Stefan responded below to my earlier musings on challenges facing the regional discourse on the RTID-Sound Transit joint ballot measure. Stefan, as regular readers of Sound Politics know full well, will not soon be accused of favoring Sound Transit's light rail program. And in all fairness, neither will many a Sound Politics reader.
My purpose in noting the difference between how the right and the left talk about this issue was to raise the notion that despite the imperfections of being coupled with Sound Transit, the RTID is the best chance conservatives have, likely for quite some time, to support the road construction they want in the Puget Sound region. My purpose was not to be a salesman for light rail, which is an effort only a fool would attempt with a conservative crowd.
One of my main points was that supporters of greater spending on roads (which includes many local conservatives) are going to be hard pressed to find a more roads friendly assemblage than the RTID portion of the package. That may not be saying much in the view of many conservatives given the combination with Sound Transit, but welcome to living in the greater Seattle area. This is the same region that at one point was moronically working on both the monorail and light rail. Thus there is good reason, however flawed in idealism it may be, to the state saying vote up or down on the package. Our anemic ability as a region to act decisively has earned us such a circumstance.
My argument is that conservatives would be foolish to turn their back on RTID because of the Sound Transit component. I'm not making any effort to convince readers of Sound Politics, or Stefan, to embrace light rail on the merits. Most light rail opponents dislike light rail period, for a number of reasons, no matter what cute cost-benefit analyses or other such spreadsheets one might trot out to validate the expense. The point is this may be the best chance for road backers to get the construction they want. I have much more faith in the RTID leadership, which is actually skewed away from Seattle on the basis of proportional representation, preparing a measure going to a vote of the people than I do a Democratic legislature, or even another regional body, handling the issue.
Here is where we get to a serious rub. I'm pointing out the need for some political expediency. Conservatives dislike mass transit; liberals love it. We live in a region where our local transportation votes are going to lean liberal because of the presence of Seattle, and the increasing Democratic tilt in suburban areas immediately outside Seattle as well. Some will say local voters don't really want lots of transit, they just want roads, and don't want to pay a lot more for them. Really? Why do local measures to expand transit keep getting approved? Why did the Puget Sound region crush initiative I-912? Why did I-776 fail convincingly inside the Sound Transit taxing district (which is most of where the voters on next November's ballot measure live)? The joint ballot might well sink under its own weight, but those expecting an anti-transit vote to carry the day in the greater Seattle area will be left waiting for quite some time.
If we want road construction, we're going to have to live with paying for mass transit at the same time. The backlog of Puget Sound area projects is so great the state is not going to pay for anymore so we have to approve the construction locally. I'm not saying conservatives should jump for joy about it, but it is reality, and lack of attention to that is the kind of ignorance of the modern political paradigm in the region that has cost the GOP a host of suburban legislative seats. If we don't take this road building option, I for one have no faith we'll get a better outcome in road construction anytime soon, particularly given the sustained inflation for such projects that has steadily wrecked our purchasing power as a region as this debate has worn on interminably.
In the bigger picture, this ballot measure touches on a broader problem for conservatives: what the heck are we for when it comes to transportation? I've argued before the "just say no" position doesn't sell anymore. If conservatives ever want to start winning competitive partisan races in this area with any regularity they need to do a better job of actually speaking to the issues voters care about. That's my point in saying the RTID shouldn't be so quickly thrown under the bus (lame pun intended). Automatically voting "no" to the joint ballot because one doesn't like Sound Transit is not without merit in the abstract, but in terms of realism in achieving local road construction, and in GOP hopes of being relevant to the region, it's a loser.
All that being said, let me add one caveat to all the above. Commenter "swatter" at my original thread Stefan responded to accused me of saying this joint ballot measure should be approved "sight unseen." Um, no. Give the RTID and Sound Transit proposals thorough review. They're regularly covered in the press, which will only increase in the coming months. One can also review the plans for Sound Transit and RTID here and here respectively. By all means make an educated decision on the matter. The contents of the measure are set to be tweaked and finalized in the coming months so you'll have to be blind and deaf to miss it in the news, especially since it's likely to be one of the more prominent items on the local November ballot.
****
Footnote: For those looking for a defense of light rail, the one thing I will take the time to say is that in the very big picture we live in a region with serious limitations on land use due to large bodies of water and a Growth Management Act that is here to stay. We have neither the space in land nor the political will to build our way out of congestion with road construction alone. Light rail is intended to be a long-term solution for that problem, which will only increase as our region's population density amplifies. Moreover, those same land limitations mean reliance on bus-rapid-transit (BRT) options is equally doomed as a primary mass transit option. HOV lanes on I-5 and the streets of downtown Seattle are already clogged with buses during rush hour. Where then are we going to put a huge increase for BRT? In locations like 405 where HOV lanes are underutilized by comparison such proposals can work. Elsewhere, not so much.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 12, 2006 07:31 AM | Email ThisYou hit the nail on the head Eric.
If we have to have transit (and we do need to spend more money on transit) I would suggest a 80-20 split instead of a 50-50 split.
I also believe more people could be carpooling and the governments could be making more effort on those lines (I got hammered on this opinion a year or so ago).
The comment by others about the bottomless pit has merit, Eric.
And do you expect if I make comments on the ""PLAN"" anyone will listen? Read the Herald today about another scheme of ST (it may be the same one, I don't know because the same mouthpiece keeps talking about more and more project).
Posted by: swatter on December 12, 2006 09:29 AMHow about, "take whatever ST tells you it will cost, and multiply X 4"
or
"take their cost number, multiply x 4, then add 8% interest onto it, divide by # of taxpayers, and voila, some $5,000 for every taxpayer from now to infinity..."
Light rail solves nothing of any kind, regardless of the land use or GMA issues.
Where has it succeeded? Portland has light rail, and by every measure, even though they lack the same geographical constraints of Seattle, their congestion is WORSE then Seattle's. LA has it; NY has it… and their traffic scenarios are all nightmares..
So, in the end, I must advocate for the exact opposite. Going along with rape merely validates it... it doesn't make us any less the victim.
The Shark and righton@6 are on target. Sadly, you are not.
Wasn't it something like $1.8 billion for 21 miles? And then, by golly, it wound up at 14 miles for $4 Billion? And the State Supreme Court went along with that robbery, telling us that, in effect, this kind of lying and robbery by an agency was perfectly legal?
And you think we should give these criminals a second chance?
You have far too much faith in this area of government, Eric... far too much.
Posted by: Hinton on December 12, 2006 12:16 PMUh . . . somebody (Hinton) doesn't have a clue . . ..
Posted by: lawyer Pete on December 12, 2006 01:19 PMExactly right, I have been painted as anti-transit when I ask the simple question: Wouldn't it be a better investment of the region's resources to spend the dollars that ST is spending on Tacoma Link light rail to provide bus service throughout Pierce County, even if it means foregoing the Federal dollars that are tied to the light rail implementation? Does that question manifest a dislike for mass transit?
Posted by: JDH on December 12, 2006 03:01 PM
There is a playbook for how ST's PR folks deal with on-line critics. It is easy to tell when someone has posted some valid objection to something ST is up to. First, that screen name will be labeled anti-transit and called a "Bush lover." The idea is to demonize - to categorize the critic as "the other." It is a fascist tactic (the Jews were labeled and caricatured in Nazi Germany, to devastating effect - the mainstream public there actually thought of them as subhuman).
If the criticism of ST is particularly solid, the level of personal animus and vitriol directed at the screen name increases dramatically. The response to really good arguments is exclusively personal (the merits of the criticism are ignored completely).
The nature of the retort from the ST defender is a good indication of how strong the attack on ST's behavior is. ST takes on-line criticism seriously.
What will probably happen in the near term is that people will see the price tag on the RTID on the ballot and vote it down.
As a result, road construction will drop in another few years, unless I am reading the public sentiments wrong. Rumor is that this may be Sims' last term, but that won't change the mindset of the politicians here. And so it goes...
1. What is the most DENSELY populated urban area in the U.S.? Los Angeles, CA (remember, NYCity is only part of its "urban area" which needs to be considered for transportation planning).
2. Is sprawl eating up all of the U.S.' open land? Excluding Alaska, urban area takes up only 4.2% of the other 49 states' land area. The percentage that is farm, forest, or open space is 92.9%.
3. Which mode of transit is more popular, light rail or freeway (measured in passenger miles per route mile)? 1998 data show the most popular light rail line being San Diego at 8,664 and a U.S. average of 4,620 where light rail exists, versus freeway average of 23,724. Clearly cars are more popular.
4. In the transit heaven of New York City, which system delivers more transportation, ALL transit or automobiles? Again using 1998 numbers, transit provides about 978 annual miles per capita, while automobiles provide 9,170 annual miles per capita.
Build light rail --> starve the bus system, decrease flexibility as the community evolves, saddle yourselves with endless taxes to subsidize operation, and the frosting on the cake...INCREASED CONGESTION!
I'm a structural engineer, live in Portland, and just drove home from Seattle tonight (and have done this a lot over the last 8 years watching your congestion build). In my business, we're not allowed to ignore the facts since gravity is not swayed by political correctness. Too bad control of traffic engineering has been taken over by "activists" who want to tell us how they believe we should live. Apparently they know my family's needs and wants better than I do.
Posted by: Larry Oeth on December 12, 2006 09:58 PMIt warms my heart to see so many of you refusing to discuss Eric's central question. We must have a balance between transit and roads. We simply do not have the ability or will to build our way out of congestion for our automobiles. We probably can't even build enough roads to handle our 2X population growth in the next 20 years.
So we must build transit and roads. What Mr. Niles and others ignore is that developers love rail. They build housing density near stations. People want to live there and not drive a car. If any of you know a developer, ask them if they would prefer to build a project near A) A freeway, B) A bus line, or C) a rail station.
Not rocket science folks, despite the misleading rhetoric. If you want to ensure Republican failure in the future, vote against transit. Most of the people who move here from other places with rail will look at you like you are crazy.
Posted by: fine tooth comb on December 13, 2006 12:37 AMOne of the primary reasons to read this book and have FACT ready is that one day they will come to devistate YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD and you better be ready to confront them with facts. The APA recomends that their members purchase and read this book so that they are not "blind sided" by informed persons that show up to their "dog and pony shows" that they call Public Outreach sessions or Open Houses.
Posted by: JDH on December 13, 2006 07:26 AMInteresting that you seem to ignore my suggestion of 80% roads to 20% transit.
You also seem to want to ignore the Freeman proposal where an additional north-south highway east of Bellevue would help reduce congestion 20-25%, while the same money in transit only reduces about 5%. Freeman also states realistically that more is needed.
Too bad folks like you didn't allow that highway be built when it was first proposed and would cost half as much. Now, we are still having to get that highway built and are falling further behind.
comb, 80-20, take it or leave it!!
Posted by: swatter on December 13, 2006 07:34 AMIt warms my heart to see so many of you refusing to discuss Eric's central question. We must have a balance between transit and roads. We simply do not have the ability or will to build our way out of congestion for our automobiles. We probably can't even build enough roads to handle our 2X population growth in the next 20 years. - I also had a fair idea that my dog cannot live forever, did that prevent me from taking her to the vet when she was threatened with a life threatening illness? Nice soundbite but it doesn't work when you are dealing with people who use their brains to think through statements like that one.
So we must build transit and roads. What Mr. Niles and others ignore is that developers love rail. They build housing density near stations. People want to live there and not drive a car. If any of you know a developer, ask them if they would prefer to build a project near A) A freeway, B) A bus line, or C) a rail station. - Only when they are induced by heavy Government subsidies. Case in point, Tacoma where every one of the condo projects along the Light Rail line is inhabited by FREE LOADERS who pay no real estate taxes for ten years plus get other goodies thanks to the politicians giving away the money of the taxpaying residents of Tacoma (such as my family and I)to pay for their fire, police, refuse etc etc etc. By the way the developers who benefit from this are none other than Family and close Business Associates of a certain cabal of Tacoma and Pierce County's elected and appointed officials.
Not rocket science folks, despite the misleading rhetoric. If you want to ensure Republican failure in the future, vote against transit. Most of the people who move here from other places with rail will look at you like you are crazy. - I don't really care, nor do I pay attention to what people who are driven by emotion think, because for the most part they don't think, they rely on their feelings.
Just imagine what kind of bus service there could be with the money that is being spent on ST. It might actually make riding the bus convenient enough where people could get there in relatively the same time as driving. That is something which will actually reduce congestion as more people choose transit.
Posted by: Palouse on December 13, 2006 03:59 PMThe only way to "conserve" a decent standard of living for the future is to build a transportation system built around public transit and not roads and the automobile.
Time to give up the freeway fantasies.
Posted by: Richard Campbell on December 13, 2006 09:08 PMIf you want to build the next big road projects in the region, they'll need to ride on support for light rail.
If you want all buses and not light rail, you are way too late. And if you oppose light rail now on this idea you will not get more buses, or anything else, anytime soon.
And by the time the fight you've started ends 20 years from now, light rail will still be on the table but everything you've held up will cost a ton more. And we'll be voting for about the same thing then that we've supposed to vote on in 2007.
It might be nice to have a revolution and turn everything on a perfect path. But that perfect path does not exist because next to no one can agree on one.
The only responsible thing to do is to move forward with what we can do next. That means light rail and better roads now.
The arguements against both are hyped to the max. The choices that are about to appear on the ballot are the most reasonable and balanced we've seen in decades.
Posted by: thor on December 18, 2006 07:43 PM