City No, No, No
posted by on October 6 at 17:55 PM
Is there any transportation solution Sound Transit opponents actually like?
They opposed the original light rail measure in 1995 on the grounds that roads were a better idea; defended Tim Eyman when he tried to kill rail again in 2003; worked to keep the county from even asking voters what solutions they wanted in 2004; opposed buses in 2006, this time on the grounds that they were too expensive; and opposed roads and transit in 2007 on the grounds that the package “costs too much and does too little.”
Now they’re at it again. Here’s Phil Talmadge, one of the hardest-core opponents to light rail (and biggest fans of putting poor people on buses) among the core group of Sound Transit opponents, in yesterday’s Tacoma News Tribune:
Sound Transit’s latest forecasts for Prop. 1 show that it will have little to no effect on traffic congestion even in 2030, just a few years after the bulk of Prop. 1’s light rail expansion is promised to be complete.Why? Because most of Sound Transit’s riders are taken from existing bus routes; only a few are “new” riders. We need relief now, not promises for much later coupled with big tax increases now.
But Sound Transit opponents don’t want “relief.” They don’t want anything that will actually help solve the region’s transportation problems. And they never have.
Check out Mass Transit Now’s web site and “No, no, no” radio ad; then go read what those wild-eyed crazies at the King County Municipal League have to say about expanding light rail now.
THAT is a truly scary ad--perfect for Halloween.
And I'll second that, Fuck John McCain.
What makes anyone think sound transit opponents do anything other than drive their cars? They don't take the bus or the train.
I think they want a bunch of new roads without paying for them, that's the solution they like.
not now is all I hear - the many billions train thing is dead
no body in their right minds will vote in taxes at this time, most of all not a sales tax increase
maybe Fed dollars in the next couple of yers as a WPA project for jobs
sorry Erica, the economy trumps all at this point
Counting down to the required post on this thread--by some alias we've never seen before and will never seen again--featuring some combination of the following arguments*:
And all this on top of Talmadge's standard "We need relief now" and "This will do nothing about congestion" for all those people who believe that the state will finally come to its senses and build them their own personal highway that no one else will dare drive on.
*Damn! I'm too late. See "Joe- six pack Hieneken" (sic) @4.
Joe- six pack Hieneken (sic) @4:
So let me ask you this Joe (or whatever you called yourself in the previous thread, or whatever you'll call yourself in the next thread)... How do you explain that SurveyUSA is showing Proposition 1 garnering overwhelming support in King and Pierce and Snohomish counties?
Are you saying your word-of-mouth is better than SurveyUSA's polling? Or if you don't have that kind of nerve, why do you think people are willing to tax themselves the lousy $69-per-person at this tough time for our economy?
Could it be that people may actually care about their community? How un-American you must say--Americans not being completely selfish! The thing about stupidly selfish people is that there is never a good time to tax themselves for their community. At the height of a booming economy, their answer to that $69 tax would be, "Sorry, can't afford it. I'm spending too much money to pay the huge mortgage and the high property taxes for this big house I just had to buy (just like "everybody" else was buying) while real estate was booming."
Anyway, I don't want to give all selfish people a bad name. Y'know, there's smart selfish and there's stupid selfish.
guess what - the election is only weeks away and so the answer about willing to tax in this chaotic economic time will soon be known
sorry my take on this is not in exact alignment with yours - what a control freak you must be
the state of Maine can't sell its bonds - what do you suggest they do?
put your head in the sand and pretend Microsoft did not just freeze hiring
or that Wa Mu did not collapse ... Now 4 will tell us all
I plan on voting yes, by the way, but among my circles I am alone
Look, I was a Sound Transit opponent in the prior version.
But I'm totally in favor of this version.
There are two groups involved - one hates taxes, any taxes, and there's no point in discussing ANYTHING with them. The other group against Proposition 1 are, in fact, people who drive cars and never ever take transit or intend to, even if gas cost $10 a gallon.
You can argue with the latter. But not the former.
Above - maybe Alaska can buy the bonds that Maine needs to sell - ask Gov. Sarah Palin - to me, she seems a problem solver.
Just sayin'
If I had wings, I could fly to the nearest bus stop which is miles from my home.
Some of you are on a cloud when it comes to real transportation options. Mass transit needs to be an option in cities, but, just all out anti-car is very funny most of the time. Calling earth, reality check, cars and trucks are here to stay. Trucks by the way, bring every item to you that you MUST have to live, like food ... and ... everything else.
Forget mule trains and pull carts.
Trucks .... what say?
@10: Those trucks can get tons of places when behind people lined up at a bottleneck, eh?
Andrew @10, are you sure you have the right post? You seem to be responding to some sort of ghost argument: "just all out anti-car is very funny most of the time..."
You mind either (A) clarifying "Sorry, guys, wrong post" or (B) identifying this mysterious "all out anti-car" rhetoric you seem to be imagining?
@10 - wrong.
I used to work at WOSCA, Washington-Oregon Shippers Cooperative Association.
Most of the goods that come to your door come via ship and/or rail and trucks only deliver them for part of their journey.
DING!
Next lie, please!
I think you are misusing the notion of "what transportation system do Sound Transit opponents like". I like any transportation system that I pay for when I use it and don't pay for when I don't use it. So I would like roads built ONLY with fuel taxes and tolls, and buses, trains, jitneys, rickshaws, and whatever else paid for from the fare box. Is this so terribly hard to understand?
I am not against trains. I am against trains paid for by car tab taxes, sales taxes, and everything else.
What transit opponents want is to dismantle the GMA so that houses can be built and communities expand. What Libs want is to keep density high (and keep the Democrat political base under submission).
@14 - prison vans must really get you hot then.
Oh, and JB, start packing, McCain's pulling out of Washington State next.
Phil Talmadge may still be just sucking on sour monorail grapes. But, sadly, his record (along with former partner Cleve Stockmeyer) indicates he's been in the Kemper Freeman "driving is patriotic" camp for some time.
Talmadge-Stockmeyer infamous clients and causes:
Represented Southcenter mega-zillionaire industrial property baron Mario Segale. Segale hired a team of hitmen lobbyists and lawyers to fight light rail when his kingdom was skipped with the first light rail alignment. Segale also wanted a personal rapid transit system (like Kemper Freeman) to connect SeaTac and Southcenter.
Was declared (by Tim Eyman) as an official member of his "legal dream team" to defend one of Timmy's initiatives.
Represented the Eastlake neighborhood to fight a potential north alignment (adocated for by the Fairview Fanny / Seattle Times)
Represented Aurora Ave N merchants opposing Bus Rapid Transit plans on that stretch of used car dealerships, tattoo parlors and gun shops.
And those were just the sketchy clients cited on the web, and in news accounts. God knows the bottom-feeder clients Talmadge-Stockmeyer kept off radar.
When it was acknowledged the Green Line would primarily attract bus riders, Talmadge didn't utter a single negative comment. When his law partner did everything he could to defend an obviously flawed monorail finance plan, the cat got Phil Talmadge's tongue once again.
You see, when you're a "maverick" renegade Democrat like Phil Talmadge, you only follow your two key values: grudges, and $ signs.
There's a reason Phil Talmadge's political career hit an early dead-end after numerous attempts for higher office - and it wasn't only due to his inability to inspire.
Talmadge went politically bankrupt early on, selling his soul to any right wing "renegade" rich anti-progressive / ant-transit interest group who were willing to pay him enough.
It's no fluke Talmadge ended up in the political graveyard. In fact, he dug his own hole to assure an assured descent into the hell that is Tim Eyman and Kemper Freeman.
Will - you are such a poser.
If it gets to the shelf and to you door, it comes at some stage by truck and in many cases the whole way.
You think I thought there is a truck route that is used to China?
Roads are needed, will be widely used by trucks and autos of some kind and only in some cases will mass transit be used extensively, cities.
The new era of electric and other fuel than gas autos changes the topic of emissions completely and is at our door. The autos of the future are here.
Some folks do not drive and never own an auto. Other must to get to work, school and places like the doctor and church.... by auto.
Face it bubba. And engage the brain a bit more.
Fritz @14:
Hey, Fritz, what part of "It don't work" don't you understand? Show me any city that has a complete pay-for-use transportation system (and let's extend that to bus service as well), and I'll show you a city that has ceased to function.
Or are you one of these Ron Paul libertarians or armchair economists who think they have a better answer how to manage the complex systems of modern industrial societies than people who've trained for years at that? Ever since Ronald Reagan, this country has been steered by politicians who pander to voters who don't have a clue so they can enrich corporations who do have a clue. How has that been working out?
Anyway, if you think the social contract is all about people paying only for what they consume themselves, let's extend that to education, health care, etc., and see how that works out.
Oh, I forgot, there's just one small problem, "It don't work." Fritz, I dunno, is this so terribly hard to understand?
@19 OK, cressona, then if people paying for the transportation they use "doesn't work", then I will simply keep voting against funding for transportation I don't use, and you can decide I don't like trains or buses (which is not actually true).
It may be true that people paying for the transportation they use "doesn't work". But it is less than clear that political fighting over each and every transportation project works either.
Of course, if you are Washington DC, you can just get everyone in the country to pay for your transit system. That works better, I guess.
Fritz @20: But it is less than clear that political fighting over each and every transportation project works either.
Fritz, where's this political fighting you're talking about? There's a pretty solid consensus among elected officials in this region that we need Sound Transit expansion. The few holdouts like Ron Sims only stand out because they're such exceptions.
It seems like the only people really fighting here are (A) the old Eyman/Freeman perpetual campaign and (B) the libertarian geniuses like you who think they're cleverer than everyone else.
Dear, dear Fritz: If you had to pay the full cost of road construction and maintenance in tolls and gas taxes, you would not drive. If you had to pay the full cost of bus service in fares, you would not ride the bus. No transportation system can pay for itself. This is why governments, not for-profit corporations, are always the ones building transportation systems. These systems exist because they provide substantial benefits to the public, not because they bring in money.
@22: According to the TxDOT, an aggressive funds-eating behemoth that overreaches in funding its roads, roads never pay for themselves (http://www.keeptexasmoving.com/index.php/news/Do_Roads_Pay_for_Themselves%3F)
To pay for roads fully, we'd have to bump the gas tax up by somewhere in the neighborhood of $1-$1.50 a gallon.
So $4 gas should really have been $5.50 gas, just to be fair, right?
I oppose so-called "Light" Rail systems on the grounds that they are ineffective, disruptive to communities & horribly expensive to build & operate. I live in Sacramento, less than 2 miles from the Light Rail line & almost never use it. Why? It adds 30 to 60 minutes to the same trip taken by car.
Light Rail trips are also heavily subsidized - Minneapolis' Hiawatha Line charges a fare of about $1.50, but operating costs with the current ridership average out to about $10/ride - an $8.50 subsidy for every ride.
That is why I support PRT to (eventually) replace buses and any new Rail lines.
Cheaper to build & operate, more convenient to use, far less disruptive to neighborhoods (PRT guideways & stations dont require 100' wide right-of-ways that demolish entire city blocks), small, 800 lb electric-powered cars carry people the way they are most likely to travel - in 1's & 2's.
It's real transit that upholds the social contract in an economical & responsible manner.
@22 -- Greg, the money comes from somewhere. Everyone can't be paying less for their travel than if they had to buy their own ticket. It is utterly delusional to believe that we are all getting a wonderful deal by being taxed to pay for each other's transit choices. TANSTAAFL.
@21 -- cressona I am quite confused at your assertion that you don't see political fights over subsidized transit. There is at least one initiative every two years on the subject. And then there was Seattle's quite amazing monorail fiasco -- or has that already disappeared into the memory hole?
Comments Closed
Comments are closed on this post.