Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« The Rivet Auction | High Point Looking Up? »

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

More Problems with that Seattle Times Editorial

posted by on October 16 at 16:19 PM

Yesterday, both Erica and I pointed out the problems with The Seattle Times’ Sunday editorial, in which the suburban daily came out against the $17.8 billion roads and transit initiative.

The Seattle Times explained that they don’t like transit, and they want more lanes for cars.

While Erica and I took on the the ed board’s logic, we forgot to point out a factual error. The Seattle Times writes: “Many Portlanders are proud of light rail, but the last three times new light-rail plans have been on the ballot in the Portland area, the people rejected them.”

So, the people of Portland rejected light rail three times?
Let’s go to the video tape, shall we?

Between 1994 and 1998, there were three Oregon votes and one Washington vote on financing light rail.

In 1994, voters in the TriMet service district—Multnomah County (that’s Portland), Washington County (west of the Portland metro area), and Clackamas County (south of Porltand metro area)— approved a light rail line from Clackamas County into Clark County (Washington State). If you’re keeping score, that’s the People of Portland voting for light rail. +1

In 1995, Clark County (Washington) voters rejected a ballot measure that would have raised $237 million for the Washington State portion of the South-North light rail line. This vote didn’t involve Portland. So, the score remains, People of Portland for light rail. +1

In 1996, Oregon voters statewide rejected a package that included bonds for the South-North light rail project and millions of dollars for rural transportation projects around the state. While the measure failed statewide, it was approved by a majority of the voters in the TriMet region, which includes Portland.

Score? The People of Portland for light rail, +2.

In 1998, TriMet Service District voters rejected a new measure on the South-North light rail line funding. The measure failed in Clackamas and Washington Counties, but it passed in Multnomah County. Portland is the Multnomah County seat. People of Portland for light rail, +3.

So, The Seattle Times editorial got its facts wrong. The people of Portland did not reject light rail the last three times it was on the ballot.

Pretty sloppy.

Thanks for the info Light Rail Now!

RSS icon Comments

1

Did you and Erica stay at a Holiday Inn last night?

Posted by Bam! | October 16, 2007 4:21 PM
2

Now compare the kinds of taxes, and the amounts of taxes, that TriMet uses to finance light rail vs. what ST is proposing.

I'd love light rail too if I lived in Portland. The people there don't pay for it unless they ride it. In contrast, ST plans on imposing tens of billions of regressive sales taxes, for less of a system.

Posted by . . . the rest of the story | October 16, 2007 4:29 PM
3

Once a city gets light rail, support for it surges. The same will happen in Seattle, just like Denver, Washington DC, San Diego, and yes, Portland. After RTID is crushed, let's just please find a way to get it done in less than 20 years!

Posted by Billy | October 16, 2007 4:30 PM
4

Nice switch from the Times' "Portland area" to your "People of Portland" for determining whether measures have been approved or denied. Even I could sound as super-smart and convincing as Josh wishes he were if I made a living writing pieces that define things as I see fit as well.

Posted by Huh? | October 16, 2007 4:32 PM
5

Nice analysis! Facts are facts. If I lived in Portland, I would write a letter to the editor like this:

Dear Seattle Times,
Kiss my pale Oregonian ass!
Yours Truly,
Another Portlander who voted FOR light rail

Posted by Scotty | October 16, 2007 4:36 PM
6

I think the key point to remember about this editorial is that it's anti-transit, pro-roads perspective reflects a viewpoint that is widely held among the taxpayers that will be voting on and potentially paying for proposition 1. So the idea that if the powers that be simply get rid of roads spending then what is left--transit spending--will be wildly popular and easily win funding approval is not a realist assessment of the political reality today. I hope the stranger's endorsement takes this into account and recognizes that the proposition is the work of years of negotiations and that we're unlikely to get anything more pro-transit than this for a long long time.

Posted by ScottH | October 16, 2007 4:40 PM
7

And how did the people in the zip code in the exact center of Portland vote?

Posted by whatever | October 16, 2007 4:41 PM
8

@4 -- Josh is responding to the Times' attempt to frame the story as Portlanders-with-light-rail rejecting more of it. The term "Portland area" only has weight because it's got the word "Portland" in it. Josh is being precise -- the Times is being mealy-mouthed to make an assertion that the facts don't support. They're the ones doing linguistic gerrymandering here.

Posted by MvB | October 16, 2007 4:48 PM
9

@8 -- Yay! The fanboys have fought back! If you want to take the Times to task for "factual errors" (Josh's words), you've got to fight them on their turf. If you want to change the framing of the story, make that your point. He didn't.

Posted by Huh? | October 16, 2007 4:52 PM
10

Light rail in the city (and to the airport) is wonderful.

Still voting No on the fake RTID/ST2 ballot issue.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 4:54 PM
11

That was the one sentence from the Times editorial that made me do a doubletake: Many Portlanders are proud of light rail, but the last three times new light-rail plans have been on the ballot in the Portland area, the people rejected them.

I appreciate Josh and Erica's attempt to clarify this, although I think it takes a dubious bit of parsing to not count the 1998 vote as a defeat by Portland area voters. If the statewide 1996 measure was approved by a majority of TriMet region voters, then, apples to apples, it was TriMet region voters who defeated the 1998 measure.

I notice now that a MAX extension is being built. It may only be a small one to Union Station for all I know, but they're building it. I'm wondering now how that got approved. Anyone have any insights on that?

The lesson I take away from MAX expansion's statewide 1996 defeat and regional 1998 defeat are that you really, really can't take any mass transit expansion votes for granted. I mean, we're going on 10 years now since that last TriMet vote.

Posted by cressona | October 16, 2007 5:03 PM
12

@4 -- dood, I'm an official Enemy of Slog. I just don't see your point. The Times quote starts with "Portlanders" and then substitutes "Portland area" when they grab for voting results. Josh points out that "Portlanders" didn't vote against light rail. How much clearer can this be?

Posted by MvB | October 16, 2007 5:07 PM
13

Well, to clarify my post @11, Josh and Erica weren't referring to Portland area voters. But they should have been if they wanted to ding the Times editorial board.

I think I want to get back to arguing for Prop. 1 instead of arguing over semantics.

Posted by cressona | October 16, 2007 5:07 PM
14

The fact is, lots of people who like trains do not care what they cost, or who would be paying for them. They are zealots, flushed with the fever of a fanatic. They are a small group - best to let them carry on. Most folks care about cost.

Posted by Fran's Chocolates | October 16, 2007 5:10 PM
15

The first four Max segments cost the locals all of about $400 million for 44 miles - most of that local money is a payroll tax that the voters don't pay directly.

I will support all the rapid rail we can build for a cost of under $40 million per mile local cost.

Either ST is incompetent or LR just doen't pencil out here.

Minneapolis built 12 miles 17 stations in less than four years finishing in 2004 with 2 miles of tunnels (not in a previous transit tunnel) for $720 million total and over $400 paid by the Feds. And this was the first line they built - so they had to build the maintenance facility and put together their team from scratch.

Posted by whatever | October 16, 2007 5:18 PM
16

MvB @12, I see your point. Whatever way you slice it, the Times was not being upfront.

I really would like to know more about that 1998 vote and how it managed to fail. One could interpret that rejection by Clackamas and Washington counties against the support by Multnomah County as an argument that King County should go it alone without Snohomish and Pierce counties in trying to build light rail.

If you want to make that case, then I totally disagree.

Let's put aside for a moment the incredible unlikelihood of this sort of Ron Sims/Sierra Club vision coming to reality.

Even then, if you're trying to fight sprawl, just retreating to the cozy confines of Seattle or even King County is a losing strategy. If you don't give a viable alternative to auto-dependent development across the whole metro area, then you're just effectively encouraging auto-dependent development in those places that don't have a viable alternative. Forgive the overblown metaphor, but this is a war that is being fought on many fronts. You don't willingly surrender entire swaths of territory.

Posted by cressona | October 16, 2007 5:19 PM
17

Fuck the Times.

Still, I don't read their editorial to say Portlanders rejected the ballot measures. They say "the people" which usually in the papers means voters. Josh added the modifier "of Portland" I don't think you can say they had a factual error but you can say that they're dicks.

Posted by elrider | October 16, 2007 5:20 PM
18

Fran's Chocolates @14:

The fact is, lots of people who like trains do not care what they cost, or who would be paying for them. They are zealots, flushed with the fever of a fanatic. They are a small group - best to let them carry on. Most folks care about cost.

God forbid someone should inject a little perspective here, but let me make use of my Masters in the Obvious for a moment. There's no shortage of zealotry on all sides. I'm sure our region has far more pro-roads and anti-tax zealots who are unwilling to compromise with the evil enemy than it does pro-transit zealots who are unwilling to compromise with the evil enemy.

Sadly, roads vs. transit in the Puget Sound region has become like Jew vs. Arab in the Holy Land, a religious conflict. And sadly, religious conflicts don't lend themselves to pragmatism and compromise. In other words, religious conflicts don't lend themselves to getting resolved.

P.S. Etymology note for the day. The word "zealot" has its roots in the Holy Land. The original Zealots were also terrorists actually. Needless to say, things didn't work out very well for them.

Posted by cressona | October 16, 2007 5:26 PM
19

If The Seattle Times didn't mean the people of Portland then what point would they be trying to make exactly?

Here's the whole paragraph, which begins: "Consider Portland..."

"Consider Portland. That city opened its first light-rail line two decades ago, and has built several of them, all of which replaced bus lines. Overall, Greater Portland is no less car-dependent than Seattle. Its congestion has gotten worse, just as it has here. Many Portlanders are proud of light rail, but the last three times new light-rail plans have been on the ballot in the Portland area, the people rejected them. Maybe they learned something."

The implication is that Portland rejected light rail.
And that's not true.

Posted by Josh Feit | October 16, 2007 5:29 PM
20

I suspect that the air is coming out of the RTID balloon awfully fast right now. Now is the time for light rail supporters to start framing the debate in anticipation of RTID's defeat -- climate changing highways dragged down light rail. That will help get good transit back faster.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 16, 2007 5:34 PM
21

Well, Josh, the implication is that the Seattle Times is the paper for Seattle - but it's not, it's the paper for the suburbs. Everyone knows that, except n00bz in other states.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 5:38 PM
22

good point @20. Because, to be frank, it is exactly the environmental bastion of Seattle, centered mostly in the 43rd, that is going to be the margin of defeat for RTID/ST2 - and precisely because they tried to force us to vote for new highways we don't need and that will make things worse.

Next time the legislature disses Seattle, it better wise up we're the margin of victory for these issues - PERIOD.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 5:40 PM
23

Rtidstinks @20:

I suspect that the air is coming out of the RTID balloon awfully fast right now. Now is the time for light rail supporters to start framing the debate in anticipation of RTID's defeat -- climate changing highways dragged down light rail. That will help get good transit back faster.

Dear rtidstinks, I notice you've been trying quite desperately lately to turn this debate into a presidential campaign. With the current presidential campaign, the pundits can't stop talking about momentum and strategy and spin and electability; they can't seem to be bothered with the candidates' actual proposals and positions.

Last we heard, the Elway Poll was showing Prop. 1 winning by at least six points. I forget if it was 53 or 54 % support. It takes quite a bit of spin (to put it charitably) to take winning margin that and frame it as air coming out of the balloon. But I can understand why you would rather do that than argue this thing on its merits. The more you have to argue this thing on its merits, the more you get exposed as the delusional Naderites that you are.

Posted by cressona | October 16, 2007 5:48 PM
24

The Seattle Times considers The People to be those who reject transit and all other forms of Communism. Those who voted for light rail are The Rabble, not The People. So 100% of The People have rejected light rail, and in a lot more than the last 3 times. They were being charitable.

It's just that sometimes The People lost. Which wouldn't happen if The Rabble were put in their place.

Posted by elenchos | October 16, 2007 5:51 PM
25

Rabble? My. Interesting viewpoints you have outside of Seattle.

We believe in this thing called Democracy here.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 16, 2007 6:01 PM
26

I've got a friend from the "Portland area" (Oregon side) that moved here 5+ years ago and finally has registered to vote up here just to vote NO on Prop 1. :O

Like me, this person would love to vote for a transit-only plan (regional or inner-city or whatever). We both love density and all that and even though it'd do nothing to fix congestion we'd vote for it because we would want to live close to a train station and use it.

Posted by Voting no with a former Portlander(!) | October 16, 2007 6:08 PM
27

They still won't hire either one of you. Neither will the P-I.

Posted by Sophia LaMarr | October 16, 2007 6:23 PM
28

The polling was done before the Sims' break and the publicizing of the Sierra Club and the weak PI endorsement and the Times rejection. What costs did Elway use?

Traditional Dems are telling me they are voting No both because of the roads in general, a six lane 520 and no controls on the ST 50 year tax scheme.

Posted by whatever | October 16, 2007 6:44 PM
29

I'm voting no because I don't think it's all that great and I'm holding out for something better. I'm skeptical of those who say the know there will be no chance to try again next year or ever because their psychic powers tell them so. Reminds me of a cheesy going out of business sale: "Last chance ever for these great prices!"

Now if anybody can prove there will be no new vote next year or the year after that, without resorting to clairvoyance... eh, maybe I'll vote yes.

Posted by elenchos | October 16, 2007 7:10 PM
30

Vote yes. If somebody can prove to me that it's a good idea to only vote for this section of light rail and let car/shipping traffic become gridlocked for the next 30 years then I'm all ears.

MAYBE if they built the ENTIRE light rail system in 10 years, including the routes they have for study AND implemented congestion pricing. But there is a snowball's chance in hell of a proposal for THAT happening in the next two years.

Years add up people. Nothing better is coming your way.

If you vote this down you're gonna get limited BRT and a line to Northgate. And the road warriors aren't going to stop their quest either.

Don't let the ultimate ideal you have built up in your head stop progress. There will never be a regional package that satisfies everyone perfectly. This is a good compromise. It may not reduce car traffic, but it leaves it near today's level for the next 30 years when 1,000,000 people move here. That's pretty good.

PLUS it give me the option to live in a place where I can ride right past it all!

It's a good package.

Vote yes.

Posted by Cale | October 16, 2007 7:55 PM
31

#29

OK, no psychic stuff just some observations-

Look at what Ron Sims is talking about: busses and congestion pricing. Light rail to Northgate.

Gregoire and Chopp are not going to want this on the ballot the same year they are running.

Who is really in the majority here? The environmentalists and rail enthusiasts, or the road warriors?

Would a defeat be read as a defeat for roads or transit?

Historically, transit packages have come back scaled down after being voted against. How many more miles do you want compromised at political whim?

That's all for now.

Posted by Cale | October 16, 2007 8:15 PM
32

I'm voting AGAINST Prop 1, but I am pro transit. After Prop 1 fails and they do another election on the roads and rails sections separately (probably in February), I will vote FOR transit and AGAINST roads. Thousands upon thousands of people will do the same as me. The discourse on Slog tends to see the issue in black and white, all or nothing, and it's just not. Let the voters express their appreciation for nuance, and let's not let the pundits get away with saying our votes mean things they don't.

Posted by S. M. | October 16, 2007 8:27 PM
33

Oh and hey, for those of you who didn't buy our argument that there are FAR worse demons out there putting CO2 into the atmosphere, have some perspective-

http://www.orphanroad.com/blog/2007/10/some-perspective

(Thank you to Frank from Orphan Road)

the long and short of it-

Tons of annual CO2 emitted due to RTID projects, according to Sightline: 300,000

Tons of annual CO2 emitted from India, the U.S. and China's NEW coal-fired power plants: 2.7 billion

We need an infrastucture upgrade and this is a damn fine way of doing it!

Posted by Cale | October 16, 2007 8:38 PM
34

@19 -- Oh my, Josh. They "consider Portland" the same way people who live outside of your tiny sliver of Seattle consider our city - the metro area. Kind of like our current ballot measure does. In fact, you yourself reference areas outside of Portland's city limits as being "the People of Portland"... but only when it helps you make your point.

Posted by Huh? | October 16, 2007 8:57 PM
35

Let's look again at the paragraph in question:

"Consider Portland. That city opened its first light-rail line two decades ago, and has built several of them, all of which replaced bus lines. Overall, Greater Portland is no less car-dependent than Seattle. Its congestion has gotten worse, just as it has here. Many Portlanders are proud of light rail, but the last three times new light-rail plans have been on the ballot in the Portland area, the people rejected them. Maybe they learned something."

Key line here is "all of which replaced bus lines".

The right questions for the Times and others to be asking right now would be:

1) how is the LRT ridership performing vis a vis the bus lines that were there before (and if it's higher or lower, why?)?

2) what would Portland's congestion profile be in the absence of the MAX system?

I don't have the answers, but we can look at parallels in this region.

When Central Link opens in the I-5 south corridor 21 months from now, travel time will be three times faster than the bus routes currently operating in that corridor. Ridership will be twice as high.

When University Link opens, the current 22-minute bus ride between downtown and the U-Dist will be replaced by a six-minute train ride. Ridership will be greater than what's on the Viaduct today.

Looking at two key ST2 segments, the trend continues: Lynnwood to Seattle, rail beats bus by 21 minutes; Bellevue to Seattle, rail beats bus by 14 minutes.

And before you go saying tolling is the answer, keep in minds these forecasts were developed assuming 50-mph speeds by buses, something they rarely achieve today and could probably only achieve thru a regional-wide tolling networking.

That's right, toll the heck out of the freeways and the train will always beat the bus on travel time and ridership. Why? Because it has vastly higher capacity, is easier to use, and way more reliable.

Posted by Clarity | October 16, 2007 9:03 PM
36

Cressona @23

I am just giving a piece of friendly advice, you are free to ignore it.

As for the merits, please. Makes global warming worse, doesn't address congestion, doesn't take care of real safety needs, continues to defer maintenance, builds new highways we can't afford to maintain, encourages sprawl, locks spending into place for decades, and relies on regressive taxes. This thing is dying the death of a thousand cuts. The merits argument is over. The only question now is who gets credit for killing it -- those who care about global warming, or those who oppose light rail. Start sewing your polar bear costume, the more visuals of climate warriors on election night the better.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 16, 2007 10:20 PM
37

Will @ 10 & 22 illustrates the Sierra Club board's Seattle-centric view of the region. Will in Seattle(!) says, "Light rail in the city (and to the airport) is wonderful"

Which he follows up with, "it is exactly the environmental bastion of Seattle, centered mostly in the 43rd, that is going to be the margin of defeat for RTID/ST2 - and precisely because they tried to force us to vote for new highways we don't need and that will make things worse. Next time the legislature disses Seattle, it better wise up we're the margin of victory for these issues - PERIOD"

In Will/Sierra Club land all culture and worth flows from the 43rd legislative district. The rest of you are irrelevant. We will tolerate you Ballard folks in the 36th or our friends in the 46th up north, but not South Seattle. There is just something about those neighborhoods we don't like...

These are the folks who term trains to the Rainier Valley as trains to nowhere. For Will it makes more sense to send light rail to Seattle neighborhoods (his beloved zoo hood) than to the rest of the region. Yet he defends the 70% single family zoning of Seattle. I fail to see how he intends to pay for that with regional money.

Will, you and your Sierra Club board friends may well defeat Prop. 1 with your overblown rhetoric. You may indeed provide the "margin of victory" to defeat roads and transit. I can guarantee you that you can't stop most of those roads from being built. The state builds roads and will find a way.

Your signal achievement will be to have set light rail back another five years in this region, continuing our dependence on on the car and the bus. Folks who aren't wealthy like you will continue to have to drive to qualify for housing they can afford.

This package serves the interests of people throughout Seattle and Puget Sound, not just the 43rd. And that is why Will and the Sierra Club board don't like it. 50 miles of light rail will create dozens of new dense, walkable communities around the Sound. Many of these will be far more affordable for those of us not as fortunate as Will. And with Sounder, ST buses, Metro, and light rail the region will truly have a robust transit system.

I am not a road building fan either and didn't approve of the forced marriage. But when I look at the project list I see a lot of good things in there. The money for Mercer, the Lander SODO overpass, and the Spokane Street improvements all will help make a surface/transit option possible (Sorry Will--I know you want an elevated viaduct to help with global warming) The 520 contribution is a reasonable local match for a state project that must be termed as a safety need. The South Park Bridge, HOV lanes on 167 and elsewhere, and new bus ramps off the freeways are all in the package.

I really hope that all of the good people in the 43rd aren't as self absorbed as Will and the Sierra Club board. This is a good regional package for the region, not just Seattle.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 16, 2007 11:17 PM
38

Rtidstinks @36, I see. You really, really don't want to argue the merits, do you? It's like somebody threw you a hot potato and you want to toss it to somebody else so you can get back to your spin.

And now you've reduced your global warming argument to two words: "global warming." Like the immigration bill foes reduced that bill to one word, "amnesty." Or the NAFTA foes reduced that to one word, "jobs." Never mind that the absence of an immigration bill will wind end up leading more illegal immigrants to skirt the system. Never mind that NAFTA created more American jobs than it cost.

Those are arguments for economists and educated people, not for the fearful, lazy, shortsighted, and selfish conception of Americans today's lowest common denominator campaigning is meant to appeal to. Sorry, but I have a much higher conception of Seattleites; I believe a lot of Seattleites have perspective and respond to reasoned debate, not to hysteria and spin.

Well, maybe you don't want to debate the merits, but I do...

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 5:55 AM
39

Let's talk about global warming

It gives me no satisfaction to say this, but I can absolutely guarantee that this measure's defeat will do much, much greater damage when it comes to climate change than its passage will. Killing this measure won't do anything to stop most of those roads. The state legislature will still find a way to do a good road like 520. It will still find a way to do a bad road, like expanding 405 to 10 lanes to the south after they've already made their bed expanding it to 10 lanes to the north.

The only thing killing this measure serves to accomplish is to kill the opportunity for regional light rail, and to delay any light rail expansion. The monorail opponents always wanted to slow things down, take a breath. They knew that they could delay the project to death, make it more expensive, subject it to our inevitable political inertia and to dissatisfaction with the delays themselves. At some point we lose our political and economic momentum to build light rail.

Most important, killing this measure doesn't prevent people from doing that most sinful of deeds, driving. People will simply drive somewhere else, because they will be living somewhere else. And their jobs (our jobs) will be somewhere else. Unfortunately, that somewhere else by and large doesn't get its electricity from hydropower, so not only will they still be driving, they'll be contributing even more greenhouse gases just by living.

And y'know, whatever impact we might have on global warming is dwarfed by the impact global warming will have on us, and the impact peak oil will have on us. If we don't commit to a real mass transit system and regional density now rather than waiting five or 10 years, in 20 years we're just going to be screwed. Or you're going to be screwed because all the pragmatic people who care about the economy and the environment will have already left.

Yeah, great two-word argument, rtidstinks, "global warming." But the fact that you "no" folks keep talking about saving cute polar bears, rather than saving us, just goes to show how shallow your understanding of global warming really is.

Posted by cressona | October 17, 2007 5:58 AM
40

Josh, this is the height of intellectual dishonesty. The Times distinctly said "Portland area," and the facts support that assertion. There is no "factual error" as you assert.

If you want to hijack the argument as specifically the people of Portland itself, that's fine. But your tactics are straight out of the O'Reilly-Limbaugh-Malkin school of fact-twisting.

Plus, you're simply acting as a mouthpiece for Light Rail Now.

Posted by TruthSquad | October 17, 2007 9:01 AM
41

Two comments:

1. It would be interesting to have a person from the Stranger's sister publication, The Portland Mercury, weigh in on this question: "why did voters three times vote no on paying more for the Portland MAX extensions?" One can argue over whether the voters who voted no live in "portland" or "portland area" or "clark county" (never mind that Clark County has mostly Democrats representing them in Congress and Olympia).

2. I think the solution to handling CO2 is tolling. With tolls, you can price in the cost of removing the CO2. You can have variable prices: electric cars pay less than old clunkers that pollute a lot. There's a lot of flexibility.

A question then: does the passage of RTID/ST2 make tolling more likely, or less? I think less, because Olympia and voters will not have an easy way to switch from the tax increases over to tolling. I don't think imposing tolls after a tax increase of this magnitude will be feasible.

==
One other comment: people still have to get to a rail station to ride the train. Now some people will move into new housing that's right next door, but the percentage of people who will be close (5 min - 10 min walk) compared to the total number of residents even within 2 miles of a station will probably be quite low. So how do these people get to the station? My understanding is there are not going to be big mega garages that can hold a lot of cars, at least paid for in this measure. There's also no funding for local shuttles that can go around and pick people up, as far as I can tell.

The point is: there are a lot of unknown costs that have not been discussed. There are just a lot of assumptions which may or may not be correct.

Posted by Stuart Jenner | October 17, 2007 9:11 AM
42

"Now some people will move into new housing that's right next door"

I wouldn't. I lived for a while near a train station on the East Coast. It was a bad neighborhood, and the commute option did not make up for that.

Posted by realistic | October 17, 2007 9:35 AM
43

Actually @41: There are several new park-and-ride lots included in this measure.

Posted by Greg | October 17, 2007 9:49 AM
44

We need less roads and better public transportation.Fix the roads we have, but donnot encourage more conjestion. It is bad enough already. And with all the rabbit hutch-er- condos being built it will congest our roads even more. We need some city wide tough love. Infact why not shut downtown to communter traffic? Have a special permit if you live or deliver downtown, but make it so there is not option BUT rail or tram.
Why are the folks at the Times so anti public transit? We need less suburbanites and more urbanites running the scene people!
Sometimes i believe it is all a Bellevue conspiracy.

Posted by orangekrush | October 17, 2007 9:58 AM
45

Yes I know there are park and rides. However, the brochures don't seem to indicate they are next to the rail stations. Look at this, specifically page 2.

http://www.roadsandtransit.org/docs/RTmaphandout9_07.pdf

The parking is at Mukilteo, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Burien and Renton. There are parking structures and lots in some of the areas where light rail might go, like the Federal Way Transit Center, but if light rail is to have a major impact with a lot of riders, a lot more parking will be needed - or there will be a need for shuttles to get people to the station. There's a mention in the pamphlet of "more bus service" but it is kind of vague, it seems like they're talking about longer distances.

And of course the other big issue is "what is first priority and what's lower priority if there are cost overruns." So I think anything in here is subject to change from plan because construction costs keep going up, look at the Seatac parking garage for example, up from $300 some million to $400MM (PI story of the other day).

Posted by Stuart Jenner | October 17, 2007 10:43 AM
46

Cale @ 33

This sort of bargaining makes me sick. It's also a really lame argument - because we're nowhere near as bad as the absolute worst polluters on the planet, we should be given a pass to make our emissions worse?

In Washington, over 51% of our emissions come from transportation.

Washington State alone emits more than the Philippines, the 18th most populous nation on earth.

What we do matters, and we can't shirk our responsibility by shrugging and saying "well, they're worse than we are."

Posted by goddam apologists | October 17, 2007 11:17 AM
47

tiptoe timmy @37 - Seattle centric? No, the Sierra Club is far more concerned with the regional impacts of RTID, actually.

But I myself live in Seattle and most SLOG readers live in Seattle, so I am talking about Seattle.

Reality is that the RTID/ST2 is a negative on many counts: global warming, salmon destruction, wetlands destruction, air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, and increased single occupancy vehicle to transit ratio.

Yeah, you heard the last one: More Cars Per Capita under RTID/ST2.

Facts is what Sierra Club deals in. Not mushy "anything with transit must be good" stuff like Cressona pushes.

Transit itself is usually very good. But you have to measure all the pros and cons.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 17, 2007 12:12 PM
48

@38

The irony, Cressona. You take RTIDStinks to task for avoiding the details of Prop 1, then spew yet another post that has nothing to do with evaluating Prop 1. I don't know why RTIDStinks or Sierra Club members bother debating you anymore. You're your own worst enemy.

And by the way, RTIDStinks has more information than you. Recent polls show it's neck and neck, and the hand-wringing among supporters is indeed about how legislators are going to interpret a defeat.

Posted by Loewyputian | October 17, 2007 2:18 PM
49

@29 and everyone else who thinks that a better plan is just around the corner.

I'm voting no because I don't think it's all that great and I'm holding out for something better. I'm skeptical of those who say the know there will be no chance to try again next year or ever because their psychic powers tell them so.

We are not psychic. Look at the votes we've had. That's the best predictor of future voting.

http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=8002

We started voting for transit projects in 1958, and they kept failing in the next four elections, all the way until 1995. Finally, victory in 1996. That was the year we supported RTA. It was passed by just 0.1 percent in Pierce County. If it had failed there, it would killed it in all three counties.

Betting a "pure" measure will pass next is like betting on a Bush/Gore election. Pierce County is our Florida.

The latest Elway poll data show that a transit-only package would fail miserably. Sad, but true. Which is exactly why the legislature joined roads and transit.

Don't mean to lecture, but we live in a pretty messed up state.

Posted by SouthSeattle | October 17, 2007 4:29 PM
50

Cale@33, Surely, you are smart enough to drive a truck through the gigantic hole in your own argument.

The number of projected ST2 riders is in the thousandths of a percent of the number of the NEW! car drivers in the US and China.

Ergo, we should save ourselves $11B and not build ST2; the number of cars it takes off the road is insignificant! Similarly, for highway fans, we should not build the RTID roads because they will carry an insignificant amount of traffic. Also, we should not pay taxes or vote.

Or maybe all arguments of this type are transparently foolish.

Posted by scotto | October 17, 2007 4:46 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).