The cognitive dissonance in the wake of the defeat of the Roads and Transit measure speaks volumes about the degree to which the Puget Sound region is totally incapable of dealing with a core issue of import to local voters. Worse yet, get used to it.
As my fellow contributor Jim Miller noted, state Senate Transportation Committee Chair Mary Margaret Haugen says there's no "Plan B." Sound Transit says the same thing. Yet head-in-the-sand Joni Balter proudly proclaims her expectation of Ron Sims's announcement that yes, there's a "Plan B."
Meanwhile, Kemper Freeman proclaims the defeat of Prop 1 as a victory against light rail. Meanwhile, the zealots at the Sierra Club say the exact opposite, entrenched in their "no new roads" mentality. After Prop 1, they'll be joined by urban liberals such as Erica Barnett, throwing themselves in front of the path of any plan sporting new lane miles.
This is not exactly the making of a coalition that will soon come up with a reasonable alternative to Prop 1. Think voters didn't like that measure? Wait until someone puts a measure with tolls and "congestion pricing" on the ballot but yet which skimps on the roads projects desperately needed in suburbia.
If this all sounds like the Viaduct mess, where no one could agree on the election results and then refused to act decisively on the issue in its aftermath, it's because it's disturbingly similar. And now most of the same folks that brought you that debacle just had the metro Puget Sound area's transportation dumped right back in their laps. Pardon me if I'm not enthusiastic.
One can see it already in the veritable state of confusion emanating from Olympia - people running around in what my dad once so politely described as "mind fuck." Worse, no rational person can really see how that's going to change in the near future.
The whole reason the RTID came into being is because Olympia refused to find a way to foot the bill for the road improvements this region so desperately needs. Once state government punted to the locals, the County Councils of King, Pierce, and Snohomish were able to cobble together a compromise that began to address the stunning backlog of overdue projects. That's why Prop 1 was so amazingly large to begin with.
Yet, we have the Joni Balter's of the world proclaiming the package just needs to be smaller. The problem is that the measure was so large to begin with because people like Balter have spent years saying "let's slow down and talk about it some more until we feel comfortable about this." As delightful as that Seattle-way of doing business is, at some point somebody has to start making tough decisions and living with the consequences.
So, how will the Prop 1 package shrink? While anti-light rail folks will pine for more roads construction, the anti-roads zealots will fight tooth and nail against new pavement. The original measure itself was a fragile coalition that found ways to address important needs in each community. David Brewster was right that Prop 1 was likely going to be as good as it was going to get as far as addressing the needs of each part of the region. And Lance Dickie was likewise correct that it's "absolutely delusional" to think we can just chop the package in half and everything will come together nicely. The needs and politics addressed in Prop 1 aren't going away. Each project dropped or shrunk diminishes the rational ability to assemble a package that can get through the Legislature or another RTID planning process.
Which reminds me, while some of my conservative friends will proclaim the needs for a more roads-heavy solution, they should keep in mind that the whole reason Sound Transit appeared on the same ballot as RTID was that repeated polling showed RTID couldn't pass on its own. Likewise, recall Stuart Elway's polling showing voters en masse cared less for Sound Transit and the RTID as stand alone components than they did for the combined measure.
The Seattle Times did have it right that Prop 1 was too big and too complex. However, that doesn't change the fact the roads projects are necessary and that the politics of this region mean mass transit, including light rail, is going to be an integral part of transportation policy - it's simply a question of where, when, and how much.
All that to say we have a real mess on our hands. Thus, there are real openings for two things next year since Olympia has proven its inability to lead on the issue: 1) Dino Rossi running against the continued politics of process and delay, in which our transportation policy is firmly enshrined. 2) Governance reform of transportation so that when Olympia does its usual job of passing the buck, at least the locals will have one entity they can hold accountable for doing something.
In the meantime, enjoy watching the train wreck. Chris Vance was right when he said arguing transportation policy in this area is like arguing theology. The problem is, each side of the convoluted debate seems to think God is talking only to them.
UPDATE: typos fixed.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 08, 2007 08:09 AM | Email ThisThese people are totally effing clueless and live in ivory towers when it comes to solving problems.
I don't want to pay for transit options that go from where I don't live to where I don't work while I sit in gridlock to put bread on the table, yet that's what she is laying out for us.
The sooner we get regime change in the Governors mansion, the better.
Posted by: Andy on November 8, 2007 08:34 AMWhat happens next is probably going to be an effort by King County to get a transit package focused on King County, i.e. no rail to Tacoma or Snohomish County. The governor meanwhile is going to be pushing for a plan for 520. The rest of the RTID projects, save the South Park bridge(too important) and 405(already mostly funded) are likely dead.
Posted by: Giffy on November 8, 2007 08:47 AMWe'll vote for roads.
Fund your guilded eco/social programs elsewhere.
Oh yes, and don't forget the roads.
Posted by: Anonymous on November 8, 2007 08:48 AMI travel the roads here every day, and in just about every car you'll find a person that will STRONGLY disagree that we don't need more roads.
Where is the GOP backbone to say "If you agree with the wackjobs in the democratic party and their special interest groups, vote for them and get no new roads. If you want roads, vote in republicans."
This is a winning issue for the GOP. Once again, where is the leadership??
Posted by: Johnny on November 8, 2007 08:52 AMThat was going to be my next big question to Eric.
But, it seems the rail is supported only by those in King County west of the lake. Or, did I miss something here?
Posted by: swatter on November 8, 2007 08:59 AMWhen you have unaccountable fiefdoms putting obnoxious ballot measures up nothing good will come of it.
The voters understand that fact - we've been burned repeatedly.
The best next step is for the legislature to impose taxes and tolls (not just sales taxes!) without any vote just to pay for the SR 520 work.
The only reason ST and RTID came into existence in the first place is some seattle bond lawyers went to Frank Chopp and said "we can take care of the transportation issue, and get the people to tax themselves, so you won't have to raise taxes!"
That gave us Seattle Monorail, Sound Transit and RTID. That kind of thinking - legislators punting to little autonomous local fiefdoms - CREATED the transportation morass we're in now.
Time to clean house at the local level of the local transpo governments. They are worse than useless.
Posted by: idea guy on November 8, 2007 09:24 AMIt will be interesting to examine the precinct level data. My hunch is that turnout was low in Seattle and other more enviro-focused area and those who did vote were not that enthusiastic. This would be due to both the Sierra Club/global warming issue, and due to the fact that those who live in Seattle proper really didn't get much from either package.
Beyond that the issue of the economy may have made people hesitant to vote for such a big package, especially given the tax structure. Couple that with rural and suburban angst over rail and you have yourself a recipe for defeat.
Charlotte Tax Supporters, Foes Surprised by Margin of Victory
http://www.masstransitmag.com/online/article.jsp?siteSection=3&id=4760
I suspect that, in spite of the passionate voices in this blog, people get that more balance is needed in the transportation system. Massive transit expansion is required to make up for the years of over-investment in roads that has created the current mess that we are in. People are forced to drive because they have no transportation choices.
Bottom line is LRT has a capacity of 25,000 passengers per hour per direction. Plenty of room to grow. A lane of highway has a capacity of 2,000 vehicles per hour. No room to grow at all. It is financially impossible to build your way out of congestion.
So support light rail or get ready for high prices and long waits at the pumps when peak oil hits.
Posted by: Richard Campbell on November 8, 2007 09:32 AMHEY DINO! GOT AN IDEA FOR YOU THAT WILL WIN! ROADS!!!!! MAKE THE DOT ACTUALLY HAVE IN ITS CHARTER TRAFFIC CONGESTION AS THE TOP PRIORITY FOR THEIR VERY EXISTENCE, NOT FISH AND SLUGS. HECK, ABOLISH THE DOT AND CONTRACT IT OUT. WE WOULD HAVE IT FIXED IN A YEAR.
Posted by: pbs7mm on November 8, 2007 09:42 AMUnbelievable the lengths they will go to deny the will of voters.
Posted by: Palouse on November 8, 2007 09:45 AMAnother problem with rail ppl is that they don't understand what it is like to actually use mass transit outside the city core. It's impossible to use mass transit for anything but getting into the city or around the city. Why can't they see that the rest of us need differen't solutions?
Posted by: gryf on November 8, 2007 09:51 AMThe fact that decisions (as this post highlights) are 90% driven by politics and only 10% driven by needs just makes it even less attractive.
The bottom line is, voters aren't going to give transportation agencies billions of dollars until they demonstrate they can be trusted to spend it wisely and effectively. At this point, I doubt the current crop of leaders can ever gain that trust.
I think a smaller package is what's needed, not because it will solve our transportation problems, but because it could serve as a trust-building operation. How about a cost-effective, non-political, just-get-it-done SR-520 replacement? If some leader can step forward, do that in two years for a billion or so, I bet that person would be able to get support for a more comprehensive plan.
Posted by: JMHawkins on November 8, 2007 10:07 AMIf it were true, then why do they want SnoCo as part of the tax trap? SnoCo wanted going to get any rail or benefits till I was dead.
Posted by: swatter on November 8, 2007 10:08 AMYou say "People are forced to drive because they have no transportation choices."
I say, people CHOOSE to drive because it is more efficient, quicker and more convenient. My car always takes me exactly from where I am to exactly where I want to go, right when I want to travel.
Public transportation takes me from a point not where I am now, to a point perhaps near, but not at, where I want to go, at a time not of my choosing.
Public transportation is what poorer people use until they have saved enough money to buy an automobile.
I used to take public transportation when I lived in NYC. The subway was great. Same with Paris and London. All three are megametropolises with 5 - 10 million people packed into a small area. Literally tens of thousands of people live within a 3 or 4 minute walk of any Metro stop.
Seattle is a city of 1/2 million. There is no way it is dense enough to support such a system here. It would be cheaper to buy every citizen a limousine and driver than to build a transport system where everyone is a 4 minute walk from a station.
We must use our road capacity to its fullest. We waste 1/3 or 1/4 of our lane capacity with HOV restrictions. HOV lanes were never designed to improve traffic flow. They are a cudgel used by government officials with an anti-car agenda. They are designed to frustrate drivers so much that they will give up driving and get off the roads. But it never works that way. We are not sheep.
Our current crop of politicians is not interested in fixing or improving road traffic. On the contrary, they are hell bent on a visionary plan of remaking the way we live, work and travel, and cars are not a part of that vision.
Personally, I have no interest in allowing these officials to change or manage my lifestyle, thank you very much. They are, on the whole, less intellegent than me, never met me or my family, and certainly don't know how to manage other people's money.
I second Palouse but I wonder if they delayed the decision until after the election so as not to piss off the taxpayers even more.
I noticed that of the 5 judges in the majority there were 2 new judges that were never even elected to the court.
This was taxation with out rationalization.
We don't need light rail.
We don't need more roads.
We don't need the 520.
We don't need the Viaduct.
We need more representation and effort at the very local level (Kent Transportation Master Plan) and the focus should be community by community.
These "Mega packages" have gone the way of the dinosaur.
Fixing transit in the region is simpler than it is being made out to be. The problem is not that we need a new lane all the way from Tacoma to Seattle, but that there are a lot of choke points that slow down traffic and create congestion. If we fixed the choke points, and came up with innovative solutions such as the gentleman who proposed moving employees of large companies with multiple outlet locations to the location closest to where they live, etc. then we would be able to address congestion by spending very little.
I've seen so many good ideas here in the comments. For example, shift government worker hours. Heck, why not do that for the whole population. Seriously, what if we could get a much larger percentage of the population to come in at 10 am, and work a little later? That would greatly ease congestion. As it is, many choose that option now, because they know it works.
Proposing expensive rail systems that only serve a few, and fighting every inch of pavement does not solve problems. We need to put Puget Sound Transit in the hands of WSDOT or a similar group with the Engineering authority to analyze key choke points, and fix them, while at the same time implementing the many diverse alternative solutions.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 8, 2007 10:44 AMAnd I melt in the rain and turn to ice in the snow and I sweat a lot.
Posted by: swatter on November 8, 2007 10:45 AMSP content providers - Please post on the I-747 decision.
Posted by: Palouse on November 8, 2007 10:49 AMRoads or Rails? I'm kinda new in Seattle, so maybe people here haven't heard of buses. When the buses get too crowded then you get rail, and not the amusement park monorail, but real people movers.
The Onion nailed it years ago when it said people supported trains because they thought other people would use it and that would make the roads less congested. Trains will only work when even after the rail is put in that congestion is so bad people will be willing to forego the convenience of a car.
Posted by: Jon on November 8, 2007 10:52 AMDesign issues - On/off ramps; merges; I-5 in the middle of Seattle; HOV on the left and all on/off ramps are on the right, etc. The HOV ramps at Lynnwood and Totem Lake are steps in the right direction (Ash Way sucks because carpools aren't allowed to use it).
Volume - What are the primary groups of people that create the volume (government, students, bankers, stock brokers, etc.)? Can they be more specifically targeted with transportation alternatives? Does everyone have to go into Seattle to work? Can government employees be forced to utilize public transportation?
Accidents - Are we clearing accidents in an efficient manner? Do we keep stats?
Breakdowns - Are we clearing these in an efficient manner? Do we keep stats?
Stupid drivers - inattention to speed, slows down up hill; fails to merge; speeds up when a car turns on a signal to change lanes, etc.
Jerk drivers - "Lane ends" and they race to the end and slam over; from the middle lane, remembers which exit they want just as they get there and crosses multiple lanes in 10 feet; refuse to merge;, etc.
Humans - if, for $500k, I have the option of a new 2500 sq ft home on ¼ acre vs. a 100 year old 900 sq ft home on 1/8 acres as my "castle", which would I gravitate towards?
LRT might make a difference, but not much and the difference certainly wasn't worth the heavy price.
Well said.
Posted by: jimg on November 8, 2007 11:25 AMI don't agree with this at all. If that were true, our transit ridership rates would be much higher. Let's seperate transit and roads on the ballot and see who the real winner is. My money is on roads. People have had enough with the design flaws, choke points, lack of effort fighting congestion, only adding chauffeured limousine lanes, etc.
We have a leadership problem around here, and have had this problem for a long, long time. If the GOP in this state had half a clue, they would already be in power.
Posted by: AP on November 8, 2007 11:29 AMThe sales tax from Snohomish and Pierce to King can be explained due to the "color" of the tax collected.
The sales tax can be used for basically any purpose, roads or transit. The car tab tax has limited use to "road" projects. Snohomish and Pierce had road heavy plans and King had Transit heavy plans.
ST2/RTID required that the gross tax collected must be spent in the juristiction it was collected in. However, the color of the tax can be "traded".
In essence, King County swapped it's car tab revenue to Sno and Pierce and Sno and Pierce sends it's sales tax to King.
In the end the gross money spent equals the gross tax collected in each county, but the "color" of the money in each county is out of balance.
Hope this helps.
Jeff
- The Green Bike Project -
What: The Green Bike Project (GBP) will provide drive-alone commuters with new commuter bicycles - or a tune up for their existing bike - training and bicycle gear in exchange for their pledge to reduce drive alone trips by 60% over the course of a 3-month period in summer '08.
Who: King County Metro's Commute Trip Reduction Services has applied to the Washington State Department of Transportation for $225,000 in Trip Reduction Performance Program funds for the Green Bike Project.
Audience: The GBP will target the short to mid-range commuters at Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) affected worksites that have been hard to target with Transportation Demand Management efforts.
Partners: Partnerships are key to this program.
· Specially branded commute bicycles and tune-ups will be provided at a reduced rate and distributed by REI.
· Cascade Bicycle Club will provide on-street bicycle commute classes, an on-line tracking calendar, access to social support network and mentors.
· King County jurisdictions will play a critical role by identifying target employers and recognizing their participation.
· Seattle King County Public Health will provide helmets. Public Health is also interested in establishing baseline data on people's perception on how a bicycle commute program impacts their work productivity, health and wellness.
· Employers will be asked to provide investments in bicycle amenities such as bike racks and lockers or incentives for participating employees.
Timeline:
· Outreach materials will be developed in January and February '08
· Employers will be identified and participants recruited in February and March Bicycles will be distributed and commute safety classes held in May
· Bike commutes will begin in May or June
· A performance measure will be conducted in September '08
· We plan to repeat the timeline in '09 with a second wave of participants.
Outcomes:
1. Reduce drive alone trips in King County
2. Employers will adopt this model and create a sustainable bike commute culture for employees. Employers will benefit by offsetting parking and skyrocketing healthcare costs as well as meeting their sustainability and CTR goals.
It's like building a ladder to the moon. It might cost $10 trillion now and $20 trillion later.
The Pro-prop 1 people acted like it is a foregone conclusion that we will build this specific boondoggle. It had a benefit to far too few at a cost far to high (and truely unknown) to be successful.
If the item you pay needs to have it's value exceed it's costs or it's a bad idea!
Posted by: Marmstro on November 8, 2007 11:58 AMMetro Transit all transit. Why would you want to put more money in Buses. King Sims keeps asking for more money for buses, he should be looking at how to fill the buses not add more.
Roads. Sorry to say all the Politicians. State, Counties & Cities have made the congestion/choking points on our roads and they did it on purpose.
All the revenues collected in the past 20 to 30 years has been spent on everything but for our roads. They have added HOV lanes and Transit exits costing billions of dollars. Now they are on a Pilot Program called HOT lanes on I-167 where the state received a little over 1 Million from the US Congress, Then they turn around and spend over 17 Million to complete.
With Prop 1 failing where money was there to extend the HOT lanes on to I-405, they will find the money to extend the Hot/HOV lanes.
The State should open up the HOV lanes to all cars until they start spending money to fix the choke points they have created.
OBTW Swatter, the proceeds were to be distributed to separate districts. This is why Ladenburg was so for Light Rail expansion south, because it was one of the top needs for Pierce Co, along with Hwy 167 expansion to the Port, and Cross-base Hwy.
It is unforntunate that everyone will be in a go-your-own way mentality. It will mean disparate and uneven solutions across the counties. I think the best idea I have heard was to keep ST/RTID board, but make it more an elected body instead of appointed body. This I think would start to address some of the issues people have with the board. If the members were elected, then they may be more responsive to their constituents.
Posted by: tc on November 8, 2007 01:00 PMSplit King County into two counties. The boundry line would use historical voting patterns of those precincts for/against Kerry/Bush/Cantwell/Rossi etc.
Many transportation issues would then be resolved without Seattle/Shoreline/Vashon voters interfering.
Otherwise, we should consider CASH as a solution, rather than BONDS. EG, Vote once a year for next years projects, to be paid for 100% with cash from a single years tax revenue stream. Projects for Year One.
A. WEST. 85th and Aurora at grade separation
B. EAST. Capacity Improvements to 148th st between 520 and I-90 on the east side.
Year two.
?
We need to ask for mass resignations.
And by the way.....
How are all those "promises" from Gregoire and her cast of fools regarding the 9-1/2 cent gas tax increase working out??
Not enough money to do even half of what was promised?? I thought so.
This is what happens in a State when one Party is in charge of the Governor's Mansion for almost 28 years. You get a bunch of hanger-on career bureaucrats and their inept friends & relatives frittering away BILLIONS of Public Money.
This is worse than ENRON or WORLDCOM.
It's like the Washington-state(KING KOUNTY) "Feel-good" voters keep giving these KLOWNS money despite unacceptable results.
WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION--
"Feed them a 32 ounce Filet Mignon....and the next day you get a Rabbit trud outta the backend"
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/03mar/02.htm
http://www.allbusiness.com/construction/heavy-civil-engineering-construction-highway/525806-1.html
We need both added roads and mass transit improvments and we needed it yesterday!
I'm also saddened by voter apathy here and elsewhere in this election. You get what you deserve if you don't vote. And you get more of the same if you vote for the non-leadership we currently have.
ciao.
Posted by: Orson Buggy on November 8, 2007 04:11 PMBarbara A. Madsen
Bobbe J. Bridge
Susan Owens
Stephen M. Brown
Teresa C. Kulik
Not under our constitution. Anyway, isn't it obvious that public transportation is a good tradeoff for some people -- public employees, private employees, nonworking folks, etc. -- and those are the people who should be using it? I thought conservatives valued freedom.
and continues to wonder,
"if, for $500k, I have the option of a new 2500 sq ft home on ¼ acre vs. a 100 year old 900 sq ft home on 1/8 acres as my "castle", which would I gravitate towards?"
Well, if they're both $500k, then clearly the typical purchaser values them equally. Econ 101, dude.