Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« "Holy Hell" | So Long Watson! »

Thursday, October 25, 2007

November 7, 2007

posted by on October 25 at 12:29 PM

I wonder what all the centrist, but-transit-without-roads-just-isn’t-realistic Seattle editorial writers, bloggers and erstwhile environmentalists who say the roads and transit proposal is the “best we’re ever going to get” are going to say when Prop. 1 fails, as a recent King 5 poll indicates it will? Will they band together and fight for a new light rail package that doesn’t include sprawl-inducing highway expansion—or, as their defeatist endorsements of Prop. 1 indicate, will they just give up?

Oh, and in totally unrelated news, a major new report by the UN Environment Programme concluded that unsustainable development is “putting humanity at risk.”

RSS icon Comments


Sweet! See you on the bus in 2025!

Posted by Brian | October 25, 2007 12:27 PM

I think they'll simply continue to try and make Lycra-wearing douchebags realize that, since nobody's inventing cars that run on their smug self-righteousness (or other renewable fuels), we're stuck with a petroleum-based economy for another 35-50 years.

Posted by Ziggity | October 25, 2007 12:28 PM

Plus, how the hell do you interpret a dead-even poll (37% undecided, 32% fail, 30% pass) as an indication of anything? God, Mudede does more insightful research than that.

Posted by Ziggity | October 25, 2007 12:32 PM

Wow, snide much? The SECB's own endorsement article called the vote on RTID Prop 1 "the most strenuous brain bender of all." By mocking an argument you agonized over, you're really mocking yourself.

Posted by lostboy | October 25, 2007 12:34 PM

@3 - thank you. For a brief moment there, I had forgotten to actually read whatever sources ECB cites to see how she screwed it up this time. And sure enough ...

Posted by tsm | October 25, 2007 12:36 PM

Read this Crosscut article on Prop. 1 that simply articulates several of the reasons why I will vote yes.

Posted by oh really | October 25, 2007 12:36 PM

Is this a texas thing? Find yourself fighting against a world full of defeatist auto-fascists that don't have the guts to live to your ideal?

Seriously. You sound more and more like a bushian ideologue every day.

Posted by erica "coulter' barnett | October 25, 2007 12:37 PM

Erica, Josh and the Sierra Club are exaggerating their influence a bit. If R&T fails, the credit will go to Frank Blethen, Kemper Freeman, Jim MacIsaac, and the rest of the asphalt mafia.

Given that frame, the legislature is extremely unlikely to let ST back to the ballot anytime soon. I'd suggest you useful idiots at the Stranger get ready instead to start endorsing the Seattle district candidate to go be on the end of losing votes at the new regional transportation commission.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 25, 2007 12:39 PM

Dude, most people hate mass transit. Especially the eastsider's that don't want to pay for shit in Seattle, that doesn't help them get TO Seattle.

I mean, come on. Little steps for christsake. The people on the Eastside aren't going to give up their cars. Not gonna happen. They want more roads. Give it to them. Get some sweet transit for us. Maybe we can get a better deal, but how much longer and more "research" money is that? I mean, they have been "studying" on how to fix 520 for like 20 goddamn years. And millions of tax dollars. How long are we gonna hold out until the eastside just decides they want to foot the bill for really good transit? Cause we'll be waiting a long ass time, I can tell you that.

Grow a pair, suck it up, and add some damn roads. Its not like this is Cali, and we have HUGE highways, cause we don't. And people dont care that added roads doesnt ease congestion. They won't buy it everytime I try to tell them. So yeah. Fuck. Add the roads. Let them sit in traffic during construction. They WANT IT.

Posted by Original Monique | October 25, 2007 12:40 PM

Once again, Erica telling it like it is.

Well, answer the question, if it goes down, is the plan to give up, or get to work on a plan that actually does something about global warming?

The anti-tax folks will always create a base of opposition, but it is the roads that dragged this down with liberal voters. You know, the people that pass tax measures around here. Create something that appeals to them, something that actually addresses global warming, and we can do much better than Prop. 1.

Posted by rtidstinks | October 25, 2007 12:45 PM

And if this fails Erica,

Then I guess we get to go another 4 fucking years without anything being added, then more talks about transit, no one is happy, we bitch about not making progress, people get annoyed (why oh why can't our politians do anything!), they put together watered down legislation to appease everyone outside the city, then that gets rejected cause its not 'good enough'.

Repeat 3x, then have them do it without voter approval (hello Mariners and Seahawks Stadium!) and people get mad, but use the transit anyway. Ah predictable Seattle. =)

Posted by Original Monique | October 25, 2007 12:46 PM

If I was Dictator of America I would ban the construction of ANY new roads in the US. I would only allow the building of rapid-mass transit options. THAT is the only way we have ANY chance of starting the reversal of our "auto" culture. Cut the drug off cold turkey.

We are addicted to gas/cars. You want to be cured; STOP cold turkey and have options. As long as we continue to build any additional roads mass-transit will never be allowed the opportunity to become the main form of transportation for everyone. Everytime we build additional roads we are just feeding the junkies.

Frankly, we are all fucked: Humanity extinct in 100 years.

Posted by Just Me | October 25, 2007 12:54 PM

Robert Moses, Mayor Richard Daley, the First - where are you? Thankfully, you did not doorbell everyone in your respective cities before performing the Greater Good for the Greater Number.

"This" will still be going on 50 years from now and Seattle will be known as "Stasis City." Everyone will still own their precious behemoths, only they will be stranded in them in a coagulated traffic artery subsisting on stale Chitos and rusty water drained from their radiators. Bon chance. Go ahead - Vote No - promulgate stagnation.

Posted by RHETT ORACLE | October 25, 2007 1:01 PM

The centrists already banded together; they created a proposal called a compromise that included things the people on both sides of the debate want, but is not exactly what anybody wanted.

So if a (much scaled back, I'm sure) proposal comes back next year, NO many centrists will NOT be there, because a) some of them wanted roads and b) some of them will be burned out on the whining of the region and our inability to get anything done.

The more apt question is, who will win: the band of pro-transit zealots or the band of pro-roads zealots? Compromise is over after this for a minimum of 10 years; it's every transportation proposal for itself.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 25, 2007 1:03 PM

Oh, and by "next year" I mean in 10-40 years. There will be no proposals next year; it takes YEARS to write these things.

Posted by exelizabeth | October 25, 2007 1:05 PM

As one of the folks quoted, my response is a big yes. But, I don't think light rail has much of a change now (even on its own) after Ron Sims bailed on it and The Stranger and the Sierra Club are against most of the light rail package that is CURRENTLY on the ballot.

More process, more delays.

Posted by Will of Horse's Ass | October 25, 2007 1:11 PM

As said in 3 and 5, the poll ECB links to indicates a dead heat. Her Slog post not only dumbs down the debate, but is wrong. Or perhaps she has a sixth sense and knows for certain that 1) Proposition 1 will fail and 2) there will be a ST-only proposition on the ballot in 2008, when the Gov and many state legislators are up for re-election.

You can make a case to vote against Prop. 1, but don't dumb it down and deny there aren't any risks in doing so.

Posted by Ebenezer | October 25, 2007 1:16 PM


Here's a much better link to the poll itself:


Yes, I'll support a transit measure wherever and whenever it occurs. It'll just be a long ways down the road, and it'll lose.

Here's a question right back at you: are the Prop. 1 opponents going to turn around and support a measure that looks exactly like ST2, since Ron Sims and the Sierra Club obviously dislike it so much? Or are they going to hold out for the perfect rail plan?

Posted by MHD | October 25, 2007 1:19 PM

Anyone else notice the sample size on that poll? 586 "likely or actual" voters out of the entire RTID. Uh.

Posted by Cow | October 25, 2007 1:28 PM

As a 5 time loser who voted "yes" on the Monorail every Goddamn time, you can bet your sweet britches not a Goddamn thing will happen if Prop 1 goes down in flames. It seems this issue runs in about a 20 year cycle--maybe my kids will get to ride light rail across Lake Washington when they reach their 30's.

Apathy will win. And guess what geniuses, you're much more likely to end up with the roads and not the transit next time.

Posted by Westside forever | October 25, 2007 1:34 PM

If it fails, the current Sound Transit build is the only one we'll ever get. There will be no other proposals, not serious ones that ever make it to the ballot. Thirty years will pass. Again.

Posted by Fnarf | October 25, 2007 1:38 PM

Well, I've already sent in my Yes vote. Thanks but no thanks to the Stranger editorial board.

Posted by Greg | October 25, 2007 1:46 PM

erica "coulter" barnett @7:

Is this a texas thing? Find yourself fighting against a world full of defeatist auto-fascists that don't have the guts to live to your ideal?

Seriously. You sound more and more like a bushian ideologue every day.

I'm coming at the Ann Coulter comparison from a somewhat different angle. How to explain the depths to which Erica Barnett and her colleague Josh Feit have sunk? Here's my take:

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 25, 2007 1:46 PM

Population of Seattle: 600,000
People of the rest of Washington: 5,800,000
Outstaters who take direction from the Slog: 4

If this fails, good luck with the "February 2008" transit proposal.

24/48 hours until I can vote "yes" for Prop 1... 24/48 hours until I can vote "yes" for Prop 1... 24/48 hours until I can vote "yes" for Prop 1...

Posted by Big Sven | October 25, 2007 1:48 PM

I'll be there for the Feb 2008 vote for ST2.1 - just not for the insane RTID/ST package we only get one vote up or down on.

Pollution has consequences. Especially when the RTID/ST2 would increase air pollution, water pollution, land pollution and reduce wetlands and fish habitat. Not to mention increasing global warming emissions and decreasing the percentage of transit to single-occupancy vehicles.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 25, 2007 1:49 PM

and @8, why no mention of me and Sierra Club? we're why you're more than 20 points down.

and why you didn't get endorsed in oh so many pro-environment pro-transit Dem districts.

Look into that space where you cannot go - you will see me staring back at you.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 25, 2007 1:51 PM

The supposedly already funded segment to the UW is not scheduled to be done until 2016. The next piece under the UW won't be done before 2018. It is not like they are going to rip up the floating bridge next year to start building to Bellevue.

Why is it so crucial to put a fifty year funding plan with no subsequent controls in action now? I can see why ST wants it, but it doesn't seem prudent.

ST should be able to be ready for the next leg under the UW in 2016 and funding it by 2009 or 2010 would seem in plenty of time.

30% favorable at this time with a 4% +/-doesn't bode well for passage but the pro side has a lot of vested dollars to be spent.

Posted by whatever | October 25, 2007 1:53 PM


Didn't want to confuse people between sensible Will from HorsesAss, and Will from Fremont with his insane conviction in a revote that won't happen and wouldn't pass anyway.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 25, 2007 1:57 PM

Of all the arguments for voting for Prop. 1, the one I have the hardest time entertaining seriously is the "One time only!" declaration. Transit and transportation are now more than ever high priority topics because there's serious pressure from a variety of vectors. The odds of them simply falling off anyone's radar are vanishingly small.

Posted by MvB | October 25, 2007 1:58 PM

I think the question here, ECB, is whether or not The Stranger, The Sierra Club and all of those who want things to go only their way or the highway (sorry) on the RTID will fight to get transit on the ballot, on its own, next year (or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that, or the year after that)?

Or, more likely, do you think the Kemper Freemans of the region will take their big bucks away from the Sierra Club to run a massive campaign and get the roads built anyway while leaving us transit lovers in a much worse situation than we will be in if this thing passes.

Oh wait, the Sierra Club is also ALSO against ST2AGAINST ST2.

The thing is, we HAVE done the work and gotten an expansion of light rail that is larger than all the light rail in Portland, OR (not to mention the other transit improvements included in the ROADS portion of the bill).

So what will you do to improve this city? I have yet to see any good ideas come out of The Stranger...

Posted by Charlie | October 25, 2007 2:00 PM

Whatever @28,

Because if we vote yes, the funds start accumulating in the piggy bank now. Plus, there's tons more process (EIS, etc) if we're going to be ready to go.

If ST2 hit the ballot before 2010, and passed, that wouldn't be a big deal. I just don't think that would happen.

Posted by MHD | October 25, 2007 2:01 PM

I can't believe that I find myself in greater agreement with Chris Vance than the Sierra Club, but that just shows how asinine the latter has become over the roads and transit measure.

To Will (and all the other Seattle elitists worrying about hypothetical polar bears): Your fantasy wonderland of a Proposition 2 in 2008, or even 2009, has nothing in common with reality. Why don't you get in your Prius, drive over to the Eastside, and find out what people in Newcastle think about widening 405. I have to warn you, though, it's going to take an hour or two to get there. Especially this time of day.

Posted by Greg | October 25, 2007 2:05 PM

What a coincidence. Both Erica C. Barnett and her soulmate Joni Balter just happen to be engaging in the same slimy political tactic today.

That tactic is to repeatedly brand your political foe as a loser, no matter how little evidence you have to substantiate it. Just like the Hillary campaign is trying to create an air of inevitability, Erica and Joni are desperately straining to create an air of inevitable defeat. At least, the Hillary campaign has real and credible poll numbers to support their case. Here's the headline of Balter's Seattle Times column today:
After the defeat of Proposition 1

Wherein she writes: And word on the street is it is probably going down.

Huh? What street is this? Kemper Freeman Drive? Taking Joni Balter's word on the fate of a transit measure is a bit like taking Karl Rove's word on Ann Richards's sexual orientation or John Kerry's service in Vietnam. Not exactly an impartial source.

What's particularly shameless about Balter's column is that she attempts to hold out the false hope for a smaller, supposedly more reasonable light rail package to emerge if this goes down:

The best solution might be to pick the next light-rail line that has the most ridership potential and lots of support, say University District to Northgate or Seattle to the Eastside. That way, the current Sound Transit project might be up and running and people will be more comfortable voting for additional rail mileage.

In the small chance that such a package did come back in the next few years, Balter would be the first writer condemning it as too expensive and touting the cost-effectiveness of "bus rapid transit."

Posted by cressona | October 25, 2007 2:06 PM

Count me as one more "yes" vote. Anyone who thinks it's going to get any better than this is both unrealistic and incredibly naive about the way politics work in this state. Everything is a compromise. You take the good with the bad, or you just get the bad. How many times does that pattern have to play out before you get it? Wake up!!

Posted by Matthew | October 25, 2007 2:12 PM

Something else I find fascinating about this site's relentless spin. You'll recall during the viaduct campaign, Erica and gang couldn't stop lauding that new activist organization Friends of Seattle. Now that FoS has come out in favor of Roads & Transit, whaddayaknow? -- it's like they no longer exist in the Slog/Stranger universe. This from FoS's latest mailing:


FoS carefully weighed the Roads and Transit package. Indeed, FoS was disappointed to see the package include suburban highway expansion. But FoS was encouraged by RTID's pledge to implement congestion pricing. And on balance, the package's imperfections are outweighed by the improvements the package will deliver for Seattle - 50 new miles of light rail, a Capitol Hill-First Hill streetcar, new bus ramps from I-5 and the Spokane Street Viaduct, a two-way Mercer boulevard, and other mobility projects. Additionally, the package will finance a study of light rail expansion within the city of Seattle, including lines connecting Burien, West Seattle, Ballard, the U District, and downtown. That is the kind of transportation network that Seattle must build to achieve the Friends of Seattle vision of a Seattle that grows substantially yet becomes more livable as it densifies.

The only recent coverage of Friends of Seattle I could find from here was a post by one Dan Savage about their Seattle City Council endorsements.

There's a term I would give for Friends of Seattle's sudden disappearance from Stranger news, the Walt Crowley treatment. First Crowley died. Then only a couple weeks later, his brilliant pro-Prop. 1 piece appeared in the Sunday Times, and it was only then that Crowley was as good as dead in The Stranger's eyes. If you were only getting your second-hand news from Slog, you never would have known about Crowley's case for Roads & Transit.

Posted by cressona | October 25, 2007 2:18 PM

Whatever, I already voted No last week. As did a lot of other people I talked with - not Sierra Club, just average people in Wallingford and Fremont.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 25, 2007 2:21 PM

Lie all you want about the polling (a 2% difference between yes and no is a dead heat, particularly when 37% are undecided), I'm still voting yes.

Posted by Cascadian | October 25, 2007 2:25 PM

So Cressona still not answering any basic questions about the ST2 plan. Have you picked your next location? Apparently Portland light rail is "Poky" and not many jobs.

Rhett - Robert Moses ran his agency very much like ST. By reissuing bonds he kept his agency from expiring as was the intent of the legislature. Moses BTW built roads and bridges NOT transit.

Posted by whatever | October 25, 2007 2:34 PM

Umm, did I say Prop 1 "is the best we're ever going to get?" in that post? I flipped from 'yes' to 'undecided' over the last two weeks, partly following the Stranger's lead. And before that particular post, I had five that trashed RTID.

Posted by Carless in Seattle | October 25, 2007 2:40 PM

I do appreciate the traffic though!

Posted by Carless in Seattle | October 25, 2007 2:43 PM

will @ 36,

I already voted No last week. As did a lot of other people I talked with - not Sierra Club, just average people in Wallingford and Fremont.

What a surprise! People that will get little direct benefig from the package -- but will have to pay the taxes -- oppose it!

Next, with a straight face, Will and the Sierra Club will tell you that voters outside Seattle will vote for a Seattle-centric transit-only package.

Good luck with that.

Posted by MHD | October 25, 2007 2:45 PM

Wow, I've lost all remaining respect I had for ECB. I don't care what your position is on this, but don't call dedicated conservationists like Jessyn Farrell and Bill LaBorde, with whom you disagree on this particular ballot measure "erstwhile" enviros. Totally childish.

Posted by snock | October 25, 2007 2:46 PM

Diesel for buses 3.55 a gallon retail and rising meaning buses get more expensive to run as gasoline of all types gets more expensive. Fares have to rise eventually to cover costs.

Gasoline for cars: Now over 3.00/a gallon, probably going to 3.50-4.00 a gallon if oil prices stay above 90 dollars a barrell. Economic impact of rising gasoline prices hurts the working poor more than a .4 percent sales tax rise, especially with no viable and convienient transportation available to take its place. No alternative in the works due to Prop 1 failing.

Electricity from Hydro Dams for light rail lines: 7-15 cents a KWH.

Sound Transit\Metro Buses at rush hour: Standing room only at peak times. All park and ride lots are maxed out to capacity as soon as new parking structures are opened. Sounder Trains are standing room only on the Tacoma to Seattle runs.

There is a demand for mass transit of all types just as there is a demand for more roads of all types. We need both and thats why I will be voting for Prop 1.

1. People say this doesnt do enough here so we shouldnt vote for it. They try to make us think that the subway systems of NYC, Paris,were built in just a few years and somehow magically Seattle can build all of that in just 2-3 years. Try the last 100 years.

2. This plan is a start. We have to start somewhere otherwise we will never start at all and just keep talking about it.

3. Congestion will still be here even if this passes and gets built or if it doesnt pass. The light rail in the plan gives an alternative to sitting in that congestion.

4. The above facts are just something to think about when factoring in your decision, whatever you end up deciding to vote on it.

Posted by Brian in Seattle | October 25, 2007 3:15 PM

Erica, I'm sorry, that's just a terrible argument. You claim that somehow worrying that another transit vote won't happen precludes us from TRYING to make another transit vote happening if prop 1 fails. But that's silly--just because one thinks the prospects are slim for another vote does not mean one can't still try to make it happen if need be.

Posted by ben | October 25, 2007 3:16 PM

Erstwhile environmentalists? ECB shame on you. Jessyn Farrell and Bill LaBorde are good, decent environmentalists who have done far more for the conservation movement than deluded hipsters like you who sit in their Seattle-centric ivory towers and rail against anyone else who tries to make a difference.

Posted by Adam | October 25, 2007 3:33 PM

ECB is a fine environmentalist. And she's sticking with the majority of the environmentalists in Seattle on this issue.

It's so sad when pro-roads anti-enviros can't get the big picture and slam anyone who points out the Emperor has no clothes on. Just like RTID/ST2 is harmful to the environment.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 25, 2007 4:05 PM

A clarification, for those who are interested in clarification: The Sierra Club supports ST2. However, it does not support Prop 1, which chains ST2 to a massive highway expansion.

Please get your facts straight.

Posted by scotto | October 25, 2007 4:08 PM

Two things:

I know this makes me anti-environmental in the eyes of many (I am actually, as green as they come) but there are other problems in the world to be solved than just climate change. Voting against Prop. 1 because it harms the environment, in my view, makes you a one-issue voter, much like the right-wing wackos who vote for anti-choice candidates no matter who they are.

Second, who ever said that building light rail will help the environment? For one, a capitol project of that scope will spew out tons go carbon emissions. And just having light rail will not get rid of cars in this region. It's a piece of our transportation puzzle and along with it will be plenty of cars and trucks driving on roads that will be built one way or the other.

Posted by Charlie | October 25, 2007 4:13 PM

scotto @47:
I quote:

A Sierra Club leader took the rare step Thursday of criticizing part of Sound Transit's light-rail vision — a proposed track extension from the city of SeaTac south to Tacoma.

"I think it's not the most efficient use of tax dollars," local club Chairman Mike O'Brien said.
(,a href="">via)

Posted by Charlie | October 25, 2007 4:16 PM

will, what the hell happened to you?

I don't remember you always being such a trollish apologist. More and more the only posts I ever see from you are toe-sucking defenses of sloggers.

Posted by what the hell | October 25, 2007 4:17 PM

Jesus christ, ECB, is that horse high enough for you?

Posted by Andrew | October 25, 2007 4:24 PM

Undecideds break no. Get out the butter and jam, this baby’s toast.

Posted by Blob | October 25, 2007 4:52 PM

Will @ 46 Atleast Erica is a deluded are just deluded. have fun in your Freemont tower.

Posted by Adam | October 25, 2007 4:59 PM

Count me in as another Yes vote on Prop 1, and I live in Fremont just like Will!

Posted by Randy | October 25, 2007 4:59 PM

Of course, if it goes down, environmentalists will all unite in fighting for another transit measure. And, if it passes, we'll also unite to fight for system-wide congestion pricing and work to alter the RTID road projects that we all have concerns about.

But, that doesn't mean we'll get something better by rejecting this measure. Not in the near future anyway. If the only No message voters were hearing was the Sierra Club's concerns about global warming, I'd be sitting back to see what happens on Nov. 6 with the knowledge that we'll ultimately get the transit system we want with either outcome. But, as others have noted, that's not the No message most voters are hearing. They're mostly hearing the Kemper Freeman anti-transit arguments because he's the No messenger with the money to get his message out over the airwaves to rank and file voters.

It's not that we're defeatist, we're just genuinely and sincerely pessimistic about how decisionmakers will perceive a No vote. Most ST board members (many of whom were also behind RTID) will still want their road projects as much as they want ST2. So, they'll not be real enthusiastic about throwing ST back on the ballot by itself in February. And, with Kemper Freeman pretty much single-handedly funding the No campaign, the board and staff will hesitate to put ST2 back on the ballot so soon for fear that he'll just kill it again. Finally, Olympia will still be a hostile environment for ST, so the legislature will at least try to do something to undermine the agency, or at least prevent ST2 from going back on the ballot next year in an election year.

I've also heard talk about a King County Transportation Benefit District, but without ST board cooperation that will just be a roads and bus measure - no rail. ST's board won't go along because Pierce and Snohomish board members will be pissed about losing both their road and transit projects from a King County only measure.

But we won't give up. We never do. As much as my stomach turns every time I read Joni Balter talk about transportation, I do think she's right that the most likely outcome of a No vote is, after a 2-3 years of delay, a much smaller measure that's, again, roads and transit. We'll be in a good position to make sure the roads side of the measure will have a stronger focus on safety and infrastructure, but the transit side will also be drastically curtailed. This means we'll have to wait even longer - many years longer- to get a full build-out of ST. Remember ST2 is pretty much what's left over from the 1995 measure that was rejected by voters and then shrunken down to pass in 1996. (As much as I love the Sierra Club, I've never understood their argument that voting Prop. 1 down will lead to faster deployment of light rail).

Again, we'll join together with the Sierra Club and others to push for a better outcome than this, but the realities of local politics, state politics and a very wealthy roads lobby will conspire to make it very, very difficult for us to do something better. This is why I think we're better off approving Prop. 1 to get the light rail investment and then leveraging the coming realities of state and federal limits on carbon emissions to reduce the scope of the road projects and implement system-wide congestion pricing.

Posted by Bill LaBorde | October 25, 2007 5:30 PM

@49, Obviously, nothing is perfect, but the Club thinks ST2 is close enough to back -- I know the group who made the decision to oppose Prop 1, and why (the highways will make global warming worse). This is the same group who will decide to back ST2 when it returns.

Or, if you don't believe me, take a look at the Club's own policy statement :

...we support a fully-funded Sound Transit 2 plan and a regional transportation road package that prioritizes "fix-it-first" highway spending and projects that improve roads for transit and HOV use.
Posted by scotto | October 25, 2007 5:45 PM

Amen to that, Bill. There's also a lot of overlap between the projects needed to implement managed lanes and that needed to implement a 'true' BRT system.

Posted by Some Jerk | October 25, 2007 5:54 PM

Erica, where exactly is all this new traffic on these lanes going to come from when, as virtually everyone with any knowledge of the oil industry agrees (and that INCLUDES the oil execs) that we indeed face Peak Oil or may already be there, when we have every expectation that oil prices will continue a steady rise?

What your uninformed stance is going to bring us is a region that is not building the capacity and systems needed to actually get people out of their cars. How many times have you tried to explain to people the problems with buses?

You have never - once - publicly considered the issue of peak oil, high gas costs, and the need for sustainable alternatives in the debate over Prop 1. Those factors are extremely important because they all suggest that it is very unlikely the new roads would lead to a lot of new traffic - thus removing your main objection.

I am still absolutely stunned that you went ahead and opposed Prop 1 without knowing all the facts. I've grown to respect you and your reporting over the last 6 years, but you took a walk on this one.

Posted by eugene | October 25, 2007 10:50 PM

@58, we've still got a couple hundred years of coal. Can you say, "Coal to Liquid"?

Posted by scotto | October 26, 2007 9:28 AM

Eugene do you think just maybe other forms of energy will be used to move vehicles in the future? Alternative green means of producing electricity are already here and more and improved technologies are on the way. Even GM is working towards new hybrids and plug-ins. Toyota just showed a new prototype made with light weight material that will double the gas mileage.

Work on the West Coast Hydrogen Highway is progrressing (I'm not yet a fan ). With the best case numbers transit rail transit will be carrying maybe 10% of commuters by 2030. If our money and efforts were focused on getting vehicles to stop burning carbon based fuels we could do far more for the environment.

Posted by whatever | October 26, 2007 9:31 AM

Erica--you seem reluctant to engage. You post an item that calls good people "erstwhile environmentalists" and report a bullshit robo poll that you know has no credibility. But when asked to defend your positions you are stone silent. At least Josh does that.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 26, 2007 12:29 PM

Amazing. 61 convulsive posts (excluding RTIDstinks and Scotto) and not one with the slightest answer to a rational question: If Prop 1 fails, then what? Can it be that it's the pro side who are the willfully blind zealots --unwilling to analyze or question conventional assumptions? Who jump up and down like a bunch of children who can't have their toy train and don't care why?

Good job, Erica. You really kicked the environmental dittoheads where it hurts with this one.

Posted by Loewyputian | October 26, 2007 7:30 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).