2008 What the Transit Vote Means
posted by on November 6 at 12:56 PM
Seattle Transit Blog writers recently issued a couple of mea culpas to me, The Stranger in general, and former news editor Josh Feit, who they (and lots and lots and lots of other transit supporters) trashed last year for saying we should vote against roads and transit and hold out for a transit-only package. What they’re referring to is stuff like this:
Oh and the anti-Prop. 1 post? Ms Barnett of the Stranger in her usual form. Not much analysis there other than assuming it will fail without much evidence, and calling anyone who endorses Prop. 1 a “defeatist”. Nice. I wonder which of the three here actually thought this issue through more seriously?
And this:
Josh Feit of The Stranger has a very kooky argument against the RTID. … We can’t sit and wait for the perfect proposal that pleases everyone, we have to accept what will make the best compromise and move forward from there.
And this:
Erica C Barnett at the Stranger wrote a piece lauding the Sierra Club for fighting against Prop. 1, and then turning around to lobby Sound Transit into put “station access funds” in place of park-and-rides for suburban stations. Station access funds could be spent on anything, including parking, but the use is decided by the local government and not prescribed by Sound Transit.
Nice idea, but I find this piece extremely self-congratulatory and completely off-mark, Erica wrote the piece as if Sound Transit 2 had passed already …This could end up a complete waste of time, since it’s looking ever less certain we’ll get a ballot measure this year. In fact, I think the odds are slipping past even as I write this, if they haven’t already. I’ll congratulate the Sierra Club when they actually endorse a plan that passes.
While I’m glad fellow transit proponents are acknowledging, belatedly, that we were right (Goldy wrote a sweet mea culpa a few months ago, so I’m only picking on the Transit Bloggers here), it shouldn’t come as a huge surprise that in a high-turnout, heavily Democratic election, voters in the Puget Sound region—which is about to get light rail next year from Seattle to the airport—would support expanding transit now. The economy may be bad, but people are optimistic; and optimistic people are capable of seeing beyond the next year or two (and beyond their narrow interests.) The era of big road-building projects is over. The voters know that, and they want alternatives. They got them Tuesday night.
Or, as Sierra Club chairman Mike O’Brien put it,
Last year, a $5 million campaign in good economic times to pass Roads and Transit failed. This year, a $750,000 campaign in bad economic times to finance more transit passed. The difference — no climate-changing roads. When the voters defeated Roads and Transit last year, they weren’t just saying bring back light rail, they were also saying bring us realistic transportation solutions that help solve global warming.
I still think RTID was a better package than this. I voted yes for both.
And note that our package in Prop 1 passed by 60 percent while defeating a fake Eyman "transportation" initiative.
Boo ya!
Told ya it would be back.
I voted for this year's Prop. 1 and campaigned for it, because building additional right of way -- any additional right of way -- is the top priority.
But we'll have our roads, O'Brien, bet on it. The voters will leave all kinds of figurative tire tracks across your back if you stand in the way, after we have supported this rail package.
As promised, I'm not going to gloat over how right I was and how wrong all my enemies were. You people who disagree with my consistently correct positions can go on calling me paranoid. If I am proven right again, and again, and again, I'm not going to lord over anyone how much smarter I am than they.
And I know nobody wants my pity, especially those who were so wrong about this (and everything else). I'll save my pity, though if you want it, say so. Because I can and will pity you all as much, or more, than you could possibly imagine.
I voted for and campaigned for last year's Prop. 1. I voted for and campaigned for this year's Prop. 1. And right now, I couldn't be more happy or relieved that a ballot measure I had supported ended up failing.
In retrospect, I'm embarrassed for being in the tank for Roads&Transit, and that I ever swallowed the argument that the legislature would never let Sound Transit back on the ballot on its own. And I feel like all the environmental groups who backed last year's version are due for a little soul-searching.
That said, it was backers of last year's Prop. 1 who fought behind the scenes to get this year's Prop. 1 on the ballot, and then campaigned for it once it was on the ballot. So these people have a hell of a lot more to be proud of right now, than ashamed of.
yea, you guys called that one. i was really pissed off last year when prop 1 failed and i hated every voter in the RTID for defeating it when i stood on packed busses for long commutes. i didn't think that they would come back with this measure so soon and with so many improvements (even thought people said they would), but yea i got that one wrong. so i went out and canvassed and called for prop 1 this year and i went ballistic when dwight pelz called it for us. thank you seattle, for being smarter than i am.
Yay Stranger!
Roads and Transit dead. Yay!
Rails and busses goes on the ballot. YAy!
And wins. Yay!
We pause in our desperate swimming to an ever-receding shore to say thank you Stranger!
I'm glad I supported prop. 1 last year, but I'm happier it passed this year than last year.
If you never say no, the politicians will walk all over you. Stay vigilant, but start thinking of the next place we can move forward with sensible transportation solutions. The people are largely with us.... and against more roads.
I don't apologize for supporting Prop. 1 last year, but I apologize for doubting prop 1 could pass this year.
I don't know if this would have passed by as much in 2004, I think Obama had as much to do with it as anything, and it was far from obvious in November 2007 that Obama would be the candidate.
ECB, we were there with you from the day after Prop. 1 failed last year. Posts like this do not show the humility of the ones you linked to. Thank goodness you were right, because we did end up getting a stellar package and a strong mandate for transit. What a really jerky post: We said we were wrong, why are you gloating?
Look, we weren't the no campaign. Most of us volunteered many, many hours to making sure the thing passed this year. I find your post tone deaf. We should be celebrating a great achievement that we all had a hand in -- not trying to prove that your crystal ball is as peak condition. You know, after we admitted it.
@10, you are rationalizing your mistaken political judgment.
Obama is not 15 points difference between this year and last year.
One possible comparison. A seattle parks levy passed with 54.5% of the vote in 2000, 59.5% of the vote in 2008.
Another way to look for an "Obama effect" would be to look at the precinct level between Transit Now in 2006 and ST in 2008. It isn't fifteen points.
The difference for ST was clearly getting rid of the bad road investments.
And you did say repeatedly that I-985 would "probably" pass... So on some days your crystal ball as murky as ours was?
I'm sure you had no small part in promoting Prop. 1 in the pages of The Stranger though -- and we can't thank you enough. Just be a gracious, humble victor to your *allies*.
After getting chided for suggesting we'd need the Stranger's help...
Of course, erasing my support of the Stranger's support was the fact that I prattled on and on at blogs about how the Sierra Club owed us a mailer and they sent out the most awesome mailer ever.
So, Mike O', I owe you a Portabello Sandwich and Sweet Potato Fries.
@12, oh JC, who cares? We did it!
Transit bloggers are happier than ever. Because yeah, now transit doesn't need to be married to roads. Transit passes at 60% even when it's expensive.
We are incredibly happy to be wrong! To have it be brought up after we've shown that humility though -- it's mean.
@12 read my post before arguing with what I said.
Yayyyy! Now we'll be able to get to the Redondo Heights Park and Ride and the Mountlake Terrace Transit Center in the center median of I-5, in STYLE! I'll be dreaming about it while I take a 50-minute bus ride to Ballard.
Have there been any posts about California's new high-speed rail that will connect, basically, all of California? The only problem with it is that lesbians and gays will probably have to sit on the back of the train. :(
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/map.htm
AJ, who are you? Josh Feit worked on the MTN campaign. The Stranger was of course going to be our friend -- why would we chide you about it?
With 60% passing though, it wasn't *just* the Sierra Club, The Stranger, or the P-I that did it. It's a thirst for transit that the public has. And that's great!
#17 - High speed rail in CA... yes!
http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/11/california-vote.html
I would like to apologize to Will in Seattle for ceaselessly hounding him over his prediction last year that if R&T failed, we'd have a transit bill this year. (Well, he said "February," but I won't quibble.)
He was right. I was wrong. There's a first time for everything.
@19, You may get high speed rail going 220mph to San Jose, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Diego, etc., but we're gonna get light rail going 55mph to Highline Community College in Des Moines, WA.
Seattle: 1, San Francisco: 0.
Smugness is a stinky cologne.
Kumbayadammit!
@3 - ivan, i think you meant to say "and we'll have our FEDERALLY-PAID-FOR roads".
It's a new day in America, and our US tax dollars are coming home.
and thanks, Big Sven.
look for more high speed rail on the West Coast as part of President Obama's Rebuilding America package.
America is BACK!
@jrrrl
Own Goal!
SF 100-nil
@16, I did read it.
You said "I think Obama had as much to do with it as anything" and I disagreed. It was the roads far more than anything.
@15, it does matter and it is not about you. Roads proponents did their best after Prop 1 to blame taxes, or that the voters wanted separate measures, or that it was too complicated, so that they could justify a later roads measure. We are hearing the same things now from various sources. It would be a huge waste of time and money to face another road expansion measure that would lose badly at the polls. So, let's face the facts about why ST/RTID lost, and why ST won. If we do so, then the next transportation measure is far more likely to respond to voter preferences, and accomplish something meaningful.
It would be pretty cool if we could partner with California and Oregon to expand a high-speed rail system going 220mph across the west coast. Even Amtrak Cascades only goes 79mph. Imagine 45 minutes from Seattle to Portland or 2.5 hours from Seattle to San Francisco. Imagine the reductions in greenhouse gases.
The 34-mile ST2 light rail expansion is going to cost $22.8 billion. The entire 700-mile California high speed rail system is going to cost $50 billion.
Big Sven--don't apologize to Will in Seattle. Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day.
Erica--What you said last year was what you HOPED would happen. It was not an informed opinion. The Stranger barely covers Sound Transit meetings if at all.
Can't you just be happy we won without saying "I told you so"? That is so Seattle Weekly...
Michael, I don't think we disagree. I do want to focus on what you're talking about, which is why I think this slog entry is tone deaf. We beat a big roads battle on the merits of transit. That's awesome!
You have a very weird tense going on. Are you saying someone still thinks we need to marry roads and transit? Are you saying that in the *future* we need transportation plans to focus on voter needs? The one that passed with 59% majority on Tuesday made the case about both of those points. Yeah, of course.
Oops...even a broken clock is RIGHT twice a day.
@30, what prompted me to comment was the idea that the difference between 2007 and 2008 was Obama. Obama helped, but he was not the difference. I pointed to some data that might help answer that question.
And yes, I am pointing to the future. In the next year, there will be a number of issues related to transportation and global warming. How to resolve Metro's funding crisis, what to do about deteriorating roads and bridges, how to hit state carbon reduction targets, governance, tolling policy, Alaska Way Viaduct, 520, and revenue shortfalls that affect previously approved road expansion projects. Understanding what the voters care about, and what motivates them, makes a difference. Many transit bloggers urged a position in 2007 based on faulty political analysis. Hey, everybody makes mistakes. But let's not make another mistake by saying that "it was Obama as much as anything." Obama wasn't the difference between 2007 and 2008. It was voter opposition to climate changing highways.
@30, what prompted me to comment was the idea that the difference between 2007 and 2008 was Obama. Obama helped, but he was not the difference. I pointed to some data that might help answer that question.
And yes, I am pointing to the future. In the next year, there will be a number of issues related to transportation and global warming. How to resolve Metro's funding crisis, what to do about deteriorating roads and bridges, how to hit state carbon reduction targets, governance, tolling policy, Alaska Way Viaduct, 520, and revenue shortfalls that affect previously approved road expansion projects. Understanding what the voters care about, and what motivates them, makes a difference. Many transit bloggers urged a position in 2007 based on faulty political analysis. Hey, everybody makes mistakes. But let's not make another mistake by saying that "it was Obama as much as anything." Obama wasn't the difference between 2007 and 2008. It was voter opposition to climate changing highways.
If it's a half a mile of writing, it's gotta be ECB.
I read two lines, then it all reads like the teacher from The Peanuts (waa wa wa wa wa wa wa).
ECB, people are ALLOWED to disagree with you, you don't need to rebuttle every fucking point they make!
I'm so glad we're fighting amongst ourselves again. "Who loves public transit more?" "I do." "Fuck you, I love public transit more!"
The external enemy is vanquished, and we can afford the luxury of debating how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. These are the salad days, ladies and gentlemen. Drink deep.
Homo Will is right. Don't reply (as I sometimes do) to each point, just let people get a few out and then reply generically to any glaring errors, while not challenging critiques. It's not a journal in writing class, it's a SLOG.
Hey Michael, I'm going to say, whatever you think did it for prop. 1 this year (I feel it was a environmental concerns, gas prices, and massive progressive turnout), let's not do these things on odd election years. Let's just not.
Just to be clear, I don't think Roads & Transit would have passed this year either. I hope you don't think that's what I'm saying. I do believe what made that plan lose was being (rightly) attacked from so many different angles from both conservatives and proud progressives. It was a very cynical and political plan and I don't believe that an Obama election would have helped it much.
But yeah, what a lot of people said is that legislature and the governor would twist some arms to see it not get on the ballot this year. This was the "common wisdom" from some transit bloggers and the TCC, and Horse's Ass and others. I know that Mayor Nickels really fought hard for it to get on the ballot -- you can see the ST board meetings online. So one of two things happened. The/our "common wisdom" was either wrong or the people changed the "common wisdom." I'm not sure if anyone knows which it is. Really, either way, we were wrong in retrospect.
But come on, we're adults here. Not everything is black and white. There is a lot of context here. I don't know if there was ever a huge question that transit on its own would pass, but there was questions whether the board would let any new plan come back to the ballot. And there was absolutely no certainty that things were going to sail back on the ballot. And I'm not talking on election day 2007, I'm talking about four months ago in July -- things still weren't anywhere near certain.
Since early 2008 the ST board had been talking about much smaller plans that didn't reach Lynnwood or Overlake. Those plans would have lost Lynnwood, maybe East King. They may not have made it to the ballot. They may not have passed.
Look, the fifteen year plan we approved was announced to the public in the board meeting on July 10. Two weeks later it was approved by the board to go to ballot:
http://seattletransitblog.com/2008/07/24/st2-fifteen-year-plan-to-go-to-ballot/
That was nearly the deadline to place things on the ballot. It was last minute. The original schedule was to get a plan on the ballot in March or April. The plans back then were much smaller, and some that had far more Bus Rapid Transit (diesel) and significantly less green rail. And we did get less light rail than last time. (The sacrifice is worth it since the completion time is so much quicker and pretty much guarantees more Seattle rail once we do expand North, East, and South.)
But look, you can't sit back with your arms folded and think the prescience some had made this thing swoop down on the ballot smiling. :) It really didn't. I'm happy I was wrong about the common wisdom last year. And it's awesome we did have strong leaders like Mayor Nickels and Snohomish Executive Reardon push for a great plan at such a fast pace.
In the future, things should be easier since Olympia should understand that transit is a popular thing down here. And roads won't be tied to transit. Great news for all of us. :)
I'm way late to this party, but I owe apologies on this issue to Erica, Josh, and even to Will. Congratulations on holding out for better and getting it!