Comments on Re: Seattle Times Prop 1 Editorial
I find it highly amusing that Prop 1 sponsors are now on-record admitting that their pet roads+transit measure won't do a damned thing to relieve freeway congestion, which admission runs 180 degrees counter to all their fancy-schmancy assertions about reducing congestion, and commute times, and whatnot.
Face it folks, what we're seeing is yet another example of that perennial definition of insanity: "trying the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome every time".
So, this is what you're faced with: either do nothing and watch vehicle traffic get worse; or spend tens of billions of dollars on road improvements - and watch vehicle traffic get worse.
At what point do we finally look at this issue with the harsh light of critical objectivity and admit to ourselves that building more road capacity WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM?
Expected Cressona Wonk-off in: 5...4...3...2...1...
"Maybe if they didn’t reject light rail initiatives, congestion wouldn’t have gotten as much worse."
Now THAT'S faulty reasoning, leading you to exactly the wrong conclusion.
The light rail extensions proposed by those three ballot measures would not even have come on-line yet, even if the measures had been approved.
Yes, but building 50 miles of light rail will change how we live, travel, and develop the region. If you vote no on Prop 1, you won't see as ambitious of a rail plan when it eventually returns to the ballot.
Josh--I believe at least two of the negative votes on light rail (maybe all three) were on extending rail across the Columbia to Vancouver. The reason those failed was not because rail isn't popular, but because Clark County is full of tax evaders who shop and work in Portland but live in Washington to avoid the income tax. These freeloaders don't vote for anything.
So, before Cressona posts, I'd just like to point out that RTID/ST2 will:
1. not decrease congestion
2. not fix most (or even 1/10th) of the ciritical existing roads and bridges in the region
3. not even pay for HALF of the 520 bridge rebuild (yes, that's with tolls, which I am not against for single-occupancy vehicles)
4. INCREASE water pollution
4.1. increase fish bykill (see 4)
4.2. increase salmon habitat destruction
5. INCREASE land pollution
6. REDUCE wetlands
7. INCREASE air pollution
8. INCREASE global warming gas emissions
9. COST MORE WHEN WE HAVE TO REDUCE global warming gas emissions starting in 2020 (by most estimates)
10. INCREASE regressive non-transportation-related taxes (sales tax) (am not against the transportation related tax parts at all, tho not the best choices)
And, take almost 50 years of taxes - more than half of which we'll have to pay more taxes to COUNTERACT when we do something about global warming.
Time to get our heads out of the kool-aid, people.
Yes, ST2.1 in Feb 2008 will be great.
Yes, RTID 1.3 in Nov 2008 will be great (the one without the Pierce County roads) (no idea if RTID or County vote or State vote).
But a bad idea is just plain a bad idea.
3: "If you vote no on Prop 1, you won't see as ambitious of a rail plan when it eventually returns to the ballot."
The opposite is true, Karnak. Light rail, unburdened by the RTID albatross about its neck, would do just fine among voters. It is very popular, and once Sims is on-board (tolling on some bridges to help pay for road work), it'd pass handily.
I'm glad that now the Times is coming out against this with their usual tactics, the Stranger seems to be reconsidering supporting it.
I am not being (that) sarcastic here. The Times hardly ever supports what is best for Seattle or the region, so the fact that they are so against this proposal, including using the same tactics as they used with the monorail (quoting the entire cost in 2027 dollars with compound interest) is making a lot of people think twice.
"Face it folks, what we're seeing is yet another example of that perennial definition of insanity: "trying the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different outcome every time".
So, this is what you're faced with: either do nothing and watch vehicle traffic get worse; or spend tens of billions of dollars on road improvements - and watch vehicle traffic get worse."
Thank you. It doesn't take any more to understand a "NO" vote.
(I would, however, vote YES on a light-rail/transit only plan because those trains are slick and I would be one of those density-loving people living near a station.)
As lazy as I am of car-headed buffoons over at the Times, I'm sick of you Stranger personages insinuating that more/better transit will do anything to relieve freeway congestion. If the freeways are empty and free, I own a car, and the bus is slower and costs money -- why would I take the bus? Congestion happens because cars are convenient.
As long as roads are free to drive on and transit costs money, there will be congestion on the roads. Congestion is how people pay for their place in line, for lack of a more efficient allocation system.
TOLL THE FUCK OUT OF THE ROADS. It'll solve the congestion problem and make transit viable in one fell swoop.
Josh,
Where do you get off teaching logic to anybody?
For starters, if Portland voters say no to light rail -- that's hardly meaningless. They have experience with cost/benefit. More than you, dope.
And for your Imagine if they had not built light rail, would congestion have gone down pint... You need a can opener to pry open that pretzel logic. If the benefit is slight, then the negative effect would be slight too.
Traffic might get worse in either situation, but if building the roads and rails makes things 1.2 times as bad but not building it makes things 3 times as bad (just random numbers here), there is a difference.
...thus ensuring a Stranger endorsement of Prop 1.
Fremont elitist Will chimes in with his usual melange of nonsensical piffle and misleading information.
--He claims it won't fix even 1/10th of the critical bridges in the region. Will doesn't even know the bridges and roads he refers to, nor do his friends at the Sierra Club. Most are the responsibility of either the city or county they are located in.
--He then claims the region should pay even more of the cost of 520 in a new package. Will, 520 is a state highway and a state responsibility. That is what we pay gas taxes to the state for. Why you would want the region to pay even more is beyond me. Of course, you like an elevated viaduct, so your reasoning is suspect anyway.
--Will then makes some unsubstantiated claims about fish kills and water pollution. He claims land pollution (a new term). Will makes this shit up.
--Then he trots out the 50 years of taxes argument pushed by the right wing nuts. The inflated claims of costs and endless taxes have been pretty much debunked everywhere.
--There will be no ST2.1 in Feb 2008. Will has been making this claim for quite some time with no proof despite repeated requests. Put up or shut up. It is highly unlikely that Frank Chopp and Christine Gregoire will allow a vote so soon in an election year.
--And now Will has made up a new RTID vote in November 2008. I think he hopes it will include his beloved elevated viaduct.
Keep posting Will. You are a poster child for why we need to pass this package. Please attack the light rail investments again too.
Stuff like this is a reality check for the people holding out for a ST2 return in 2008. Assuming the legislature, et al allow this to happen, what makes you think ST2 by itself will win?
ECB implies that the Times Editorial Board is a pretty good indicator of Eastside opinion. If that's the case, ST2 by itself is screwed, because transit needs big positive majorities in King County to offset skeptics in Pierce and Snohomish.
It might be emotionally satisfying to vote against ST2/RTID and vote for a rail-only package that goes down in flames, but it won't get us any closer to a decent transit system.
Portland MAX is great. The Bay Area's BART is great. DC Metro is great. All those systems make you wish you never had to get on a slow, bumpy bus caught in traffic again. I want a system like that in the Puget Sound area. Build it, and start now!
Congestion isn't the problem. The real problems are lack of transportation options and the consequences that occur when driving is the only available option.
Light rail increases options. HOV improvements to highways increase options. People are going to keep voting for new roads until they have other options, and voting no to ST2/RTID limits the development of those options, making new highways a certainty.
Voting yes on ST2/RTID creates alternatives to driving everywhere, and makes future investment in alternatives more likely. It's the responsible and farsighted vote.
Congestion is good.
Congestion causes headaches for car drivers, and causes them to start thinking...maybe there's a better way.
Congestion creates incentives for alternative modes of transportation.
There is not a transportation system in the world that has relieved congestion. Rather, a good transportation system gives people choices.
Currently Seattle's choices are limited to driving, bicycling in the rain with ignorant drivers rushing past, and riding the bus, stuck in traffic.
Not much choice really.
Jesus Will!
1. not decrease congestion
I don't give a shit about congestion if I'm riding on a light rail train with limited at-grade crossings. That's the whole point!
And BTW, it will reduce congestion compared to doing nothing. Comparing 2030 congestion to 2007 congestion is ridiculous.
2. not fix most (or even 1/10th) of the critical existing roads and bridges in the region
3. not even pay for HALF of the 520 bridge rebuild (yes, that's with tolls, which I am not against for single-occupancy vehicles)
... since the state (and maybe feds) are supposed to kick in a chunk of funding too, as we've gone over in multiple threads...
4. INCREASE water pollution
4.1. increase fish bykill (see 4)
4.2. increase salmon habitat destruction
5. INCREASE land pollution
7. INCREASE air pollution
8. INCREASE global warming gas emissions
News flash: development creates pollution and damages habitat. No doubt if Prop. 1 goes down, all future development will be neutral in these respects.
6. REDUCE wetlands
Are you referring to a few acres of the arboretum? Is this significant at a regional level, except to property values in Madrona?
9. COST MORE WHEN WE HAVE TO REDUCE global warming gas emissions starting in 2020 (by most estimates)
I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.
10. INCREASE regressive non-transportation-related taxes (sales tax) (am not against the transportation related tax parts at all, tho not the best choices)
If you're holding out for an income tax or congestion charge to pay for a large capital project, please don't hold your breath -- I don't wish you any harm.
Everybody above who says "the state will kick in the money for SR 520" -
All the state will do is raise taxes on people. If RTID does not pay for it all, other taxes on you will. That is what is so fundamentally dishonest with RTID - the full tax costs are not known because we only are voting to approve one-half of the existing taxes.
Never vote yes on a plan where they don't tell you what the full funding package will be make up of! Here, we know there's a gap, and it is growing because gas tax revenues are coming in lower and there may not be tolling (it is not popular in Olympia).
Would you put something on your personal credit cards where you knew it would only cover the price, you don't know what the full price will be, BUT you knew the interest charges would start piling up already? Hell no, but that is what is being asked of us.
Choices? If you don't like the transportation situation in Seattle and it's just curling your ass hair so...move to Portland or San Francisco or DC. Maybe if more people get frustrated and move away, my commute will get easier and I won't have to listen to whiny bitches comparing our situation to other cities.
Seattle: Love it or leave it!
@16 "bicycling in the rain with ignorant drivers rushing past"
You're so wrong...it's a great choice. Give it a shot.
Bicycling in the rain can be fun on the Burke-Gilman, especially since they reopened it thru Fremont, @16/20.
As to MHD @17:
a. you ignore pollution when it increases on all levels - in actual practices urbanites create less pollution per capita in all three measures, as you well know, compared to suburbanites. You just basically are subsidizing sprawl with RTID/ST2.
b. Wetlands - much much more than the Arboretum - read the VOTED PACKAGE. It's in the filed online addenda.
c. basically all the new global warming gasses we create we're going to have to pay to reduce - the more we increase, the more we will have to pay to reduce. basic economics. even business magazines are talking about very likely costs for this in the US.
great post @19 ...
I find it interesting you guys are looking to Portland's tax structure for inspiration. Sure it didn't cost them as much of a tax increase at the time, but it did take away from other services-- their public schools are a mess! The money comes from somewhere.
Plus, our rail line is going to be on separated grade and therefore faster and more efficient. MAX slows to a horrible crawl downtown -- ours will glide on by.
#18, What are you talking about? The state has the money for its share of 520. Prove what you are saying.
#19, This package will make living in our beloved cities even better.
ps- for all you salmon lovers out there- how many more years do you want to pour toxic chemicals off 520 without being treated first? a vote for rtid builds a bridge (yes with the help of the state and the feds) that treats the water for contaminates before it hits lake washington
Vote yes.
"Never vote yes on a plan where they don't tell you what the full funding package will be make up of! Here, we know there's a gap, and it is growing because gas tax revenues are coming in lower and there may not be tolling (it is not popular in Olympia)."
Geez, boner. You sure did have to make a lot of stuff up to end with that doozie. Does the Weekly World News put out a transportation paper you're reading?
www.rtid.org/docs/FINAL_RTIDBlueprint.pdf
Start reading on Page 90, then get back to us.
Then, tell me how it's possible to vote down over a billion dollars for 520 funding, and get us any closer to construction? Diggin' the strong logic there, boner.
At what point do Josh and Erica stop being objective reporters and start being paid advocates for their causes?
Nice work kids!
"I find it highly amusing that Prop 1 sponsors are now on-record admitting that their pet roads+transit measure won't do a damned thing to relieve freeway congestion, which admission runs 180 degrees counter to all their fancy-schmancy assertions about reducing congestion, and commute times, and whatnot."
Does somebody want to help COMPTE out? He seems confused. Of the "easily" variety.
Maybe he thinks adding an HOV lane to 520, and improving major intersections like @ 405 & 520 or 405 & 167 will make congestion worse?
The state funded most of these major roads using statewide gas tax revenues. It would be stupid to ditch the remaining pieces we all know the region is going to have to pay for one way or another.
Or, maybe the tooth fairy will just ride in on her white horse, and deliver a free lunch to all the naysayers?
From Josh's link - "Light rail transit does require a significant up-front investment of $22 to $60 million per mile, but it costs less to operate per passenger carried."
Do you think at a cost of 5 to 10 times those costs that the equation comes out a little differently?
COMTE @1: Expected Cressona Wonk-off in: 5...4...3...2...1...
Dear COMTE,
My apologies for not getting back to you sooner.
shut the fuck up already @19:
Choices? If you don't like the transportation situation in Seattle and it's just curling your ass hair so...move to Portland or San Francisco or DC. Maybe if more people get frustrated and move away, my commute will get easier and I won't have to listen to whiny bitches comparing our situation to other cities.
Seattle: Love it or leave it!
STFUA, you have read my mind.
It's funny, the primary reason I moved to Seattle in the first place was that it was the one place I could get a decent job coming out of school. As a concerned citizen (and pathetic social climber), I decided to get active in transportation issues in my adopted town. Since then, I've spent several years fighting against Tim Eyman and freeways and viaducts, and fighting for light rail and monorail. And what do I have to show for all these efforts (concerned citizen-wise)? Well, it pretty much comes down to this vote. It's really all or nothing.
And if the answer is nothing? I'm already figuring, if this ballot measure fails to reach that 50.0% mark, I'll be asking myself, "Why should I care about a place where the majority of the residents are too selfish, shortsighted, backward, provincial, and fundamentalist to care about the place themselves or to share my values?"
I'm at the point now in my career where I can work pretty much anywhere I want to. So if this measure fails, slowly but surely, I'll probably start uprooting myself from Seattle. (Obviously, I don't share the local left's optimism about what happens next if this thing goes down.) I just have to be careful to not succumb to a "grass is always greener" mentality. I mean, Portland's got its own issues. Chicago's got its issues. Tel Aviv's got its issues. I'll have to do my homework.
Anyway, if I do leave Seattle, it's not going to be a Grant Cogswell parting where we Seattleites have to keep asking ourselves, "I thought that Grant Cogswell guy left." No, I will STFU. My attitude to Seattle will be a bit like the attitude of those people in the Bible who were instructed not to look back on the city they were fleeing lest they turn to stone.
My endorsement: Will in Seattle for mayor?!...
I'm sure, eventually though, I will check back in on rare occasion to see what the latest news is with Seattle's perpetual transportation mess. The irony is that, by then, all of Seattle's failure on transportation – whereas once it was a source of despair for me as a Seattle resident – will suddenly become a source of delight for me as a Seattle expatriate.
Yes, I confess, I will be guilty of schadenfreude. In fact, once I'm gone I will secretly wish nothing but failure on some wonderful, decent people like Jessyn Farrell and Bill LaBorde, people who really deserve nothing but success. I will root for the "lesser Seattleites" to fulfill their nostalgic, retrograde vision for Seattle. And if our friend "Will (Build Elevated Freeways) in Seattle" ever runs for mayor or county executive, he's gonna be receiving in the mail a big, fat contribution check from little, ol' me.
Okay, now I'm really confused:
"I've spent several years fighting against Tim Eyman and freeways and viaducts, and fighting for light rail and monorail."
But despite all that, you're willing to "settle" for wasting several tens of billions of dollars on freeways that, by the admission of the people sponsoring this bill, WON'T SOLVE THE FREEWAY CONGESTION PROBLEM Prop 1 purports to address.
Why? All I can gather from your voluminous posts to-date is because you'd rather give into the political blackmail this bill represents, and see all that money go down a fucking black hole, out of fear that the REAL solution, namely mass-transit, won't see the light of day again if this bill goes down, rather than refuse to cave in, and to demand the transportation package we should have been presented with in the first place.
I guess, if that's your definition of "selfish, shortsighted, backward, provincial, and fundamentalist to care about the place themselves or to share my values", then I'd regretfully have to agree with you, because clearly some of us WON'T compromise on this issue, if it means wasting billions on make-piece programs that represent the equivalent of paying for a bucket to bail out a sinking ocean liner.
It will keep freeway levels at something close to today's. A huge task considering how many people will be moving here in that amount of time. Thankfully, no new freeways will be built in Seattle. If the east side and Pierce want more freeway lanes that's their thing.
And we will get light rail.
That's the package folks.
Vote yes.
"Why? All I can gather from your voluminous posts to-date is because you'd rather give into the political blackmail this bill represents, and see all that money go down a fucking black hole, out of fear that the REAL solution, namely mass-transit, won't see the light of day again if this bill goes down,"
Most of that "black hole" is good stuff, despite what the Sierra Club propaganda machine spews out. That is why almost every other enviro group is in support of Prop 1. Look at the chart here:
http://seatrans.blogspot.com/2007/09/global-warming.html
If you think HOV lanes for buses and carpools are a waste of money, then go ahead, COMTE, be hysterical.
You will never find a regional package that's greener in this state.
We have to live with the WA State Legislature. And it doesn't particularly like light rail.
That will change, but it will take time.
"Thankfully, no new freeways will be built in Seattle. If the east side and Pierce want more freeway lanes that's their thing.
And we will get light rail.
That's the package folks. "
Cale, you have just committed the ultimate sins: acknowledging political reality, and understanding compromise is the key to democracy.
Shame on you.
I gotta agree that lane miles per capita is a good way to measure whether freeway capacity is objectively expanding. From the opposition RTID gets, you'd think it was proposing the RH Thompson or a bridge to Bremerton.
The RTID projects are hardly so bold. Finishing the gap in 509 makes sense. Why should people from the south have to drive past Southcenter to get to the Airport? The gap in 167 is just as dumb. The region's biggest port and biggest industrial/warehouse area lack a direct connection.
COMTE @28:
Okay, now I'm really confused:
COMTE, it's OK. I can understand perfectly why you would be confused by some transit activists' unflinching, passionate support for Roads & Transit.
Fundamentalism comes in many flavors: Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Communist, fascist, nationalist, right-to-life, feminist, and yes, environmentalist. And yet, all these strands have far more similarities than differences.
COMTE, there's really no point in my arguing with you or your Sierra Club friends. Trying to reason with a fundamentalist is a bit like trying to talk a grizzly bear out of eating you. It is simply not in the fundamentalist's nature to reason or compromise. All I can do is appreciate you and marvel at you for the phenomenon that you are, and at the role you play in history.
Ah, but you didn't answer the question, did you Cressona: Why, if you have spent so much time fighting AGAINST freeway expansion, are you now willing to cave in and support freeway expansion that even its own backers now admit won't solve the basic problem outlined in their bill?
If the RTID segment of is so good, why haven't we been allowed a separate vote on both portions? Why don't its backers have enough confidence in their "solution" to let it stand on its own two feet?
Attention rail transit advocates (Josh, this means you):
Here is why you should vote YES on prop one. For you long-suffering Seattlites who have waited for-EVER to have a fixed system that reaches throughout the city, lo and behold a city-wide system is taking shape right under our noses. And with this package, the revenue stream needed for continuous expansion will be put in place. Consider this:
Project miles stations
Central Link: 16, 13
University Link: 3, 2
SLU Streetcar: 1.3, 11
Waterfront Streetcar: 2.2, 7
First Hill Streetcar (ST2): 2.8, 16
Seattle Monorail: 1, 2
Subtotals: 26.3, 51
ST2 Additions (in-city): 8, 5
Totals: 34.3, 56
These lines serve the following Seattle neighborhoods: Cap Hill, First Hill, Central Dist, Int'l Dist, Sodo, Beacon Hill, Mt Baker, Columbia City, Rainier Beach, Othello, Pioneer Sq (2x), Fin Dist, Westlake, Belltown (2x), SLU, Lower Queen Anne, Montlake, U-Dist, Wallingford, Roosevelt, Ravenna, Green Lake, Northgate, and Jackson Park. Did I leave any out?
Quick, someone with graphics capabilities whip up a map.
That's all well-and-good Clarity, but why do we have to have a shitty-assed roads package railroaded down our throats in order to get a decent fixed-rail mass transit system completed?
#36
assuming you live in seattle comte, you'd hardly be getting roads shoved down your throat.
its put in the places where people want it.
seattlites don't need road improvements as much as we need transit, so we get light rail. people in monroe don't need a train because they don't have the density to support it, so they get a widened rt 2, etc. it is a good compromise.
it makes sense
COMTE and friends play a very dangerous game. The Sound Transit board pushed the envelope with this package. They said they wanted to build as much light rail as possible in each direction--50 miles of rail. They could have chosen a more modest program, but they realized that this is the best chance we have to build rail for our future.
So, if the Sierra Club prevails and Roads and Transit loses, what is the likely outcome for building rail?
1) Governance reform--the bill that almost passed last session would have set up seven huge districts of 300,000 voters each to build roads AND transit. This is progress? Seattle would have one and a half reps, roads would still get built. If Prop 1 fails, this is certainly worth betting on.
2) No election in 2008 for rail. Speaker Chopp wants to preserve and expand suburban Democrats in an election year. Governor Gregoire won by 132 votes on the third recount. Neither wants a huge tax measure on the ballot in an election year. So we wait until at least 2009.
3) Things slow way down. Sound Transit loses staff due to uncertain funding. This is very important. The first five years of ST were very rough and the board and staff both had to learn hard lessons. The Monorail imploded largely because of poor personnel decisions, an immature board, and too much confidence that they had all of the answers. It takes a while to form any new organization. Typically people first fight for dominance and position. Then they attempt to form some basic rules. Only then do they begin to actually create something. Storming, norming, and forming is what the behaviorists call it.
4) If and when a new light rail plan comes back, it will cost more and offer less. Current construction inflation pegs the annual cost of delay for 50 miles of light rail at $800 million. And packages usually come back smaller the second time around on almost any tax measure.
5) Rail will take even longer to build. Years wasted that could transform development patterns in this region and also get thousands out of their cars each day.
6) Roads will be back. State government builds roads, not transit. The powerful business and city interests behind each road will continue to lobby for funding.
I wish I could play the pollyanna, don't worry be happy now, Sierra Club view. But I believe that the consequences of voting against this package could well set us back severely.
Of the roads in the RTID, I think the Seattle projects at Mercer, Lander and Spokane Streets offer real potential to help make a surface option possible on the waterfront. It fixes the South Park Bridge--worst in the state, important to freight and commuters. HOV lanes are added on 520 and 167. I think at least half of the roads projects are worthy due to safety or transit reasons.
This is a good package. We need rail now. We are 40 years behind. Vote yes.
Cressona gets a little hyperactive at times, but I could easily find myself in the same boat. Quite frankly, I agree with her on this issue and I applaud her for the effort she puts into it. To me, this vote is a bellweather about what direction Seattle wants to take. If it's voted down, I plan on moving to a city that has been brave enough to make the right choice. A city like Chicago. Or maybe San Francisco. And, in the process, I'll leave Seattle to the people like Will because I know that's not a Seattle that I want to be in.
The reality of the situation is that both packages fail on their own separately, but they pass when combined. That's compromise, that's why the legislature slapped it together that way. The legislature is saying that time for the swimming lessons is over - it's time to sink or swim.
This is our region's best chance to work together to make something great happen for all of us. I like the idea of being able to get on a train on Capitol Hill and be able to get to Tacoma. Or be able to come back and not have to get off until I'm in the U District. Or that someone in Everett could do the same trip if they wanted without ever being on a road. The fact that these communities (and the Eastside) want to work together with Seattle for the good of the whole is quite frankly amazing. It's forward thinking and it recognizes that shared regional community and coming together for common goals. Will's lesser Seattle fantasy (ie, "fuck Tacoma for being founded, they deserve it") quite frankly scares the shit outta me. The region as a whole is growing and we have a chance to set it, as a region, on a better course. Ron Sims isn't thinking regionally, he's thinking county locally. Will's lesser Seattle mindset says "'burbs having rail is sacrilege." Have you seen the growth in Bellevue? They're moving beyond their Kemper Freemans and are doing growth right. We joke about the snotty rich, but the Mercer Island folk are willing to give up their SOV in HOV access for light rail to work on I-90. The cities in this region are willing to do this in order for our region to grow succesfully. This package is about numerous intricate layers of compromise to reach a regional solution.
The roads package doesn't bother me. In my opinion we're making needed infrastructure improvements. I hate cross base highway, but I'm not a single issue voter. We've settled presidential elections via litigation, so I have a hunch that cross base won't survive the onslaught it'll have going it's way if somebody decides to actually try to make the thing. Oh, and I've got nuttin' against park and ride lots either if it encourages transit use.
All of that is why I'm voting yes. This transit package is NOW kiddies. Not tomorrow.
Cressona @27, I never said we should build elevated freeways. I said we should replace the existing elevated viaduct. Big difference. But I also said that Cary Moon was right and that Surface Plus Transit was a good second choice that was viable if we doubled local transit (which Ron Sims did a lot to have happen, and that passed).
Speaking of which, Sierra Club just phoned me tonight and asked if I wanted a No sign for the RTID/ST2 - I said, sure. Delivering it tomorrow.
Will (Build Elevated Freeways in Seattle) @40, there's no need for you to explain why you campaigned and voted for a new elevated freeway, and against Cary Moon. Actually, it all kinda makes sense to me.
Just promise me one thing...
My own utopian dream of Seattle
If you guys win this time and Sound Transit loses, please, please, please, Will, run for mayor. I will support you. Maybe it's a bit of a pipe dream of mine to think you could get elected mayor. But it isn't such a pipe dream to hope that Dino Rossi will be elected governor and Ron Sims will continue to be King County executive, or that Jack Whisner will take command of King County Metro, or that the state legislature will stay just the way it is, or that maybe even a couple Sierra Clubbers join David Della and Nick Licata on the Seattle City Council.
Call it schadenfreude, but by then I will be an ex-Seattleite, and it will give me no small amount of satisfaction to see the Seattle region reducing its carbon footprint by the most effective means possible, by reducing the Seattle region.
It's probably far-fetched for me to dream of Seattle reaching a world without us stage of decay. But it's not so far-fetched to dream that Seattle will reach a Detroit or Buffalo stage of decay, or to hope that someday Ron Sims musters the political will to convert the entire Central Link right-of-way to bus service.
I'm with Cressona on one point - I'll help Will get elected mayor too. The town obviously needs more ideas from him. You know, stuff like fucking Tacoma for being founded and having people live there, wanting to build a larger freeway on the waterfront, and rail being a Seattle-only thing that connects Northgate to the Airport. That's a package I want to vote for!
You want it, don’t you? That long, hard train. Plunging into the tunnel, fast and sleek. It’s been a long time coming . . . you can almost taste it. You’ll ride it again and again and again. Yes, yeeees . . . OH Yes!
Christ, I’m ready for another. How about you?
Are the regional governance agencies in Portland and Denver dominated by road advocates?
Currently ST is controlled by the county executives. Each county has more than 300,000 people therefore people interested in roads should be winning those races, right?
If Ron Sims is replaced by a Republican who then appoints only pro bus members to ST, ST could stop building all rail and switch to bus.
No matter where one stands on rail or roads for that matter this measure is bad legislation. There are no controls or guarantees on ST only taxing authority.
We need a regional agency that coordinates the modes of transportation and has a strong say in zoning. PSRC already has a staff that would be the starting point for the new regional agency.
cressona,
don't let the door hit you on the way out.
-seattle
"We need a regional agency that coordinates the modes of transportation and has a strong say in zoning. PSRC already has a staff that would be the starting point for the new regional agency."
I knew you were in dreamland, whatever. But this sets a new standard for you.
There is no way on earth a region with strong emphasis on local control would ever cede local land use control over to a mega-agency.
How is it all Prop 1 opponents all base their opposition on pure fantasy?
Could we get somebody who knows what's going on to put up a decent argument?
I masturbate every night to the idea of a Max system in Seattle. And every morning too.
Josh, I applaud your fearlessness in employing logic to make your point. It is truly commendable. I don't know why you hate freedom so much, son, but you sure know your way around a cause-and-effect fallacy.
Monkeys - the STATE growth management has already reduced local control - don't follow zoning don't get roads or transit etc.
I believe the Portland agency includes some land use control.
The only fantasy is that Prop 1 makes sense and that giving ST unfettered control over 50 years of taxing authority with no guarantees of performance is prudent.
Josh, good point about the popularity of Portland light rail. More impressive are the results for the newly opened Minneapolis line, where ridership exceeded projections by 65%.
There is abundant reason to believe that, next year, ST1 will also be popular (and it had better be, otherwise there's no point in building it). If this is true, people are going to want more light rail. Given that we live in the Pacific Northwest, the response should be much stronger than in, say, Dallas Texas, where they also like their light rail, and have just voted to double it.
Therefore, if you are an environmentalist, it makes no sense to vote for Prop 1.
With or without Prop 1, you will get more trains. But if you do the right thing and vote Prop 1 down, you don't get the extra highways that will make global warming worse.
Scotto do have the cost to build in Minneapolis? The last and most expensive line buit in Portland in 2004 was under $60 million per mile. It was also subsidized by the Feds to the tune of 73% - their Airport line was built for the trade of land at the airport. Total costs for 44 miles $1.6 billion, of course, much was built with more valuable dollars.
Minneapolis - 12 miles 17 stations $720 million started 2001 finished 2004 - 2 miles of tunnels (that weren't already a transit tunnels) 60% federally funded.
Seattle 15 miles 14 stations 2.8 billion
25% federally funded 1 mile of new tunnel started 2003 to be completed 2009.
BTW Tip Toe - that was Minneaplois' first line - somehow they got it together. And they got their funding about the same time we did.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).