It’s been hard for us to admit this, greenie that we are, but a vote for Prop. 1 is in order, at least from this Seattlest's perspective.
This has been hard because we're as environmentally friendly as they come. We ride our bike; compost; and we reduce, we reuse and leave the recycling as only as the last step of a long process. So the news we saw when we opened our e-mail this morning, that Sightline, our favorite green think tank, released a report saying that "every extra one-mile stretch of lane added to a congested highway will increase climate-warming CO2 emissions more than 100,000 tons over 50 years" was not good news for our previously decided selves.
After a cup of (fair trade, organic) coffee, this Seattlest came to the conclusion that he is still going to vote for Prop. 1. Why?
First of all, as we've said before, roads are going to be built anyway. This measure might fail, but roads are such a basic part of our lifestyle that voters saying no to a package of them isn't going to end their dominance. Or even begin the end of their dominance. There's too much money in the region that will be lost if roads aren’t built. The folks with money will see that these roads, and more, will get built.
Second, even the Sierra Club says that not all the roads in this package are bad. In fact, according to The Seattle Transit Blog, the vast majority of the spending in this measure will go to transit and "good roads" (as defined by The Sierra Club). Only 15 percent of the funding, they say, will go to "bad roads."
Third, being a one-issue voter is dumb. It means that you're often sacrificing your self-interest or the opportunity to make a better world in other ways in the name of one overarching issue. When it comes to RTID, the increased transit (50 miles of new light rail is only a part of what we'll get) will make not only our life better, it will also create high-paying jobs for people without college degrees and make it easier for folks forced out of Seattle's over-priced housing market to still earn a good living in the city and afford to live outside of it. Voting down RTID won't stop roads, but it is likely to kill any expansion of light rail in the near future and that is bad.
Finally, and Sightline points this out too, the GHG emissions numbers they came up with don't take into account the impact that increased transit options will have, the economic benefits of those new high-paying jobs and the ability to get to them, and the probability that GHG emissions in this country will be capped soon and the what that will do to GHG emissions.
In short, there's a lot of factors at play here, not just global warming. When you put it all together, voting against RTID next month just seems like shooting ourselves in the foot.
Picture taken by Slightynorth and placed, kindly, in the Seattlest flickr pool.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
As green and ecofriendly as I also consider myself, reading the PI today was a bit dispiriting with regard to this issue. Ten very good reasons, conciselyl displayed, why we should vote against it.
#1 caught my eye in particular- "Sound Transit's taxes never end." Now I don't mind paying my fair share, but taking on neverending debt is ridiculous. Has ST really never retired its debt?
Well, Sound Transit's taxes DO end actually, by law.
"By law, the Roads and Transit taxes must be scaled back once projects are paid for, unless voters authorize additional projects to be constructed."
Check out the Yes site for more refutations of completely false claims.
Wow! I fear the day when the populace will be swayed by a bullet point list of un-cited, and likely unfounded, claims. Also, from what I can gather, the "Washington Policy Center" is a bunch of free-market zealots hiding behind a deceptively official and non-partisan name that hardly masks their bias.
This is exactly how I feel about Prop 1. This is really our only chance to make a big impact on mass transit, because if the two are separated, I'd bet dollars to cents that any transit-only package won't have anywhere near $10.8bn in funding. We'd be lucky to get half of that.
It will be a major travesty if this doesn't get approved. It means two things: roads will still get built, suburban sprawl will still happen, and it will cost twice as much and take twice as long to get a reasonable rail system set up in the city. Voting against this is a sign of a major Luddite. Seattle should already be ashamed of itself for not having a comprehensive rail system by now, this is the only solution as far as I'm concerned.
I would prefer the rail to not come with the road-strings attached, but this is America and this is life and let's take what we can get.
It's astonishing to me that one could read the Sightline study, care about global warming, and still somehow rationalize supporting this package. Why should we have to accept this garbage to get something we want? It just doesn't make sense.
Last Guest commenter:
It makes sense if you believe that if we don't accept the roads (again, most of which the Sierra Club calls "good roads") we won't ever get this kind of light rail expansion again. Which I do. There is a long history in this town to support this belief.
Big business in this region has worked to kill every effort to create a viable mass transit system in this region since the 60s (since before if you count the tearing out of the Inter-Urban thanks to the car companies) and will continue to. 50 miles of light rail is not gonna come down the pike again especially with the lack of political will there seems to be to bring it to the ballot on its own.
Save light rail, not the planet.
Nice job Seattlest.
Hey last guest,
Rarely are things as black and white as you seem to think this question is.
I think there is more than one way to save the world personally. Making it easier for lower-income folks to get to higher paying jobs in town is one.
Forcing the reduction of carbon emissions through laws and doing it around the world might be more effective than shooting ourselves in the foot by killing a chance at light rail.
I live in Ballard. I work downtown. Someone please tell me how Prop. 1 will benefit me. My understanding is the nearest projects run along the I-5 corridor, and frankly, I'm not inclined to simply hand money to folks in the suburbs.
"Well, Sound Transit's taxes DO end actually, by law."
This statement, however, doesn't answer the question by guest#1. Namely, HAS Sound Transit ever actually retired any debt, historically. It's one thing to plan to retire a debt (say, my mortgage), it's another to actually do it.