An article in the Everett Herald says so.
It's possible. Even supporters of the roads & transit joint measure have to acknowledge it won't be an easy sell given the price tag.
Yet the arguments presented in this article don't tell the full tale. The crux of the thesis against the measure is said to be that it's "boring" and "expensive." True to a point, but the same arguments could be applied to the debate on I-912. That issue wasn't very titillating other than the public's general aversion to higher gas prices. It also wasn't very cheap. Yet, the effort to roll back the gas tax failed miserably at the ballot box; rejected by huge margins in the same region that will vote on the measure in question this fall.
As the Herald article discusses, the issue is likely to come down to the effectiveness the campaigns for and against the issue. If the I-912 campaign is any indicator, I suspect it will be closer than some skeptics think, but still dicey enough that supporters will have to wage a strong campaign to have a decent chance at success.
Posted by Eric Earling at July 15, 2007 01:05 PM | Email ThisWith regard to actually reducing congestion (which is the real issue if people are going to be honest) - what does this package do? Their big selling points are listed right in the article:
1. Widen 522 and build a US2 Bypass for..Monroe.
2. Widen SR9 from Snohomish to Lake Stevens.
3. Rebuild the ramps at the end of US2 trestle.
Those three ridiculously small projects are supposed to convince us to nod our heads excitedly and cheer in support of a $17.8 billion price tag? A price tag that will have very little success in reducing how much time we spend each day stuck in some of the most congested traffic in the country? Our issues traffic and congestion issues get bigger every day - and they want to rebuild a couple of exit ramps?
You have to wonder just how dumb they think we are; but rest assured they do. There is an entire document dedicated to voter survey results on this package and exactly how to 'sell' the concept based on the voters' responses. Voters do not love RTID, so they plan very clearly not to emphasize that part of the package. They discuss "selling it as a package" to increase support - because voters DO care about congestion.
Tiny problem, however. There is little to no reduction of congestion expected as a result of this package. Not in the immediate future, and factoring in population growth - little to none in the foreseeable future either. A tiny fraction of motorists will move to mass transit and off the roadways, approximately 3-5% projected. It is ridiculous to think the public is not going to recognize that reality when you are asking them to shell out $17.8 billion.
The voters may even approve a price tag like that one day, but I highly doubt it will be this particular package. They will need to revamp the concept to put the balance of funding toward actually reducing congestion and improving the roads system. I suspect they could even keep their RTID funding in there (and should); but it can't be the priority. The voters are too attuned to this issue to be snowed this time around.
MissO
There are reasonable arguments to be made for and against the November ballot measure, but your claim of "three ridiculously small projects" is totally off the mark. Those are big selling points for a significant part of Snohomish County voting on the measure and affected by those roads. They also happen to be among the most relevant projects to the Herald's core readership which is why they would be included in that article in such a fashion.
Widening 522 and Hwy 9 are large undertakings, long overdue, and not exactly the small potatoes you seem to describe. If you disagree, perhaps you could ask some people that live along those corridors. They're going to be prone to disagree with you. Maybe they won't vote for the measure, but they're hardly likely to claim those are "ridiculously small projects."
Posted by: Eric Earling on July 15, 2007 03:21 PMAs I mentioned in a previous comment thread, I got polled for this last month and the lady said nobody wanted to vote for it when polled because they hated that they had to vote for mass transit to get roads, and vice versa.
Posted by: Michele on July 15, 2007 03:30 PMRTID is NOT the priority in the current package - building out ST light rail to the Eastside IS the priority.
The idea in forcing a JOINT ballot measure was to have it made very clear that we're dealing with a SYSTEM here, not just one or another MODE of travel or one or another PROJECT.
Posted by: debo on July 15, 2007 04:36 PMThey opened a big new bridge on the Tacoma Narrows today. It took money to build it. It will make traffic better.
If people want the improvements, they'll pay for them. If they don't, no improvements.
It is really that simple.
Posted by: redflag on July 15, 2007 08:24 PMIn truth, we do need to think about this as a system, where all of the disparate parts are supposed to work TOGETHER. At present, coordination and synchronization are secondary to the needs of each individual agency ... But we have a fear of consolidation or centralization here in the NW that has stymied progress.
That's why Jarrett and I keep working on the governance (government) issues ... Not very titillating, but it's how we'll eventually make all the different modes work together. It's not about projects or modes ... it's about mobility. And frankly, that's not at all partisan ...
So, Smokie ... who are you?
Posted by: debo on July 15, 2007 08:26 PMParks and flood control - Haven't looked at 'em closely enough to form an opinion. I wouldn't vote to expand the county's parks system ... because it's all within cities. County government needs to focus on county functions ... and that's not an expansion of parks, IMHO. (But I did spend five years trying to broker agreement between the cities and county ... so I probably have a jaundiced view.)
The RTID/ST2 vote makes sense IF, and ONLY IF, we follow through with some consolidation of government(s) and some true performance measures for the system as a whole. That's where my focus has been for a couple of years now, and where it will stay. I am really intrigued by what we could gain if we only looked at this systemically .. We are horribly stuck in our little boxes, at present.
We can argue roads vs. transit for another couple of decades. Or we can re-structure how we view the system ... to a focus on MOBILITY ... and get better results.
What city are you associated with? 'Fess up. We've got a conversation going here ...
Posted by: debo on July 15, 2007 08:51 PMThe current 'plan' does not include consolidation of either authority or performance metrics. That awaits another day ... The County Executive is engaging in a future-trip re congestion pricing (or 'value pricing') that also awaits another day.
All of these elements - roads, transit, pricing - can play a part in the transportation SYSTEM. But right now, we have no mechanism to implement or hold anybody accountable for the performance of that system. I will continue to work on figuring out how we create that mechanism (government) and how we set the expectations (performance metrics) for it. The Stanton/Rice report suggested one approach, but it had serious flaws. Jarrett and I moved the parts around to the point that it could've worked ... but the session came to an end before we could rally necessary support. We'll go at it again next year ... and again and again ... until it passes.
In the meantime, it's also true that investment in infrastructure has tanked over the last few decades.
Posted by: debo on July 15, 2007 09:56 PMWe'll see about the buy-in. Yes, I agree that the "Transit Now" was a come-on that won't quite deliver as promised. But that's a good example of why we need to focus on creating a government that IS responsible for making the transportation system WORK.
Human endeavors- and civic work, in particular - are chronically messy. I would have preferred that we do this slightly differently, but ... it'll be okay with me if the ballot measure passes and then we deal with the remaining issues. Not ideal ... but okay.
It will NOT be okay with me if the ballot measure passes, and then nothing else happens.
Posted by: debo on July 15, 2007 11:02 PMNon-users of transit are sick and tired of supporting the users of transit through gas and other taxes. And without the tax money of the non-users, these programs aren't going to survive, any more than the passenger-only ferries survived absent the gas tax revenues.
For more than 40 years the transit-users and advocates have held hostage every road measure to blackmail for more transit. The time has come to stop that.
BETTER GRIDLOCK THAN ONE MORE DIME OF EXTORTED MASS TRANSIT TAX. IF THE TRANSIT ADVOCATES WANT MORE, THEY CAN TRY TO SELL BOND ISSUES PAID FOR WITH PROMISED FAREBOX REVENUE. ANYONE STUPID ENOUGH TO BUY THOSE BONDS DESERVES TO LOSE THEIR MONEY. AND IF THE BONDS CAN'T BE SOLD, IT ONLY PROVES THAT MASS TRANSIT ISN'T VIABLE IN THE ECONOMIC MARKETPLACE...WHICH OF COURSE IT ISN'T.
Posted by: George Hanshaw on July 16, 2007 08:47 AMAll of these elements - roads, transit, pricing - can play a part in the transportation SYSTEM. But right now, we have no mechanism to implement or hold anybody accountable for the performance of that system.
Performance? I would recommend people look at this:
http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf//STreportcard.htm
Performance is ABYSMAL. Every Sounder boarding is subsidized $100 by non-users. Light Rail is more difficult to assess...SINCE IT STILL ISN'T IN PLACE.
Posted by: george hanshaw on July 16, 2007 09:58 AMThe reason that I'm focusing on performance measures is because, yes, a centralized agency could become an ineffective substitute for the existing 'farrago of agencies' -- just another layer of government. If we can figure out how to establish expectations for mobility of people and goods across the entire region, as a method of holding the agency accountable, then we'll get a system that delivers on those expectations.
We're just not quite there yet.
Posted by: debo on July 16, 2007 10:10 AMWait...expanding CAPACITY makes congestion better? What a concept! Now, if this package was about expanding CAPACITY for all vehicles (not just HOV lanes)....then I'd consider it. But so much to mass transit for so little return and very little expanding CAPACITY? NO, NO AND HELL NO!
Posted by: drw on July 16, 2007 11:24 AMWe're just not quite there yet.
With all due respect....NONSENSE.
We have a system in the world for holding providers accountable...it's called the market. By all such measures, mass transit in the Puget Sound region is an abysmal failure...and always will be where population density is as low as it is in this reason. Adding pseudo-metrics to mass transit is akin to putting lipstick on a pig. When you get done, it's still a pig.
Mass Transit in the Puget Sound region exists because it taxes non-users to subsidize users. Such a system is INHERENTLY incapable of ever making a major impacr on passenger-miles in the region because were it to become 'successful',ie., to gain a large percentage of the total passenger-miles, its funding would disappear like a collapsing soap-bubble.
Until/unless mass transit can support itself at the farebox it can never be anything but a parasite on the true providers of transportation in the Sound region, the owners of automobiles.
I understand your intention....by substituting process for actual market share versus market cost, you can attempt to confuse this very simple and very valid metric...what people are actually willing to pay for a product, with such babble as "social costs" and the like, but you see...I've been looking at this for too long to actually believe that nonsense...I've been around since the long ago failed Forward Thrust proposals of the 1960s http://216.254.10.116/essays/output.cfm?file_id=2168
and realize that since that time true progress on transportation...ie, roads, have been held hostage by the Mass transit zealots.
Enough is enough. It is time for those of us who are sick and tired of decades of extortion and decades of lying accept the fact that it will take a total breakdown of transportation to break the stranglehold that the Seattle Mass Transits zealots have on the Puget Sound region.
Enough is enough. Time for those who have really been paying for the Mass Transit idiocy to adopt a scorched earth policy.
No more blackmail.
Not one more dime for mass transit.
Then the obvious vote in November is NO. ST is not a government that works. It can not get light rail up and running, and voters can't vote in anyone to do a better job. RTID would just funnel money to Nickels or the State for road work, and Nickels and the State proved with the "viaduct" vote fiasco they can't plan or execute transportation infrastructure improvements together.
This measure in November tries to do too much, with no accountability for those who'd be spending the money over the next four decades.
Fix the governance structure FIRST. Don't recommend people throw billions down a rathole. If ST and RTID get those taxing rights there will be NOTHING either the public or Olympia will be able to do to bring accountability. It would ruin this region.
Posted by: reprobate on July 16, 2007 11:49 AMHow about instead we have a government that will be HONEST with us about what can and can't be done with transportation?
The USDO has done decades of studies about what does and what does not work in mass transit...and what sort of a population density is required to support cost-effective mass transit solutions. Seattle doesn't even come close. Pretending that by building a light rail that essentially serves 3 and 1/2 square miles of the metropolitan area of 550 square miles is an insult to everyone's intelligence.
Please...PLEASE...educate yourselves, before the mass transit advocates push you into another waste of time and money like the recent monorail initiative.
http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/MassTransit.HTM
It's the population density, stupid, and nothing is going to change that....including ridiculous things like theorized transit oriented development.
There are in fact a tremendous number of assessments
Posted by: George Hanshaw on July 16, 2007 02:28 PMAmong their interesting studies was one that showed that the average mass transit user would use mass transit only if he/she had to walk no farther than 1/4 mile at both the boarding and the destination stations from their origin and true destination. Another showed the difficulty of getting people to use transfers (only about 15% will use them under any circumstances) and this includes mode changes (bus to light rail or heavy rail, for example.)
What this means to LINK, for instance, is simply this....assuming the original 21 mile 23 station light rail line had been built, it's drawing area would only be 21 times 1/4squared x pi miles...less than 5 square miles, and THEN it can only be used by those whose ORIGIN and DESTINATION are BOTH in this small slice of the metropolitan area.
And in terms of NEW riders...it is far fewer than you'd expect, because the areas LINK will service already had pretty good bus service.
Touting LINK as ANY sort of solution to King County's transportation needs was inherently fraudulent.
For Tacoma LINK...it was even stupider. The Tacoma LINK directly replaced a Pierce County Transit bus that ran the same route (five stops), in the same length of time (15 minute round trip), and also didn't charge fares. The Tacoma LINK never really was intended to address a transportation problem OTHER THAN SHORTAGE OF PARKING FOR CARS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA NEAR THE COUNTY CITY BUILDING. That area simply wasn't congested. But it was relatively cheap to build so it was built as a "starter" light rail to justify Pierce County participation in the RTID, despit knowin that the hills to the east, west, and to the north of the current "starter" line preclude light rail use. They are simply to steep for light rail to get traction, absent a cogwheel type railroad system.
Posted by: George Hanshaw on July 16, 2007 02:47 PMThe Seattle metro area population density is very close to that of Atlanta Georgia. Read this...much of it applies as well to Seattle as it does to Atlanta:
http://www.reason.org/pb61_atlanta.pdf
Posted by: George Hanshaw on July 16, 2007 03:14 PM