Seattlest Roundtable: How Will You Vote on Prop. 1?
Prop. 1, the roads and transit measure. Supporters say it will help solve our gridlock problem. Anti-tax opponents say"no it won't" and environazi opponents say "roads are killing the planet, it's transit-only or nothing." Tomorrow's election day. Here's how Seattlesters are voting.
Dan: I'm not exactly turning cartwheels as I cast my "yes" vote, but I look at it as "which is easier to get passed, roads or transit individually?" I couldn't pass up the opportunity to vote for transit, even if I did buy the proposition that transit will appear on ballots again soon if it fails this time. Which I don't. There's talk of revamping the entire transportation packaging system if Prop 1 is to fail, creating an umbrella agency at the state level, or whatever. How long will that take? Prop 1 is here, now, and I'm voting for it.
MvB: I was on the fence about this for a long time, but just voted no (absentee). People seem to be arguing that it's okay to spend $7 billion on roads if they get $11 billion of light rail (or vice versa). I can't picture a real-world scenario where that kind of budgeting makes sense. It reminds me more of people eating a salad so they can down that whole pint of Ben & Jerry's later, guilt-free. Strategically, Prop. 1 heads in both directions at the same time, and that, in my experience, doesn't bode well. The roads spending amounts to too much of an opportunity cost, given the amount of money that can be conceivably allocated to transportation over the next 20 years. More roads equals more road maintenance costs, and we can't seem to afford those costs as it is. Then too, some of the elements included are just wrong-headed: sending 6 lanes of 520 through Montlake (up from 4 now) is a guarantee that that much more traffic will be idling on Lake Washington during rush hour, spewing exhaust. I don't see how the big picture works, and I can't get behind the particulars.
David: Voting yes, this is the only chance to get light rail throughout the region. We've been proposing ideas for decades and yet all we have is a train from downtown to the airport and a bus tunnel.
Seth: I'm voting yes, under the theory that building transit is better than not building transit, even if you build roads too. The way I figure it, if global warming ever gets so bad that we can't drive anymore, we'll just use those roads for biking or put natural gas buses on them or whatever.
James: I'm voting yes, because I don't want to nail myself on a cross of environmentalism instead of compromising. Because that would be cruel to the tree.
Audrey: I'm voting yes, because how can you have your pudding if you don't eat your meat?
Jack: Voting yes. Contrary to what some would love to believe, not everyone in this region can use public transit. Additionally, what a lot of people seem to forget is that the the upgrade and expansion of our road infrastructure isn't only about Johnny Hummer with the tiny penis. It's also about being able to move goods and services like food and emergency response. We do need transit, but the roads are fucked and the region's not going to do so hot with only one or the other.
Charles: I too am voting for Prop. 1.
First of all we need transit options now and this is a great chance to add more light rail to our system than all the light rail Portland has. That's a lot of light rail.
Second, I don't think we will get this much light rail back on the ballot on its own, ever. Neither roads nor transit is ever shown as passing in the polls on their own so to say we don't need to find support from those living in the suburbs to get transit passed is just plain wrong. This is a good way to do that and even the Sierra Club says that the majority of the roads in the package are "good" roads. Also, there is money for transit and bike lanes in the non-roads part of the package.
Third, those who say we can just bring some vote on light rail back next year are making it sound as if doing so will be easy as pie. Do we really believe that the Sierra Club has the political clout to make that happen? Do they imagine that their current financial allies (land business friendly land developers who don't want to see any transit get paid for out of taxes are going to continue to support them if Prop. 1 fails? If so, then they're even more clueless than I thought.
Does anyone think that Ron Sims is going to put all his weight behind a new vote on transit only after out against this vote because, he said, light rail isn't the solution. Oh and lest we forget that Ron is angling for a position in Hillary's administration. I'm sure the thing he'll back is raising taxes for a transit project.
Fourth, waiting to build more rail only makes it more expensive to the tune of $500 million a year.
Finally, roads will get built anyway. Saying no to them doesn't matter, so why cut off our noses to spite our faces?
Courtney: I’m with MvB on this one. Voting for Prop 1 is like staying in a bad relationship for the sex. The logic of “we won’t get it otherwise” is enabling further horrific decision-making on the part of our local politicians, and we’re just going to keep rolling over and taking it by voting Yes. I understand Jack’s point about how it more roads aren’t purportedly all about commuter traffic, but MvB’s point that we can’t even maintain our current stock of roads takes precedence in my mind. Plus, a discussion of roads can no longer just be about money and resources, it has to be about what vehicles put out into the environment—if we know anything about human nature, it is that things have to become generally intolerable before people will change their behavior (I’m a prime example—I aim to take the bus as much as possible, but I drove today so I could run an errand and then get to a class after work). We shouldn’t enable car traffic any further, we have to let things get so bad that alternate options become painfully necessary, regardless of whether they are for commuter or commercial traffic.
Geoff: I'm definitely voting yes on Prop 1. How this town does not have reliable, and on-time, transportation I will never understand. Any move towards that goal is a positive. I don't care how much it costs in taxes. I'm in it mostly for the light rail, but roads need
improvement too...no way around that.
Remember the movie Singles? The main character's job was trying to convince the transportation department in Seattle to construct a "Super Train" to help solve the transportation problem. That was 1992. 15 years ago. Where is my fucking Super Train? Seriously though....15 years ago.....and this is where we're at? Didn't anyone pay attention to Singles?
Charles: Sorry but saying that because we can't maintain our current stock of roads means we shouldn't build anymore doesn't make sense to me.
I'm as environmental as they come and would love it if we could never build another road in this region again, but that's ridiculous. As Jack pointed out, roads do more than encourage people to drive to work and will continue to be a necessary part of our existence (until we finally invent transporters). We may have issues paying for our upkeep of roads today, but using that as a reason to not improve the road system (which I do think needs to be done in concert with expanding transit) is silly. If we follow that line of reasoning, then in 20 years, our road system will be 40 years behind in improvements instead of just 20 like it is now. How does that fix the situation?
Also, I think that building a light rail system should not be viewed as a panacea for our transportation woes. It's a piece of the puzzle since it will help some people some of the time get to some places. Other people, other times will have to drive still to get to other places. Building more light rail is one part of the solution and an important one. Building some new roads (SOME) is another part. Adding bus service, another. Building a transporter system would also help.
Ronald: A reluctant yes. What we have is far from perfect, what's promised less perfect still. To vote no, however, would be selfish; it says "my personal preference for transit outweighs the public need for more roads." Sure, the existence of roads promotes even more driving. But Prop 1 is a step in the right direction. At least it recognizes that we need a multi-faceted solution.
Kim: I'm in the reluctant yes category. It's a baby step in the right direction, albeit imperfect. As much as the environmentalist in me doesn't want more ways for people to hit the roads and pollute, I appreciate the Sierra Club's opinion on the matter and support something that will reposition us toward dealing with our transit woes. No proposition will ever be perfect enough to satisfy everything I and the people who disagree with me want and need. So I'm in favor of getting going on something that's passable, and then moving from there. Other than that, I think you've all pretty much said everything that I'm feeling about this vote.
James: I think there are good arguments for voting no. But doing so because
you hope it'll force a better option to come along feels a little too much like voting for Nader hoping it'll force the Democrats to embrace your issues. Politics is compromise -- it's one thing to reject this compromise as a bad bargain, and another thing to reject the idea of compromising on this Very Important Issue.
Audrey:: Exactly, James. Principles be damned - let's get practical here!
Matt:: Jetpacks for everybody!
James: I prefer "pragmatic."
MvB: Charles, my point was that I am not confident we can a) build all the roads Prop. 1 specifies *and* b) maintain our existing stock, *or* c) build alternative transit infrastructure that might be more useful than lightrail, depending on circumstances. We're talking about turning billions of dollars into pavement and lightrail, and neither is a highly liquid position to take, so I'd prefer that the investment be minimized. There's a certain amount of doomsday, absolutist talk around this issue that perplexes me, one element of which being the notion that if Prop. 1 doesn't pass nothing will ever happen EVER EVER EVER! I don't buy that at all -- Prop. 1 is here because the region is finally having to take transportation strategy seriously, and that pressure will only increase. This is voting strategy masquerading as transportation strategy, and I don't feel any need to vote for this incarnation.
David: My yes vote is mostly because if we hand this thing back to the region's leaders I have no confidence that they will be able to come up with anything new. I really feel that given the track record of these people that it will take years before we're asked again. There is no one here that stands up and says follow me, it's more like does anyone mind if we do this...okay, sorry, well let me think about something else. This package took years to create, and then one of the most important voices in that room backed away from it. I'd love to think that people will react to the smell of smoke, but I don't think they can.
