Vote against Proposition 1 (Roads and Transit), which will do almost nothing to reduce congestion. Intentionally.
Vote for a Republican for governor next year, in the hope that he (or she) will change the state policy of encouraging congestion in this area.
It really is that simple. Oh, I suppose that it is possible that a Democratic governor could fight the dominant groups in their own party, could work for transportation solutions that pass ordinary cost/benefit tests, but the record of last two decades gives us no reason to expect that to happen.
Posted by Jim Miller at November 05, 2007 02:21 PM | Email ThisWhat do you think a good solution is to reduce congestion?
Posted by: Matthew Miller on November 5, 2007 02:33 PMFar as I can tell, they have basically spent millions and accomplished nothing. Certainly haven't accomplished anything that affects most drivers anyway. The problems have gotten worse, not better.
Posted by: cliff on November 5, 2007 03:10 PMReduce # of lanes to increase congestion beyond peoples' pain point so that they move out of state.
Limit social services to those who pay for them.
Posted by: Monroe on November 5, 2007 03:11 PMThe interstates are specifically *not* toll roads on the east coast.
The only reasonable solution would be a DOT which has an interest in addressing roads. Which the current leadership of WSDOT has specifically stated is of little interest to them.
We are spending billions of dollars on inefficient boondoggles rather than ensuring the vast majority of the people in this state who do not ride trains or bicycles to work (more than 98% of the working populaiton) get served.
Posted by: bfr on November 5, 2007 03:13 PMThanks,
voting no ope
Posted by: YEE EP on November 5, 2007 03:32 PMMake all existing bus transportation free of charge. Look at the ridership increase, and increase bus service where it is necessary
Build to ease congestion
Elect a new Governor who has new visions other than continually taxing the living crap out of her constituants!
I live 6 miles from where I work -- and you know what? If I drive I still end up in horrendous traffic coming up Kent East Hill, or stuck on Central!
6 miles.
If I ride the bus I have to transfer at Kent Station -- and that can add minutes. In the end, it can take me up to an hour to use the bus.
6 miles.
Now I take my bike. Easy right? I guess you've never had to ride up Kent East Hill on Canyon Road on a daily basis. It's quite a climb ( 500 ft in 3 miles).
Today I was using Live! Maps to scout out a "passage" through side streets the would take me away from the cars. I have been appointed a member of the Kent Bicycle Advisory Board by Mayor Cooke.
I do what I can for my personal needs.
I have no illusions that it could be of any use to anyone else.
Nor do I implore others to "make it easy" for me.
I guess I'm a Conservative.
Posted by: John Bailo on November 5, 2007 03:58 PMThey are on a last ditch effort to sell this ill thought out package.
I'll just ask you:
What emergencies has the 9 cent gas tax solved, or even started to solve?
I-520 - it was on the verge of collapse
Viaduct - Remember it was falling down
List what we got for the 9 cents a gallon, please!
Posted by: GS on November 5, 2007 04:30 PMLet congestion inform individual's housing, employment, education and recreational choices.
We're already seeing the market place respond by building new housing in most of our downtowns, and places of concentrated employment.
We value individual choice, blast transit as social engineering and then turn the blinders on when road decisions are made that also social engineer.
Oh, doing nothing is a decision too - and I suppose includes social engineering as well. It enhances the value of those communities that were built with great street systems, lots of pedestrian connections and mixed up uses. It diminishes the value of those communities that have weak street systems, poor pedestrian connections and highly separated uses.
Which communities are which? The ones that are enhanced are those built PRIOR to massive government spending on highways and roads. The ones that are diminished are those that were built with significant public spending that we now find we either can't afford, or don't want to afford.
So, doing nothing is a return to spending less and relying on the market place to make the economic decisions, rather than government.
Problem is of course that the "American dream" of a house surrounded by a yard depends on healthy government spending.
It is a choice to live out in the hinterlands. The cost is time. Should I help you get to work faster by building more roads for you?
Posted by: BA on November 5, 2007 05:15 PMJim, it's worse than that. It only does "almost nothing" if you ignore the opportunity costs. Imagine what that same amount of money would do in the hands of a WSDOT and County Road dept administration that was emptied of all the social engineers and staffed instead with folks interested in providing transportation that worked well for the vast majority!
I had an out-of-town friend in the car the other day and we were leaving downtown Seattle to get on I-5 Northbound. He could not believe how circuitous the route to I-5 was. The only way to explain something so stupid is to say that it is that way be design.
Posted by: BananaLand on November 5, 2007 05:40 PMOr, if you're at the south end of downtown James Street provides the direct access.
Both have been there since the 1960's when the freeway was built.
Driving is circles is what happens when you're lost.
RE #13.
While it is all fine and dandy to say that our personal choices means we live with the consequences, your argument fails when you consider the value of a transportation infrastructure that allows commerce to function: Goods to reach businesses and people to reach work. If there is no system to bring people to a centralized center of commercial activity, that activity is stifled and productivity is reduced. Sometimes the only way to improve the economy is to use government to build the infrastructure.
Posted by: Eyago on November 5, 2007 06:15 PMAnd if we do approve it, the indecision will be perpetuated forever by the very funds that will be raised for (nudge, wink) transportation improvements. Since the bureaucracy which has 'designed' (well, made a specious sales pitch for) the improvements has proved itself wholly indecisive, the only use we may be sure of for those funds will be to perpetuate said UNELECTED bureaucracy and to bribe its politically selected supporters.
Give me indecision any day over indecision plus a massive boondoggle at my expense.
Vote out every one of the cretins who invented the unaccountable Sound Transit bureaucracy. It may take time but no one deserves rejection, humiliation, gibes, curses and anathema more than the authors of Proposition 1.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 5, 2007 06:50 PMCities have been performing this function throughout human history.
That said, why are we so focused on maintaining patterns of development that fail to recognize this?
I frankly have no problem with "government" building transportation systems - I don't think bottom line we're disagreeing much.
If you examine Sounder spending - the costs have paid for an alternative system to get people into Seattle during rush hour - it also paid for a considerably enhanced railroad corridor that increases the efficiency of getting goods into and out of the Tacoma and Seattle ports - a point probably lost to many.
Reading the posts here - it seems clear that doing nothing best matches the desires of those posting - see any thoughtful alternatives being suggested?
Posted by: BA on November 5, 2007 07:34 PMCut the crap ! First off, did the people have a voice in suggesting this monstrosity called Prop. 1 ? Nope, only the elites in the Government and their so-called experts. If Prop. 1 passes, this area will have successfully (sic) dumbed downward and the RAT tax will produce the least bang for one's buck - all in the name of Light Rail. Roads - HA !
There are many lower cost alternatives that will be able to be suggested, but only if Prop. 1 fails. There should be light rail going across Lake Washington, but first it has to be studied and there also needs to be a new 520 bridge, which Prop. 1 plus road tolls only fund 50% of.
Posted by: KS on November 5, 2007 08:30 PMThe only down side would be reduction or loss of service.
Right.
Posted by: Organization Man on November 5, 2007 08:42 PMThere's no doubt that having some mass transit is beneficial, but as Jim points out, just because it comes from Transit Planners doesn't mean that envisioned systems won't be subject to financial reality. Basic cost benefit analysis is never performed as the goal isn't reducing congestion, or serving large percentages of the population, but instead just feeling good.
Another key point is that Portland's light rail is often trumpeted as a shining example for Seattle. But what is usually not said, is that Portland's light rail was largely paid for by Federal dollars due to the political prominence (nepotism) of Neil Goldschmidt and his subsequent service as Transportation Secretary in the Carter Administration. Puget Sound residents would have to pay for the fancy trains without the help of the rest of their fellow Americans chipping in to fund our pork project.
And still, Portland's "successful" light rail system carries very few of her citizens.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 5, 2007 10:58 PMSecond, to those who don't think Prop 1 will ease congestion: Have you actually studied the RTID package? Do you know the actual growth projection and traffic patterns for the south end? The package is very beneficial for the South end, which was neglected in the first ST. Why do you think Sims is now so against it? It is because he is not getting all the pie for himself. It is called moneys collected going to actually benefit the areas where it was collected.
To those who think adding more lanes is the answer: It depends on what the question is. If it is how to move the most people along existing corridors, then you are correct. If it is how to create other north-south and east-west corridors that operate independent of the current infrastrucure, then adding more lanes won't do a thing.
The problem as I see it is two fold. First, it is Sims and his follies and Seattle centric view. Add to this Mayor Nichols and you have two people that are most responsible for the mess in the local area. If you want to change the mess in the local area, then replace them. Whoever is governor doesn't address the local leadership problem.
The second problem is poor government planning. This doesn't just include just transporation, but includes planning of developments, planning for businesses, and planning for infrastructure. This region is notorious for just letting development happen and then fixing things after the fact. This planning can't be done by government alone. It takes businesses to be involved. Again, this starts with local leadership and again points to Sims.
So, my words of wisdom is if you want the transportation mess fixed, don't concentrate on the governor's position, but focus on Sims. Find some one to replace him that can work together with business to solve the region's problems. It isn't the state's job to fix Sims' mess, it is King County's job.
Posted by: tc on November 6, 2007 08:02 AMOf course, our kowtowing media which refuses to ask penetrating questions relentlessly, and to publish actual ridership and costs per rider versus the specious original 'projections', is deliberately greasing the skids as well.
When accountability reaches King County, there may be a change. But there's no sign of that ever happening while the 'urban' electorate fawns over Ron Sims, Greg Nickels & Co. They aren't elected to reduce congestion - in fact they're proud to force more of it on us regardless of cost.
Oh yes - the City Council promises a bunch of bicycle paths. No ridership projections nor comparisions with total commuters are presented - just more pie in the sky, and a rakeoff to a tiny constituency.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on November 6, 2007 08:42 AMCurrently they are appointed, and many of them have stated in public forums that they do not represent their respective cities when they act on behalf of Sound Transit, which can be a direct conflict of interest with the interests of the folks who elected them, and whom they are obligated to represent.
Another good question is: are any of them taking campaign contributions from transportation service providers to help them get reelected?
See the post at: http://www.responsibletransportationforum.org/?p=296
Posted by: rtf on November 6, 2007 12:12 PMInterstates can be toll roads on the East Coast: http://www.i95exitguide.com/tolls/index.php.
Personally, I'd be happy using tolls to pay for some new pavement. The problem with tolls, however, is that they require significantly widening freeways in places to accomodate the tollbooths, which is something that is really difficult to do with our geography (and which would probably take a major revision of our environmental impact laws to make happen).