Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Today on Line Out | Obama's Ex-Wife-Beater Problem »

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

More “Would You like some Roads with that Transit?” Debate

posted by on October 24 at 16:18 PM

If you can’t get enough of the Prop 1 debate (btw: I highly recommend going back and checking out the anti- and pro- campaigns duking it out in front of our editorial board), here are Erica and I (anti) debating David Goldstein (pro) on his radio show last weekend. (Fast forward to the middle of the hour for the Prop. 1 segment.)

Note to Goldy: When I said 16 percent of the 182 miles of roads are HOV, that’s a bad thing. A really bad thing. You may recall that the mainstream environmentalists who are now supporting this package fought to defeat a roads package in 2002 because, they said at the time, they objected to the paltry percentage of roads in that package that were HOV (about 15 percent.)

Enjoy.

RSS icon Comments

1

Well of course RTID/ST2 is a bad thing.

Unless you like watching glaciers melt, ski hills have no snow, and the Puget Sound return to a semi-desert area and then be subject to massive catastrophic wildfires ... in your lifetime.

Results matter.

Send it back and have them redo it.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 24, 2007 4:21 PM
2

That is incredibly disingenuous, Josh.

Yes, there's 16 percent HOV, but, unlike R-51, there is 50 miles of light rail in the Roads and Transit package.

You're implying a straight-up R-51 vs. RTID comparison, ignoring Sound Transit's huge investment in rail.

Posted by Will from Horse's Ass | October 24, 2007 4:30 PM
3

And what's more, during your 1 hour appearance on Goldy's show, you and Erica failed to answer my very simple question regarding your opposition to the south extension of Sound Transit's light rail line.

But "The Stranger Hour" is not to be missed, folks. Every Saturday at 7pm.

Posted by Will from Horse's Ass | October 24, 2007 4:32 PM
4

Wait, what do buses drive on again? They're okay with off-roading, right? Good, because I was afraid they might need, oh, I don't know, ROADS to run on or something. But that's okay; considering that if this fails we will never build a mass transit system for them to connect with, it doesn't really matter if buses get even more unreliable and slow because they're stuck in the ever-increasing traffic of our current infrastructure.

The perfect is the enemy of the good. If you keep demanding perfection, you will get nothing. If I demanded the perfect house for the perfect price, I would be homeless.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 24, 2007 4:34 PM
5

Will @ 2,

If you want me to acknowledge that there's two elements to this package (roads and transit), fine. How's this? The 50 miles of light rail will be off set by 152 miles of general purpose lanes.

Posted by Josh Feit | October 24, 2007 4:35 PM
6

I gotta say, my respect for the stranger is ebbing away rapidly:

R-51: $7.7 billion
$820 million for public transportation

Roads & Transit: $17.8 billion
$10.8 billion for public transportation

Hmmm, that looks like R-51 spent 10.6% on public transport, while R&T spends 60.6% on public transport.

You guys did good work trying to get the monorail built, but this holier-than-thou bullshit is really counterproductive when it isn't outright wrong.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 24, 2007 4:35 PM
7

@ 5

Acknowledge away, but I think it's disingenuous to compare R-51 to RTID taking into account the fact that ST2 delivers 50 miles of light rail. All of the environmental groups compared R-51 versus RTID and ST2, not just R-51 versus RTID.

Posted by Will from Horse's Ass | October 24, 2007 4:44 PM
8

And by "offset", do you have data to support this? Or is it just rhetoric? I don't know how you can measure the environmental impact of light rail 100 years out, but I would, if I could.

Posted by Will from Horse's Ass | October 24, 2007 4:47 PM
9

from suburbia: i talked with some people out in burien and des moines. they were not in favour of the package deal because of the transit.

for those of you who think you will pass a transit only proposition in the near future: think again.

the general attitude out in suberbia is still, "We need more roads; and why should I pay for others to ride transit?"

Posted by infrequent | October 24, 2007 4:48 PM
10

Josh,

You also have failed to acknowledge that those 152 miles you are carping about will almost certainly be built anyway: 75 of those are arterial lanes. An earmark here, an increase in development fees there, and the counties will build those themselves.

Similarly, good luck stopping 405 from expanding to exactly what will fit within the right-of-way. The most congested roadway in the state, with a corridor plan that makes expansion a done deal, only awaiting cash.

The only thing that will die without RTID are 509, 167 and the Cross-Base. At least until the Blethen endorsed board on the new regional transportation agency brings them back.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 24, 2007 4:48 PM
11

I have some questions about this "only 16% for HOV lanes" criticism. First, you say that its "16% of the 182 miles of roads" in the package. But isn't the better measurement the percentage of money being invested? I mean, not all the roads are equally expensive to build. For example, 1.1 billion is going towards replacing the 520 bridge and adding HOV lanes to that. That's 16% of the roads funding right there.

Second, didn't I read somewhere that as the center langes of the I-90 bridge are converted for light rail use, that general purpose lanes will be converted to HOV lanes? Doesn't that count for something?

Third, as the area becomes more dense with about a million new people within the urban growth boundaries for the next few decades, support for transit will likely increase right? This would likely lead to conversion of more of the general purpose lanes to HOV lanes in the future. That's somewhat speculative of course, but it seems likely. Certainly more likely than a better transit package coming back anytime soon.

Posted by ScottH | October 24, 2007 5:01 PM
12

Josh--your link to Goldy's show doesn't work...much like your comparison of R 51 and Roads and Transit. Others have pointed out the misleading flaws in your simple comparison, so I won't repeat them again. But I will say in this state, given our legislature, the likelihood of the roads returning through other funding sources is much higher than the 50 miles of light rail returning to the ballot.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 24, 2007 5:04 PM
13

Pro side - Opponnents are dinosaurs. This is the best we will ever get. The roads aren't that bad cause we get light rail. They (the evil legislature) will form a huge agency that will controlled by road people because they will buy the seats (ignore their other fact that transit is the popular piece and that pro side has 10 times the money). We missed it in 1968 and 1970 or we could be like Atlanta, er... Light rail is popular. Light rail will serve dense ares like Overlake. All people not supporting are idiots. Sims is a giant idiot. Kemper is a big fat idiot. The Sierra Club is stupid. The Stranger is stupid (except Dan maybe). It works everywhere why not here. The roads are good roads. 520 will have HOV lanes that can never be GP cause they will have diamonds painted on them. One million people will be moving here we must do something. We get 50 miles of light rail, not promised in the ballot measure but they lived up to their promises last time so why worry. Oh yeah the opponents are pigs. ST passed every audit and is on time and under budget and is a great agency. Portland is sooooo cool and sooooo are trains. $11 billion, $23 billion, $47 billion who cares it's rail and some other stuff. Cross base will never be built.

Asked is this a good value? Ah the opponents are stupid idiot dinosaur pigs.

Posted by whatever | October 24, 2007 5:09 PM
14

Looks like the joint ballot measure is going to lose. Recent King 5 polling has it at 30% support. http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_102307WAB_rtid_poll_KS.19d073c04.html. Compare this with over 50% support a couple of months ago.

The debate on the merits of this package is essentially over. A plan that would make global warming worse meant that support from civic-minded voters would crater. And it has.

Meanwhile, the state just closed a bridge in Tacoma for safety reasons. No money from the state, no money in RTID, because of the legislature's ill-advised priority of highway expansion. Maybe the defeat of RTID will mean that we can start focusing on transit, safety and maintenance, not climate changing highway expansion. It's the right thing to do, and thanks to the Stranger for telling it straight.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 24, 2007 5:09 PM
15

@14 Hey rtidstinks-
Get your facts straight. There isn't money in Prop 1 for the Murray Morgan Bridge in Tacoma because the folks in Tacoma didn't nominate it for funding because they believe it is the state's responsibility and NOT the region's.

There is funding for the full replacement of the South Park Bridge in Prop 1. Remember that bridge, King County owns it and Ron Sims is going to close it in 2010 because he doesn't have a plan to fund it...did you hear that - NO PLAN.

Don't forget the South Park Bridge serves a blue collar people and blue collar jobs - but the Stranger doesn't care, we need to bring light rail to North Seattle.

Oh ya, rtidstinks - do you know what road the Murray Morgan is on? Didn't think so. BTW, there is a brand new bridge about 10 blocks south of the Murray Morgan over the 509...the busier route into the Port of Tacoma from downtown.

Posted by Murray Morgan | October 24, 2007 5:21 PM
16

Josh, please respond to @6. This is a pretty compelling point.

Posted by grumpypants | October 24, 2007 5:39 PM
17

You and jet-set crowd don't care about global warming.

Every mile flying in an airplane is worse than a mile driving solo in a hummer.

RTID's potential contribution to global warming is less than one half of one tenth of one percent of what we do in this region. SeaTac airport is 7% of it. and it's the stupidest argument from a bunch of bourgie folks who fly accross the country on a regular basis to say that we shouldn't build transit because of the tiny increase in global warming from the roads package.

Posted by Andrew | October 24, 2007 5:50 PM
18

I would like to point out the similar tone in the Stranger's do-or-die stanceon RTID to the 2000 election's pro-Nader, anti-Gore debate (don't settle for 'pretty good', send a message!).

Also, I seem to recall that in years past the argument against R-51 and previous measures was always, "this should include *more* transit". So now you are offered more transit, and you want to hold out for *only* transit? Lame, lame, and more lame.

Still waiting for a rebuttal of @6...

Posted by grumpypants | October 24, 2007 6:06 PM
19

@15

You pretty much missed my point. RTID was designed by the legislature to support expansion of highway capacity. That is a bad policy choice when we have huge unfunded maintenance needs and unsafe bridges.

That Pierce county went along and picked projects to expand capacity, rather than money to fix bridges does not make the policy choice any smarter.

Yes, South Park Bridge is in RTID. It is the only bridge out of the 35 most unsafe bridges that is funded. And I am not surprised the County does not have money. Cities and counties are starved for money to take care of basic infrastructure, used by walkers, bikers and transit, and which supports local retail and residences. Instead, the legislature directs money to facilities that are close to single use - expansion of limited access freeways -- to support long distance trips by polluting cars. The legislature has the wrong priorities.

South Park deserves better treatment. RTID also finances 509 expansion, which would send tens of thousands of cars from I-5 through South Park. Yea, RTID is real nice to South Park.

If we are serious about global warming, we will change those priorities. If we are not serious, we will continue on as we are doing, and make excuses.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 24, 2007 6:20 PM
20

There's no way anyone with half a brain – and with a straight face – could be making the comparison Josh just made to R-51 in 2002. I'm not saying Josh is smart, but really, he's smarter than that.

So how to explain the depths to which Josh Feit has sunk?

OK, this is not an original observation on my part, but I'm convinced now that Josh and Erica Barnett are under orders from their higher-ups to establish outrageous personae, to become left-wing counterparts to Ann Coulter. The crazier and more provocative they become, the more it drives Slog traffic.

In this sense, we are all dupes.

Posted by cressona | October 24, 2007 7:10 PM
21

Here's the Muni League paper on R-51. It also included $294 million for rail which I don't include in the definition of public transportation, as they are mainly freight projects.

Additional fun fact for the "34 bridges! 34 bridges! 34 bridges!" crowd: $440 million for city & county road projects (ie MM Tacoma or South Park bridges) or 5%. Transportation measures sell on added capacity and megaprojects, not maintenance. We expect the legislature to provide that with sensible management of gas tax revenue.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 24, 2007 7:11 PM
22

rtidstinks @14:

Looks like the joint ballot measure is going to lose. Recent King 5 polling has it at 30% support. http://www.king5.com/localnews/stories/NW_102307WAB_rtid_poll_KS.19d073c04.html. Compare this with over 50% support a couple of months ago.

Rtidstinks, why do you always feel compelled to twist and misrepresent whatever information you come across? This seems like a sign of someone who knows their arguments are weak.

Yeah, the KING 5 poll showed the yes vote at 30% because it found the no vote at 32%. And you say that's down from 50%. But if you were doing a valid comparison, you would compare to the results of the earlier King 5/Survey USA poll, which found Proposition 1 failing badly. By that standard then, the yes vote is showing momentum.

In any event, it's already well-established that there are a lot of problems with Survey USA's polling methods. The more credible survey, by Elway Research, most recently found Proposition 1 at 54% support. That's at least an eight-point margin.

And rtidstinks, the other thing I don't quite understand is why you always want to bring the discussion of Proposition 1 back to all the same, old meta-arguments like spinning polling data and endorsements. It's the kind of crap we're used to getting from a presidential campaign where nobody bothers anymore to discuss the issues. This too seems like a sign of someone who knows their arguments are weak.

Posted by cressona | October 24, 2007 7:38 PM
23

One of the 'con' arguments on R-51 was the exact same rhetoric we hear from sierra club types: a better package will come along.

I say, the legislature will come up with something smaller but worse than RTID from a smart growth perspective. R-51 would have spent $820 mil on public transportation.

When that failed, we got the "Nickel" package. $3.9 billion, $3.2 billion of which was highway improvement, $2.6 of which was "congestion relief", ie added general purpose capacity. Look at this project list and tell me you think that was a win. I didn't vote for 51, cause the "too little for transit" argument made sense then. It surely does not in this case.

If this fails, expect

Posted by Some Jerk | October 24, 2007 8:19 PM
24

...the worst. Asphalt has a natural constituency. Transit, despite what Fremont Will and the Sierra Club seem to think, does not. Those who assume the rail part will come back and pass are also being mighty confident about macroeconomic conditions.


Those who voted no in '68, expecting a better plan in '70 failed to reckon on the Boeing recession. The housing bubble collapse may rule out any new measure for years. Add that to your risk calculus, and any transit advocate should vote yes on this flawed plan.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 24, 2007 8:25 PM
25

Cressona so nice you want to talk issues now.

When will ST2 be GHG neutral?

Why does our LR cost three to five times what it costs in Portland and Minneapolis?

Is it prudent to give ST fifty years of taxing power with next to no restrictions on what they do with it?

Does it make sense to put rail on a bridge with less than 40 years of life left in it?

Why do we want to build rail towards the edge of the GMA and allow park and rides that will induce sprawl outside the GMA?

But we know that rail is good and there is no need to analyze anything, just do it. Build a 131' wide bridge through wet lands and add a viaduct across the ship canal cause viaducts are good away from Alaska Way.

Posted by whatever | October 24, 2007 9:19 PM
26

Cressona...remember your promise to move if it fails. We do.

Posted by otterpop | October 24, 2007 9:43 PM
27

I'm so excited! I called King Co Elections today to get my mail in ballot. It should come Saturday or Monday. Then I'm going to post the exact SECOND that I fill in my "Yes" vote on RTID. Then I'm going to do the same (from my cell phone) the exact SECOND I put my ballot in the mailbox.

And because 60% of the money is going to mass transit, I'm going to do it with a squeaky clean conscious.

All you people who are hoping Josh will respond to the 60% stat tonight- come on. All of us live on the Slog, but Josh and ECB only post from work and the bar.

Posted by Big Sven | October 24, 2007 9:45 PM
28

"But we know that rail is good and there is no need to analyze anything, just do it."

That's right. Quit panty-twisting and just do it. Get something built, and get started on it THIS YEAR. Not in 2 years. Not in 5. RIGHT FRIKKING NOW. I don't care if it's not in the exact right place. I don't care if it's too short. I don't care if it's more expensive than it should be. Just can we please stop this constant handwringing and just get some transit built. RIGHT NOW. PLEASE.
I was in Paris recently and I marvelled at how they were able to build an underground transit system over 100 years ago. Without electricity. Did they get consensus from every Parisian on the exactly correct route? I doubt it. Did they spend a bunch of money on other nutjob projects that were of little public benefit? I'll bet they did. But they got something built.
Now can I please have my 50 miles of light rail that will cost $356mil per mile (oh, and I get some roads too).

Posted by grumpypants | October 24, 2007 9:46 PM
29

@13: Yes, it's a good value. Compared to the price of being the Parochial Town That Wouldn't Build Rail, with its attendant economic problems, ST2 and RTID are great.

Posted by Greg | October 24, 2007 9:48 PM
30

As a lifelong progressive who's poured an entire career into building sustainable communities, I feel such a sadness about the Stranger's shortsightedness on this question. This newspaper - Seattle's Only Newspaper, so they say - has succeeded wildly in sparking civic conversation over the past few years, and establishing a voice in the community that is unabashedly progressive, but also refreshingly practical most of the time. The paper's view on this issue leaves a void in which neither value is present.

No one disagrees on the facts of the future we face: no matter what our transport system looks like, over a million more people will be here within the next 20 or so years.

One. Million. People. 40% more than now.

Likewise, no one really disagrees that climate change is one of the most pressing challenges of our time. Aside from ending the war, it is arguably THE most pressing.

If those one million people show up with tailpipe-spewing SUVs, well, climate change will be worse. If Prop 1 goes down, those gas-burning, climate-warming family cars will be doing what? That's right, sitting in traffic jams 10 hours or more a day, filling the air between the Cascades and the Olympics with sulfur and worse. If Prop 1 passes, some of them will be sitting there a bit less each day. Some, I say, because many won't be there at all - their owners will be riding transit - as a result of Prop 1. And most could be gone altogether if we focus on real solutions to climate change.

These people are coming whether Prop 1 passes or not. They're coming, and they're driving. Why? Generally speaking, it's the way we live. It's the way we've organized our communities. We drive, period. They won't have much choice if Prop 1 fails.

See the fallacy of the Sierra Club's argument here? They're trying to argue against more cars by allowing fewer roads to be built, thinking that's going to reduce emissions. It's bull.

Reducing emissions will only occur when two things happen: 1) when people have a reliable alternative, and 2) when cars don't pollute. Prop 1 moves the dial on one of those things bigtime.

The Stranger should have been progressive enough and practical enough to focus on the treating the disease rather than the symptoms of what ails this region. The progressive and practical transportation agenda is to build transit everywhere we can, channel growth into designated growth centers, connect them with transit and -yes - roads designed to promote density, and wage war on the internal combustion engine.

You guys blew it. And it makes me sad.

I hope people will take a deep breath and think about this one beyond the yapping that typically goes on in a thread like this. We are facing a generational opportunity. We can approve a transportation plan that is the first of its kind ever in this state, that builds on 15 years of progressive land-use policy, that connects 14 regional cities and 13 Seattle neighborhoods with high capacity transit.

Or we can fall prey to superficial soundbites - polar bears and boondoggles - and set ourselves back again. To satisfy the few who are too scared to change or too selfish to participate. (which is which, Kemper or the Club? You figure it out).

I respectfully urge readers of the Stranger and the Slog to vote yes on Prop 1 and move this region briskly toward transportation sanity. Then, when it passes, turn all this energy on our elected representatives in Oly and DC and get them to start putting a real priority bringing afforable cars to market that don't pollute.

YES on Prop 1.

Posted by clarity | October 24, 2007 10:00 PM
31

25: Issues?

When did the IRT go carbon neutral? 1904-2007 and still ticking. Rail is a long lived investment, and amortizing construction emissions would show it to be an excellent carbon 'value', even if it didn't take VMT off the roads.

Portland & Minneapolis are ridiculous comparisons. MSP used abandoned freight rail, of which Seattle proper has exactly none. We are building a metro type system with nearly exclusive right-of-way, unlike poky street running MAX.

Unfortunately, we didn't have the foresight to start early or leave transit medians in our suburban freeways, so it costs more than PDX because of inflation and elevation.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 24, 2007 10:07 PM
32

@27: I am neither at work nor at a bar. So there.

Posted by ECB | October 24, 2007 10:21 PM
33

The earlier Elway poll showing 54% was long before mail with polar bear pictures appeared in a bunch of mailboxes across the region. At this stage of an election on a tax measure, the pro side would want to be above 50%, because tax measures don't gain momentum, they lose votes. And undecideds usually break no on tax measures. 30% yes, 32% no as ballots are being collected means that RTID is almost definitely sunk.

The issue is no longer how much money is split between roads and transit. The issue of global warming has changed the political landscape since R-51, the nickel package and I-912. The road advocates aren't going to disappear, but their influence will continue to decrease in a world in which the polar ice-caps are melting and extreme weather events dominate the news.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 24, 2007 10:24 PM
34

33: Global Warming Changes Everything is the new 9/11 Changes Everything, and just as prescient.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 24, 2007 10:37 PM
35

33--if you want to debate issues, at least be intellectually honest. You know the KING 5 poll is a useless piece of crap. I was called. It is a robo poll with no tracking of whether people live in the ST district, slanted questions, etc.

You say in an earlier post, "the legislature has the wrong priorities". This is the only cogent thing you have said. Damn straight they do. They build roads. They don't build transit. Vote down 50 miles of light rail and you will still get most of these roads through the leg. You will just build less transit for more money.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 24, 2007 10:38 PM
36

rtidstinks = Kemper's bitch

Posted by tragically hip | October 24, 2007 10:39 PM
37

ECB@32- shocked, shocked I say! And corrected.

Care to comment on the 60% thing? Or will it just stress you out before bedtime?

Posted by Big Sven | October 24, 2007 11:15 PM
38

@ 2

Your question was anything but "simple."

I just listened to the podcast. After Goldy repeatedly tried to read your question on air, he finally gave up saying: "It doesn't make sense."

Listen for yourself.

Posted by otterpop | October 24, 2007 11:52 PM
39

Interesting tidbit from the aforementioned poll:

Support among likely and actual voters, by generation:
Gen Y: 38-16 for
Gen X: 32-30 against
Jones: 29-28 for
Boomer: 44-29 against
Mature: 35-31 against

What a classic demonstration of the famous Boomer self-absorption: the people who won't be commuting when this thing is done don't give a damn about it.

Posted by MHD | October 25, 2007 8:14 AM
40

@ 39 - A better explanation is that the boomers around here were burned by ST Pt. One, burned by Seattle Monorail, and are disgusted with the rest of the transit planning from the current crop of politicos. Their inability to move forward responsibly with designing and building a viaduct alternative and the SR 520 bridge replacement is appalling.

We are against RTID/ST2 because it is a mishmash of projects, not fully funded by fair revenue-raisers, and it is the product of a deeply flawed transportation system planning process.

It isn't self-absorbtion, it is awareness of reality.

Posted by boomer | October 25, 2007 9:53 AM
41

#31 - "Portland & Minneapolis are ridiculous comparisons. MSP used abandoned freight rail, of which Seattle proper has exactly none. We are building a metro type system with nearly exclusive right-of-way, unlike poky street running MAX."

Wow - so Seattle is different. It might not make sense to do the same thing here because it costs 3 to 5 as much. So now the great system in Portland is "poky" and we don't want to emulate it?

Yes the IRT is GHG positive and if we built our system with as much manual labor it would get to neutral much faster.

MHD - so those that are paying the most in taxes and have paid attention to major projects for years oppose this and only the youngest inexperienced (non-voters) low payers are for it.


Posted by whatever | October 25, 2007 10:04 AM
42

In addition to the $10.8B for light rail, more than $2B in RTID funding goes for HOV lanes, money for Metro, Community and Pierce Transit, and big transit friendly projects like the Edmonds multi-modal transit center and the Mercer St. and Spoakane St. projects. So overall the projects in here that directly benefit transit are in the neighborhood of $13B or about 75%.

Way better than R-51, the Nickel, and the 2005 TPA. Just Sayin...

Posted by Rob Johnson | October 25, 2007 10:08 AM
43

The Stranger Election Congtrol Board agrees with Joni Balter on Prop 1. JONI BALTER! Ouch.

Posted by snock | October 25, 2007 11:13 AM
44

It's a shame, Will from HA, that you are a sore loser.

Now that you know that most people are going to kill RTID/ST2, why don't you get on board with Seattle's strong pro-environment community, and back ST2.1 when it comes to a vote in February 2008?

You know you really want a clean transit vote. And maybe they can repair the insane RTID to actually, oh I don't know, fix the critical bridges and roads that are in need of repair and fully fund the 520 bridge replacement?

That might be a better choice.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 25, 2007 11:14 AM
45

"Generation Jones?" How is that defined? Boomers are '46-'64, Gen X is '65-'78ish, and Gen Y is something after that. Not that the whole thing isn't completely arbitrary...

Posted by Big Sven | October 25, 2007 11:44 AM
46

41:

I'm just saying Seattleites look at Portland with rose colored glasses. Link will be much faster (28 vs 19 MPH average speed), much higher capacity (4 car trains vs 2), and able to operate at much higher frequency.

Nor will Link be entirely dependent on a century old bridge that imposes a 10 MPH bottleneck in the middle of the system. Portland made a lot of compromises to get MAX built on a shoestring.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 25, 2007 12:20 PM
47

Referendum 51, the Nickel package, and the Transportation Partnership all relied on the gas tax for their highway projects.

The RTID would get one-third of its revenue from the sales tax. It is regressive and already too high. Its use would be unfair and inefficient, as it does not send a price signal to roadway users. It is a perverse subsidy in a time of global warming and sprawl.

An important consideration in high capacity transit arose in this Slog: right of way. Many of the cities that have build modern LRT or exclusive busways have used abandoned freight rights of way: Vancouver, San Jose, Sacremento, San Diego, the LA Orange Line, St. Louis, Denver, Minneapolis, NJ.

ST is buidling their own right of way. It makes good sense when it penetrates dense pedestrian centers with congestion where bus transit goes slowly. the Link alignment between Northgate and South McClellan Street is very strong and worthwhile.

The Legislature has under funded maintenance. They have spent the recent increases on expansion. They have targeted the RTID on expansion and its board has gone along.

The locals lost the $15 vehicle fee to an Eyman initiative. The Legislature did not replace it with a share of the gas tax increase. Seattle has raised its property tax to fund overdue roadway maintenance.

Posted by eddiew | October 25, 2007 11:55 PM
48

eddiew @ 47

Have you no shame? You work as a transit planner for Metro which is funded by a full NINE TENTHS OF SALES TAX. Most recently you asked the voters for another tenth for Transit Now. Yet you feel comfortable attacking Prop 1 for using the sales tax when it was the only real option the legislature gave Sound Transit.

Just admit it...you hate trains and your motto is, "Ride the bus!"

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 26, 2007 1:12 AM
49

tommy,


perhaps you should come down from your tiptoes and improve your reading comprehension.

the sales tax paragraph in #47 was clearly only about the RTID and not about ST2.


I have not objected to using the sales tax for transit, though other revenue sources would be better. TriMet uses an employer tax. I have criticized some of the projects in ST2.

no, I am not ashamed of opposing use of the sales tax to expand unpriced limited access highways.


The Legislature gave the RTID seven revenue sources. At least two would have been better than the sales tax: the local option gas tax and additional tolls.

Posted by eddiew | October 27, 2007 8:54 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).