Bwah hah hah hah ha!!!

Here we go... nothing you guys can do about it...

Apparently it's not enough to drive a big car everywhere, one also has to have a big van drive to where you big car is parked to buff it up so that it's all nice and pretty.

If the revolution were to start today I would follow that van to it's first client and they would be first against the wall.

Anyhow. Before you comment on transportation issues again, you need to get thee to http://www.theoildrum.com. Spend a day, or a week, familiarizing yourself with Peak Oil, its reality, how it affects transportation, and the screaming need for transportation methods that are not dependent on fossil fuels.

You really should have done this before you made up your mind on Prop 1. Too late for that. But if you want to be taken seriously as a voice on our transportation future, you MUST wrap your mind around this subject. Otherwise you're going to keep getting it wrong.

We need to start investing in alternatives now and hope we can get them up and running in time. The idea of losing all that energy has brought us is not acceptable. unless of course one actually buys the nonsense that primitive hunter and gather societies are actually pleasant.

I voted "no", so my vote has already canceled out yours.

Oh, never mind, cuz if The Stranger gets its way the new grade-seperated bikeway across the lake on the new 520 bridge in Prop 1 would be killed, along with the 70-mile rail system that would make biking to work a viable option for hundreds of thousands of people. How insane.

Take the bird in the hand. Vote YES on Prop 1.

And Fnarf @3: I disagree. A press conference by Nickels adds to the carbon problem. I promise.

Any of you?

Don't you know that's as bad for greenhouse gases per mile traveled as driving an SUV?

Oh but the Sierra Club's Mike O'Brien drives an SUV anyway so we should listen to those guys.

encourage driving and congestion everywhere
subsidizeand cause more CO2 emissions
make our ice shelf melt faster &
help kill us sooner.

Seattle, how could you?

Fucking polar bears.

We are voting on a $600,000,000 per year in 2009 tax revenue that will increase at the rate of inflation and population growth for at least 20 years and some extending until 2057 yet there has been no calculation by the RTID/ST2 combine as to the effects on GHG or GW.

If we are to have an effect on GHG, shouldn't we at least try to estimate what the impact of such a large scale project is? Shouldn't we review the impact of projects already funded such as the tunnel to the UW?

When so-called environmentalists don't question such things as the waterfront tunnel and the effects of big projects where is the possibility? They point out the energy costs to make cars but not the projects they like for other reasons.

Fnarf your right.

But the bourgie sierra club folks don't care about ghg anymore than they care about proles and their cars.

Let's say the analysis had been done RTID/ST2 and turned out that it was worse than do nothing for 40 years. Would that be a winner for you? Just asking not advocating.

Let's say that investing 1/4 of the money in alternative energy production (windpower, tidal, solar, wave, geothermal and hot rock, 1/4 in incentives to drive extremely low impact cars, 1/4 for added eletric/hybrid transit (buses streetcars) and 1/4 to build out HOV lanes would reduce GHG within 10 years would that be a better choice?

Using the lowest number $11 billion for ST2 we could buy 366,666 plug in hybrids at $30,000 or pay a third the cost for over 1 million

No this doesn't solve congestion or "create" dense walkable neighborhoods. Density would/could be helped by actually zoning for it. If congestion is the issue then some form of tolling is the only way to achieve it.

All the major transit cities still have congestion and sprawl.

Faith based projects need to be replaced by one that show us the numbers.

Andrew - the airport is significant and if the Sierra Club missed that one then they missed it. If the RTID/ST2 adds only .4%, that's still not how we should be spending $17 billion. BTW how do you know that its .4%?

It's a pitance compared to all the other roads that the state is building (509, highway 2, 518, etc.) and the third runway.

Anyway who flies more than once a year can't complain about greenhouse gases without being a huge hypocrite.

Still if SL is correct and the building energy costs of ST2 are neutral by 2050 that still is an addition to GHG between now and then.

I'm good to go with Fnarf and just give up on GW and do whatever we/I want but if GHG is important then we need to spend our capital wisely.

Just say GW, GHG and pollution isn't as important as making Seattle a bigger metropolitan area which is the result of P1. If we pass it, it is true that in 10 to 30 years it will be easier to live far from work.