HOV lanes are ok because they let buses get where they go quicker and make that transit system more effective? Or do they come down hard against them 'cause building them is building one bit of highway and is, thus, harmful?

The thing about RTID is that it's constructed to piss everybody off about something. Which makes me think it might be decent to vote for.

The thing about the Ron Sims editorial that really bugs is the broad certainty about RTID "doing nothing about global warming." Well, having no train and no buses that go anywhere real fast also does nothing about global warming, and, like I said, he's no expert on global warming.

I just get skeptical nowadays whenever anyone interjects GW as a justification for whatever they're advocating. It's "Support the Troops" or "Dare to resist drugs" for the left - a way to silence those who disagree with you or convince those who just don't really know what to do.

Posted by GW? | September 30, 2007 5:10 PM
45

This prop.1, better called Carbon Dioxode 'n' Transit, commits us to a massive road expansion program.

This forced marriage makes many heretofore environmentalists WHORES who now support spending $$$$$billions to cause MORE GLOBAL WARMING.

Seattle, how could you?

Posted by Polar Bears Against Prop. 1 | September 30, 2007 5:46 PM
46

"The thing about RTID is that it's constructed to piss everybody off about something. Which makes me think it might be decent to vote for."

"I urge everyone to ignore his lackluster argument and vote yes on Proposition 1. Doing something now is far better than doing nothing. You cannot put a price on that!"

Yup convincing arguments to vote for this puppy.

GW you miss the point that the pros say that this a good environmental vote and imply that it will do something for global warming - but it isn't analyzed.

Posted by whatever | September 30, 2007 5:51 PM
47

Likely results if Prop 1 fails:

1) Sound Transit dissolved by legislature. Replaced with new regional transportation commission to build roads and transit. Last year's bill to do this failed by a few votes. Hard to see how it wouldn't pass after the failure of a five year effort to develop a ballot measure.

2) Roads projects come back piecemeal over the next ten years either through the new commission or the legislature.

3) Worthy Seattle projects that could help make surface/transit possible and help bus rapid transit like Lander, Spokane Street, Mercer Street, and the new I-5 HOV bus ramp are delayed several years due to funding uncertainty. This means they won't be ready when the viaduct comes down around 2012-14.

4) Transit projects come back promising far less rail due to increased costs of construction and financing. The mix of transit in Seattle and outside Seattle will stay the same or be worse due to the declining percentage of the population that Seattle represents.

5) Rail extensions will take 3-10 years longer because of the need to return to the ballot, hire new staff to replace those who left, and create new momentum for a new agency. Even if ST survives, they likely will lose staff and momentum in the years between ballot initiatives. 2008 election will not happen because of Speaker Frank Chopp and Governor Gregoire (132 vote winner, third recount) not wanting to have a tax measure on the ballot in suburban Puget Sound.

Somehow I don't think all of this will help the polar bears...

Posted by please pay attention | September 30, 2007 6:58 PM
48

Add FUD to the list.

A new coordinated agency that does it all and has direct elected representation what a horrible idea. Key phrase - ST may lose staff - the tragedy. How much per year for agency?
Could they produce an energy assessment? No. Million bucks for cocker fennessy (perfect enemy of good)
still putting out on schedule and budget press releases - no please we can't lose any personal from ST.

Posted by whatever | September 30, 2007 7:08 PM
49

Another Sound Transit hater @ 48 says big deal if a new commission takes over for Sound Transit. Take a look at what he says:

"A new coordinated agency that does it all and has direct elected representation what a horrible idea."

--Yes, it is a horrible idea. The bill in the leg last year envisioned seven districts of 300,000 people each! At this scale elections are big money. Roads interests will outspend transit interests. Seattle will likely have one and half reps out of seven. Contrast this with a board of elected officials directly responsible for their decisions with their local electorates.

"Key phrase - ST may lose staff - the tragedy. How much per year for agency?"

--There are a whole bunch of people in this region who believe it is progressive and helpful to attack an agency that is trying to build transit in this region. Did ST get off to a rough start? Yes, the board and staff both learned many lessons that have helped guide ST 2. It took about five years to build the staff expertise and board experience. Ask any small businessperson how long it took them to really understand their business and they will generally tell you it was 3-5 years before they got their shit together. The monorail imploded in large part because they had an immature staff and a board that really didn't understand the responsibility of their decisions. Whatever's new agency will have to hire new staff, form new relationships, and create itself in a very short time. That is likely to be painful and slow--we can't afford to wait.

"Could they produce an energy assessment?"

--The answer is no. This little Sierra Club soundbite sounds great but when you look behind the curtain Oz is spinning the dials furiously. The truth is--the model doesn't exist yet! The whole field of carbon assessment is brand new. Models are being developed right now. Should we vote no, wait for new models, put together a new plan, do the necessary public process, and then vote again? Or should we pass this package, do the carbon assessments, and work to make sure the new lanes are congestion priced over the twenty years of the Roads and Transit program. Easy choice if you ask me.

Posted by please pay attention | September 30, 2007 7:44 PM
50

Maybe L. Ron Sims is just coming to his senses. Sound Transit is a boondoggle. Let's look at what Sound Transit does. They run an incredibly expensive and not particularly reliable rail service from Everett to Seattle and Tacoma to Seattle. This service costs 70 dollars per passenger per day and is nothing more than a sprawl subsidy for people purchasing McMansions in South King County. The ST bus service doesn't do anything that Metro, Pierce Transit or Community Transit weren't already doing or couldn't have done themselves. The link light rail plan is years behind schedule, millions over budget and will be no faster than the bus service it replaces. It is also vulnerable to disruption along the portion of the route that runs at grade (question: why is it that Erica C. Barnett shits herself when anyone mentions BRT but then turns around and has an orgasm when mentioning Sound Transit, which is building what basically amounts to BRT on rails?). Sound Transit is also does absolutely nothing for anyone living west of highway 99 other than offer a few token bus routes.


But despite the fact that Sound Transit has not done anything to improve bus service, is encouraging and subsidizing sprawl with the Sounder and hasn't yet carried one passenger on Link Light Rail we're supposed to go to the polls in November and hand them billions of dollars more so they can build more light rail. I'm voting against the RTID/ST package in November, but not because of the roads, but because I believe that Sound Transit is a complete waste of money.

Posted by wile_e_quixote | September 30, 2007 7:51 PM
51

They are both bad - too much for too little, too late. Plus, I don't like the idea of spending the next two generations' worth of taxable or bondable income. It's obscene, folks - that much money for something which will take that long to get done. Obscene and insane - face it.

Posted by chas Redmond | September 30, 2007 7:54 PM
52

Chas says vote no--no idea what the better idea is.

Buses?
New transit agency?
Monorail?
Absofuckinglutely nothing?

Posted by please pay attention | September 30, 2007 8:02 PM
53

Chas Redmond @51:

They are both bad - too much for too little, too late. Plus, I don't like the idea of spending the next two generations' worth of taxable or bondable income. It's obscene, folks - that much money for something which will take that long to get done. Obscene and insane - face it.

Chas is right. Borrowing money over such a long duration is freakin' nuts. I mean, what's next—families taking out 30-year mortgages?! And the shame of taxing our children and grandchildren to build something that might actually preserve the viability of this region for the benefit of our children and grandchildren. That's just outrageous!

Now suppose we were talking backloaded 50-year loans using exotic financial instruments to pay for a crippled monorail system. That, Chas and I would agree, is okay. Why? Hey, if someone was going to build a rail line within biking distance of your sprawling single-family home in one of Seattle's suburby neighborhoods, wouldn't you take it?

(Y'know, I would call people like this hypocrites, but hypocrisy suggests some degree of thought that clearly is not present here. It is the Chas Redmonds who make you realize why politicians act like politicians.)

Posted by cressona | September 30, 2007 9:26 PM
54

Cressona those 40 year mortgages worked out pretty well. Credit crisis, GW crisis screw it just build rail.

PPA - currently the majority of the board and all but one position in King is controlled by the executive which is an election of 1.8 million people. Cynthia Sullivan lost to anti ST Fergusson but he didn't get a seat. No rail skeptic ever made it after they threw Mckenna off. Wouldn't it be funny if Sims or his replacement starts packing the board with BRT fans - Res. 75 would have allowed the cancellation of all rail projects - I'm sure the current vote will also allow that sort of change.

The agency would be the PRSC with funding. You know the organization that already does the analisis but has no teeth. They wouldn't need to run transit or build roads but they could be a local FTA and make decisions between options. BTW isn't Portland set up with a three county board?

Posted by whatever | September 30, 2007 9:52 PM
55


Light Rail in Seattle is farcical buffoonery. You can't build a train station at every 3 story office building in Redmond.

It's a giant boondoggle and Sims is wisely standing out of smells reach of this stinkeroo plan.

The automobile and the bicycle are the only way to move around the point-to-point architecture of Westside Washington.

Also, the Liberals of Seattle have been trying to keep their overvalued homes at a premium -- more roads would move more people into more reasonably priced suburbs with better lifestyles for the middle class and the poor.

Of course they would oppose roads because then they wouldn't have their high home valuation and an ample supply of cheap labor to clean their floors and watch their kids.

Posted by John Bailo | September 30, 2007 10:23 PM
56

Thank John Bailo for elevating the conversation far beyond the ridiculous. Those of us who want a less damaging, more visionary option are simply trying to stop us from wasting our money, time and environment on road projects that will not fix our traffic problems.

We have 34 bridges in RTID territory that have a lower safety rating than the Minneapolis bridge that collapsed a few weeks ago. RTID fixes only 1 of those 34 bridges. We’ll have new roads while our old bridges fall down upon us and we won’t be able to afford to fix them.

Posted by Glacier Hugger | September 30, 2007 10:39 PM
57

Name those 34 bridges. Then tell us what the plans are for maintaining them by the government that is responsible for them. You will find that the cities and counties that have those bridges have a plan for their maintenance and replacement. This is just another meaningless Sierra Club talking point with no context whatsoever.

And it does fix the worst bridge in the state--the South Park bridge in working class South Seattle linking Georgetown and South Park. A bridge scheduled to be torn down in 2010. A bridge that rates a 4 out of 100(the bridge in Minneapolis was around 50). A bridge that carries 20,000 vehicles, 6,000 of them trucks, each day. A bridge that if closed will cause the First Avenue South bridge to be congested 12 hours a day.

Posted by please pay attention | September 30, 2007 10:52 PM
58

so what i seem to be getting from people here is that some people want light rail... some want roads... and some people want... nothing.

well screw the people who want nothing, how about we build light rail and roads?

Posted by Cale | September 30, 2007 10:54 PM
59

Suburby neighborhoods? Hmmm. 70 percent or more of Seattle is zoned single family. Guess Cressona means most of Seattle. Non suburban? Hmmm. Capitol Hill, First HIll, U-District, Belltown, Denny Regrade, SLU (soon), Uptown/Lower Queen Anne. Guess ST1 and ST2 are going to take care of all the non-suburby parts, eh? Oh, I forgot, Beacon Hill can't possibly be suburban since it's got a new underground station. No, what we need is a sensible plan to move the urban element of the city around the urban area. That would mean all of the urban hubs and urban villages and even some Eastside, Southside and Northside locations. How about Renton or Southcenter? How about a real transit system in Tacoma rather than a downtown trolley and a long-distance interurban to Seattle? How about a sensible plan which covered more than one linear route? Oh, the downtown tunnel will be maxed if we add to much to the system. Yeah, great system-in-the-making we've got here. I'd rather not waste my money on bad ideas. Perfect is not the enemy of good, bad is the enemy of good and ST1 and ST2 are bad. The roads package is even worse. No, Cressona, I'm not a hypocrite, I've been singing the same song for four years now - a sensible system with interconnects and more than one line - who cares what the technology is as long as there is more than one rapid transit line. We're going to get part of a rapid transit line in between certain stations - gee, why don't we just spend the money and buy everyone electric cars. I haven't done the math but I'm sure it would be more effective and probably cheaper and could be implemented in a few years - not several decades.

Posted by chas Redmond | October 1, 2007 1:02 AM
60

"well screw the people who want nothing, how about we build light rail and roads?"

Yippee another great slogan for the pro vote.

As Walt said we are at a tipping point - to me that means we need to make good decisions not the validation of this bad marriage. We need to decide how important GW and reducing GHG is in the decision making matrix, how important containing sprawl and congestion is and what other things we might need $600 million (2009 $s)for, such as green power.

As was mentioned above subsidizing or just encouraging significantly less polluting vehicles could reduce transportation carbons by 20 or 30% or more in ten years. We could follow the lead of the forefathers of this region and buy up wind power, geo thermal, tidal, hot rock and other sites suitable for alternative green power.

Towards the end of his piece Walt said "We will always need roads and highways, but once the momentum of transportation investment steers away from the gas-powered automobile in favor of transit and other alternatives, there will be no going back."

Other alternatives...steers away from gas-powered...hmmm

And this idea that if one points out that this program will add GHG and that even the rail portion will not be GHG neutral for maybe 20 or 30 years, one must lay out the exact alternative is specious.

The better is not the enemy of the pathetic.

Posted by whatever | October 1, 2007 8:19 AM
61

I'm still pissed at Ron Sims, but in the second quote he makes a good point: rail alone is not going to solve our regional transportation problems. Particularly not in the short term.

I suspect what he means by "toolkit" is the list of system tweaks he's been advocating already, like tolls for the floating bridges, more express buses, that sort of thing. And I'm all for those. But light rail has got to be a part of that plan. So, Ron: go ahead and advocate for your toolkit, but don't leave out our most important tool: rail expansion.

Posted by Greg | October 1, 2007 8:36 AM
62

"So is the main criterion for whether or not we build or expand light rail what it does for commute times for single-occupancy vehicle drivers? (@ 39 and others) Is that what does or does not justify the investment?"

No but the pro side claims it will and the biggest issue in this area is freight and commercial. The fact that a $23 billion expenditure will result in only adding .005 of trips to transit with significant, $438 per year per rider, opereating subsidy (2006 $s) makes a reasonable person ask is it worth it.

When you get to heaven I bet supporting or opposing light rail will have had nothing to do with it.

Posted by whatever | October 1, 2007 8:38 AM
63

"So, Ron: go ahead and advocate for your toolkit, but don't leave out our most important tool: rail expansion."

If you don't mind me asking, Greg - would you still support rail expansion if it were done like the TriMet in Portland "does" MAX light rail? That model features: a progressive payroll tax that businesses pay (not sales taxes), a huge percentage of the MAX line construction costs are paid for by the feds, there is some Private/Public partnerships, and minimal long term bonds (only $94 million in bonds are outstanding from TriMet's 64-mile system, and ST has $750 million ALREADY outstanding for that 15-mile line).

Also, would you like Sound Transit 2 better if it had cost-control measures like ST 1 had, or do you think no spending limits is a GOOD "feature" of ST2?

In other words, and in the spirit of "the better is not the enemy of the pathetic," are the kinds of improvements suggested in this post things you would support as part of expanding light rail?

Posted by curious george | October 1, 2007 8:47 AM
64

BTW - it is my understanding that Pierce County Exec. Ladenburg (ST's chair) is the one who vetoed asking the legislature last session for a payroll tax to help fund ST light rail expansion. Ladenburg also suggested he would not support any ST2 plan that had spending limits in it of the type that are in ST 1. And Ladenburg didn't want to request federal money, so he decided that ST should rely entirely on sales taxes - the most regressive kind of tax and the kind of tax the families of this region pay too much of already - instead of doing what Portland, the Twin Cities, Denver, etc. do, which is use mostly fed money for light rail construction.

Ladenburg seems to be pretty much a tool for his business friends (the ones who want the cross-base highway).

Don't like Ladenburg's vision of hammering families in your community with limitless sales taxes? Vote no on this particular version of a light rail expansion package. A more enlightened, less regressive financing package will be proposed next time.

It only took ST a couple of months to put a new version up on the ballot after the first one failed in 1995. There's no reason to expect we won't have a better shot at expanding trains if the "Ladenburg vision" is rejected in November.

Posted by curious george | October 1, 2007 8:55 AM
65

For some reason, my link above to Walt Crowley’s pro-joint ballot op-ed in Sunday’s Seattle Times didn’t work. So let me try again:
Last days of the ICE Age

In an earlier Slog thread on the news of Walt Crowley’s death, I had brought up a great comment by Crowley from earlier this year :

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.

When I made the argument that there isn’t much difference between that opposition then and the Sierra Club’s joint ballot opposition now, Grant Cogswell responded:

… it is only in respect to his spirit of constantly challenging what passes for thought in Seattle that I must respond to Cressona's totally backwards slam on the Sierra Club. The Sierra Club folks would have been SUPPORTING Forward Thrust transit, and would be supporting the new light rail proposal were it not weighted down with the freeways that the original Forward Thrust opponents wanted. No roads in those packages. This is some crazy, crazy spin, that the opponents of RTID are anti-transit. I hope it doesn't work.

Crazy, crazy spin? Let's see here. Let's repeat what Grant just said above: the Sierra Club "would be supporting the new light rail proposal were it not weighted down with… freeways." Yeah, it's the good, ol' albatross argument.

But now here's monorail champion Grant Cogswell's response to monorail mortal enemy Ron Sims's anti-light rail, anti-mass transit op-ed:

Sims is seriously impressing the hell out of me lately. Right ON.

It's as if Jim McDermott or John Murtha were giving a speech to an audience of Iraq War protesters:
We've got to get out of Iraq now. Thunderous applause.
Because we've got to invade Iran next. More thunderous applause.

Do the Grant Cogswells want to save light rail? Or do they want to kill light rail? Which one is it? I think it's more the latter. Then again, I'm not sure if they're sure what they believe. Global warming is just the cause du jour that they can grasp onto as an outlet for the fundamentalism and rebellion that is part of their nature.

Posted by cressona | October 1, 2007 9:00 AM
66

Maybe, Mr. Sims is just facing reality.
Light rail, for all it's cost, will not do much.

He seems to be sincere when he speaks of his dislike of passing the costs of this inadequacy through to his grandchildren.

The political compromises already made on the route of light rail have doomed any chance it may have had to be any faster than the bus. And after a ride or two when it's new, how many will really use it, and where will they be traveling to?

No matter how much money is thrown at our transportation problem, there will never be enough to even begin to address it.

There is no good solution, there is not even a bad solution.

The only thing that will really work is a massive 8.5 that will chase out at least 50% of the population for a decade or so.

Maybe the rebuild could be based on new realities, with lessons learned from our present situation.

But, I would not count on even this working.

Just remember, whatever the cost stated up front, it will NEVER BE ENOUGH to do the job.

Posted by old timer | October 1, 2007 9:02 AM
67

Huh, for whatever reason, the link to the Walt Crowley op-ed is not working. Not that you haven't looked it up already, but here's the URL itself:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2003913066_sundaycrowley30.html

Posted by cressona | October 1, 2007 9:09 AM
68

Cressona why the antipathy for the club and other personal attacks. Why no addressing the pathetic nature of this plan. As I have posted over and over in response to your attacks based on one email from Walt the left was hard at work in the late sixties and early seventies fighting the war that was killing 600 a week on the US side and 1000's of Vietnamese, the civil rights movement, the stopping of the RH Thompson and saving the market from urban renewal.

The opponents of forward thrust rail are the supporters of today. Big business, big unions and so-called enviro groups that are funded by the above and large government agencies.

From the PI 5-18-70

Vick Gould (look him up at historylink) listed these organizations opposing the vote to held the next day: The Bellevue Rep. Women's Club, Teamster Local 174, Overtaxed Inc., Tax Limit League, Focus on Freeways, Lower Queen Anne Citizens Group, Redmond City Council, Seattle Master Builders, Apartment House Operators Assn., Transit Trust and Society of Pro. Elec. Engineers. Where's the left?

The article specifically announces that the King County Labor, AFL-CIO and the Aero Mechanics had come out against the rapid transit.

Posted by whatever | October 1, 2007 9:18 AM
69

@62

I hope to God that the hand you're not typing with is around the throat of someone who voted against Forward Thrust in '68 and '70.

Posted by Greg | October 1, 2007 9:30 AM
70

Global warming is just the cause du jour that they can grasp onto as an outlet for the fundamentalism and rebellion that is part of their nature.

Oh burn.

Posted by sniggles | October 1, 2007 9:43 AM
71

Whatever @68,

Why no addressing the pathetic nature of this plan.

OK, I'll bite.

What's the alternative?

Everyone seems to have some pet solution that they think will do better, neatly glossing over the political viability of their plan, or how long it will take to realize.

The real alternative is nothing: people continue to move into the region with no credible alternative to driving, other than sitting on a bus on an increasingly clogged HOV lane. In many cases, they won't even have that option, because the many HOV improvements in RTID will be dead.

The other option is to pass Prop 1. In 15-20 years, a large portion of the population will have access to a dedicated-right-of-way alternative to sitting in traffic. As congestion worsens and high-density development occurs around stations, this alternative will be more and more appealing to more and more commuters. Political support builds for rail expansion, and construction of more highways is seen as increasingly futile and unnecessary.

For all the warts of ST2/RTID, I think the second option is far better than first. That's why I'm voting for it.

Posted by MHD | October 1, 2007 9:46 AM
72

71: Exactly. The "oooh, those new RTID lane miles will increase CO2 emissions" argument is based on the assumption that VMT will not increase if road capacity remains static. In reality, increasing population = increased VMT no matter what. People will just put up with longer commutes.


If you really care about decreasing CO2 emissions per capita, you have to ensure new arrivals live in dense areas offering a mix of retail and employment opportunities, connected by rapid transit to other such nodes. The ST2 rail lines will serve many suburban areas ripe for this kind of mixed use redevelopment.



The RTID projects aren't pushing out greenfield development, they are adding capacity to congested corridors (167, 405), filling gaps in the highway system (509, 167), and replacing a death trap with a modern facility with improved transit connections.(520). The 520 project will introduce variable tolling, and I expect to see the 167 HOT lane project replicated on those new 405 lanes. All in all, the package is a net positive.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 1, 2007 10:09 AM
73

I think the only argument left that has me still questioning the merits of this package is the regressive sales tax.

Globabl warming: not that big of a deal. Larger forces will affect whether this gets out of control or not. Green technology will come around and we will be able to stay in our personal automobiles if we so choose.

Merits of light rail: the vast majority of my friends around here and I would use this system. Alot. I have lived in cities with rail and I love it. I'm voting for it.

Roads: If they want them, they can have them. Personally, I love that they are going to fix the Mercer mess. Really a cool project actually-
http://www.seattle.gov/Transportation/ppmp_mercer.htm
I hope they implement tolls on 520 and I-90, but this vote has nothing to do with that.

Cost: Worth it. Seattle is my favorite city in the world and the only problem with it in my mind is the lack of rapid transit.

Tax structure: Not so sure. I tend to be a fan of sales tax, because it taxes consumption. I don't like the idea of the government taking money straight out of my paycheck. Medicine and most food is not taxed, so that lessens the burden. While sales tax is regressive and does soak the poor more than the rich, when I compare the condition of life in Washington to the condition of life in Oregon, where it's almost all progressive taxes, I'd choose Washington. Especially comparing Seattle to Portland- their schools aren't funded, their unemployment is high, and they have a bloated public employees retirement fund that sucks money from other public services. It may be expensive to live here, but I think the quality of life is higher. I think the poor have it better here where although it's more expensive, public ammenities like schools are better funded and in the end that's probably better.

RTID/ST2 will improve the lives of people who live here by providing better mass transit and more efficient roads. Nothing will "solve" congestion, but it can be ameliorated, and we can have the option of getting on rapid transit. That's why it's worth it to me.

Posted by Cale | October 1, 2007 10:10 AM
74

No polar bears will melt if you vote no.

No glaciers will become extinct if you vote no.

Variable-priced congestion-relieving tolls at the half-dozen main road chokepoints needs to happen now.

The roads package never should have been strapped onto the train extension package.

Under the 1996 ballot measure the voters approved, ST was to complete Phase I before asking the voters for extensions. The whole idea was we would get to try it before deciding if we wanted more.

In the name of all that is good, make ST bring link light rail operational before agreeing to throw untold billions more at ST. That is sensible, and it involves no opportunity cost. Plus, we need to see how the Transit Now benefits will begin playing out.

The roads part is a non-starter. It does not fully fund the SR 520 work (there's a $1.5 billion MINIMUM funding gap that MAYBE some kind of tolling would partially fill), and it would send billions of Seattle taxpayers' dollars over to build new highways on the east side of the lake. Those dollars should be used to repair the surface of I-5 in Seattle instead.


Instead of more sales taxes, the businesses that would directly benefit should pay a bigger share in taxes - for both the transit part and the road part.

And next time - the roads part should be a separate ballot issue from the train extension part.

Posted by sold short | October 1, 2007 11:23 AM
75

Cale,

This doesn't "fix" the Mercer Mess - it makes it a pretty two-way boulevard that actually increases the eastbound travel times from Seattle Center to I-5 over the no-action alternative. Great deal for Paul Allen (who still hasn't fulfilled the property development requirements he agreed to when he purchased the old Bay Freeway properties from the City - property that he is now trying to unload on taxpayers), but $109 million worth of pure boondoggle for the rest of us.

Oh, did I mention that the $109 million only pays for the project between Dexter and I-5, and that there's another $300+ million to lower Aurora Avenue - a project component that is required to keep the the dismal traffic figures I cite above from becoming catastrophic?

That alone is worth a "no" vote on RTID.

Blank checks simply aren't sound governance.

Posted by Mr. X | October 1, 2007 11:30 AM
76

MHD - first the contention that this vote will result in a large percentage of the three counties having a dedicated ROW is false. Within Seattle the RTID, read 520, will bring an additional 1500 to 2000 cars into the city per hour and allow the same to get to the Eastside. Those cars will need to drive to where they park in the city whether in the morning or afternoon. Surface streets in the city are very close to being maxed out.

ST claims that ST2 will add 74,000 transit riders by 2030. That just doesn't seem like a good value.

I would build out to Northgate. Very high construction cost in money and GHG but makes what we will have spent to date of some added value. I would look to doing what we can to move people to higher mileage vehicles including electric plug-ins. I would make it more costly and difficult to drive larger personal vehicles. I would use some of this taxing power to build green electrical power generation. I would set-up tolling specifically designed for freight mobility. I would build out the HOV system and add hybrid electric cool buses like the Civis. I would upzone (not 100 story) much of the city and increase bus service around those upzones. I would zone housing around employment centers and vice-versa.

I, in my dreams, would like to pass a law that employers need to start paying their employees when they leave home and allow the same time after work.

Cale's post is interesting because he wants us to emulate Portland and every other city but he loves Seattle best. He wants the voluntary sales tax cause he doesn't like money straight from the paycheck. The poorest people ride the bus and will be priced out the light rail station neighborhoods so well off software recruits can live in Seattle and work in Overlake.

Twenty years of cheap light rail in Portland and Seattle has a bigger transit share, a more powerful economy and by many accounts a more vibrant city - the cure build light rail.


Posted by whatever | October 1, 2007 11:39 AM
77

whatever @76,

Those cars will need to drive to where they park in the city whether in the morning or afternoon. Surface streets in the city are very close to being maxed out.

Somehow this is an argument that a dedicated-ROW route to the Eastside is unnecessary.

I would build out to Northgate.

Do you honestly think that anyone outside of Seattle would vote to support a tax increase for this? Do you think it can be funded by Seattle alone?

I, in my dreams, would like to pass a law that employers need to start paying their employees when they leave home and allow the same time after work.

Nothing solves congestion like destroying jobs. Well done!

Twenty years of cheap light rail in Portland and Seattle has a bigger transit share, a more powerful economy and by many accounts a more vibrant city - the cure build light rail.

Obviously our city is best, so we nothing to learn from everyone else. Just like we shouldn't see what those pinko Europeans are up to, because we do it best here in the USA.

Posted by MHD | October 1, 2007 12:00 PM
78

At the end of the day, Ron Sims has done more for transit in Seattle and Puget Sound than all the Yes RTID/ST2 people ever will.

Even by their own accounting.

Face it, RTID/ST2 is just plain bad. They will bring back ST2 - Ron knows it, he was in the meetings.

The funny thing is they (RTID/ST2) never answer the direct questions about increased air pollution, increased water pollution, fish impacts, wetland removal, lower transit/SOV mix, no impact on congestion, and all the other myriad reasons OTHER than global warming emissions that the RTID/ST2 vote is a bad idea.

Says something, doesn't it. That's why they're so upset. Because it IS a bad idea.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 1, 2007 12:12 PM
79

Light rail will not come back on the ballot next year. Chopp pushed for it this year to avoid having a major tax measure when all his peaps and the gov are up for re-election in 2008.

Even worse, if R & T fails, the legislature will pull the plug on Sound Transit and spend five years trying to create some uber-transportation agency similar to Metro in Portland.

A congestion pricing ballot measure will never pass with voters. Look at all the opinion research that has been done around tolling -- it's DOA. People will only vote for tolls if they think the money will build something, i.e. more roads, bridges.

Sims doesn't have plan. He has a pipe dream.

Posted by pablo | October 1, 2007 1:40 PM
80

Ron is a big huge hypocrite. Ron has been heading up Sound Transit for the last several years as its chair. During that time he was an ardent supporter of Sound Move and the benefits of a balanced system that includes light rail, commuter rail and express bus service.

He voted a month and 1/2 ago FOR the ST2 package that he is now coming out against. His arguments are the same lame recycled anti transit arguments that the Rob McKenna's and Kemper Freeman's of the world have been touting for years.

The only thing that is new in Ron's argument is congestion pricing. Fine! All us transit supporters LOVE congestion pricing.

Ron comes off in this as a total hypocrite. I love Ron and have always supported him but I think he is WAY off base.

Posted by Mrs. Y | October 1, 2007 2:00 PM
81

gov. chris gregoire just endorsed roads and transit!

Yeeeeeessssssssss!!

Posted by Woo-Hoo! | October 1, 2007 2:10 PM
82

I just want to add that Mr. X @75 raises some seemingly legitimate concerns about the Mercer mess funding. Perhaps somebody out there has some answers.

This doesn't "fix" the Mercer Mess - it makes it a pretty two-way boulevard that actually increases the eastbound travel times from Seattle Center to I-5 over the no-action alternative.

I don't understand this project well enough, but I would think that a pretty boulevard, if it's pedestrian-friendly and development-friendly, would be an improvement in and of itself—although it's hard to imagine how they could pull that off so close to I-5 with all the attendant traffic.

Oh, did I mention that the $109 million only pays for the project between Dexter and I-5, and that there's another $300+ million to lower Aurora Avenue - a project component that is required to keep the dismal traffic figures I cite above from becoming catastrophic?

So if we commit to spending the $109 million we have, then we would be forced to spend the $300 million we don't have? Also, if Aurora gets lowered at Mercer, does that mean there would be a big intersection with a light there? (My allotted dumb question for the day.)

Posted by cressona | October 1, 2007 2:14 PM
83

pablo @79:

Light rail will not come back on the ballot next year. Chopp pushed for it this year to avoid having a major tax measure when all his peaps and the gov are up for re-election in 2008.
Even worse, if R & T fails, the legislature will pull the plug on Sound Transit and spend five years trying to create some uber-transportation agency similar to Metro in Portland.

I keep hearing the Sierra Club folks talking about what they feel is right and about sending a message to Olympia and about what should happen in Olympia. But I have yet to hear a credible answer from them to the concerns like those pablo stated about what would happen.

Y'know, the no folks also keeping talking about accountability, but this seems to be less about the consequences of a yes or no than about having someone to blame. There are actual elected officials who are accountable for this compromise. But there is no one ultimately accountable for the nothing and the uncertainty that arises if there's a no vote. The opposition can always pass the buck, "If you only gave us A instead of B," and the buck gets perpetually tossed around like a hot potato.

It's a little bit like their fallacy that our region exists in a vacuum, and that doing nothing will do no harm, that by not building infrastructure we can prevent the people who otherwise would have used that infrastructure from using other infrastructure. Doing nothing doesn't wash your hands of a problem; there is a word negligence.

Posted by cressona | October 1, 2007 2:26 PM
84

Cressona at 79.

All true. A little history lesson as it comes to the WA legislature and transportation.

When the greens killed R-51, they said it was too road heavy and the legislature should go back the drawing board. And they did. What the greens got was a 5 cent and 9 cent gas tax increase that mostly went to roads, with little transit value.

This year, the same No on R & T folks were down in Oly trying to convince the legislators to keep it off the ballot and create a new mega transportation agency instead that would develop a new plan. They lost.

If R & T fails, the Kempers will be back, no plan in hand, but lots of political momentum to spend years reshuffling transportation and creating another plan, probably even more roads centric. Seattlites have a hard to time understanding there are bunch of legislators across the state with different agendas than theirs.

So, the lesson is - Olympia is a wild card. A no vote on R & T is no guarantee the ST2 package will come back. Take the money on the table now and vote yes.

Posted by pablo | October 1, 2007 2:37 PM
85

Game's over.

"Take the money on the table now and vote yes."

This comment - about a taxing scheme that would lock in about $150 billion in horribly regressive taxes for three generations - is the most bassackwards comment on RTID/ST2 possible.

You sir, take the cake.

Posted by we have a winner | October 1, 2007 2:41 PM
86

OK MHD - did I say we had nothing to learn? No. But Portland has built the "holy rail" and they don't have a better modal split so we should build more rail because we learned what from Portland? We have less congestion than San Diego, Dallas, Denver, and only 7 more hours a year than Portland. All light rail cities and all smaller than Seattle. See the TTI report.

Portland has a Tri-Met governing system. Do you support an uber agency or is that something that we shouldn't learn from Portland.

The idea of paying workers from their departure time was to emphasize that if we could get employers to hire people closer to work it would reduce VMT.

Yes the $100,000,000 Seattle per year share should with FTA money be enough to get to Northgate - since much of the benefit will accrue to people in Snohomish County. I suppose they would or should pay part but of course if it's not of value to them maybe we shouldn't build it. Is sub-area equity being dropped by ST2? How many billions is it going take to get to Northgate? $2 billion? For a total of $6.5 billion from the airport to Northgate - still on schedule and under budget?

Posted by whatever | October 1, 2007 2:51 PM
87

@85.

You're naive and have no grasp of politics. Good luck operating in the real world.

Posted by pablo | October 1, 2007 2:54 PM
88

Like you have a clue, @87, pablo?

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 1, 2007 3:07 PM
89

I agree with Bill's assessment of this as 'Ron Sims is going through a mid life transportation identity crisis'.

WTF? Who the hell is advising Ron these days?

He has gone completely goofy.

Posted by Ms. Z | October 1, 2007 3:16 PM
90

Is there anyone making sure Ron does not make a total ass of himself?

Where the hell is Ryan Bayne? Is there anyone else left in his office who has any sense?

Fucking over ST and the transit community is insane.

Posted by Minnie Mouse | October 1, 2007 3:22 PM
91

Ron's new transporation identity: We need a 'Commuter Toolkit'.

Real catchy...NOT!

Why not a 'Transportation Action Agenda' or a '5 Point Plan for transportation mobility' or a "Blue Ribbon Commission report'.

Blah,Blah blah.

Posted by Blue Ribbon Toolkit Action Plan to Nowhere | October 1, 2007 3:56 PM
92

#75, in planning studies, it shows travel times improving on 2/3 routes.. not sure what you are talking about. and it decreases delay for freight (less turns required), and it increases quality for pedestrians and bicyclists, since, you know, it's a neighborhood not a freeway. have you ever tried walking around that part of seattle? i can tell you first hand it's the single scariest place to bike, not to mention confusing as hell to drive though as is.

#76, you are making something large and complex way too simple. you have absolutely no proof that building a light rail would hurt the economy or make seattle less vibrant.

portland is just one story. there are many more factors going into transit use and city building strategies than light rail. denver, for example has densified and transit use has gone up quite a bit since light rail was built.

its a simple thing, light rail will make life better for those who use it.

this transit package contains many good things for our city, and for me, light rail and the mercer corridor are two projects that i would love to see happen.

Posted by Cale | October 1, 2007 5:19 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).