Orphan Road - Proposition 1 - What's the Alternative? - Comments

What is that SOMETHING?

morganb — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 21:22:57 -0700

My apologies for the length. I would have written less, but I didn’t have the time.

In my judgment, political calculations about whether-or-not and when we can get something better on the ballot, while entirely reasonable, are leading us astray. They are also most of what divides the left and the west-side.

No matter what anyone thinks about our political history and predilictions, Prop 1 is the wrong thing to do. It is inarguably a step away from our GHG emissions targets (Western Climate Initiative, Cool Counties, Mayors Climate Protection Agreement, etc.). It’s also going to be far more difficult in the future (and far more expensive) to address climate change as the imperative to act escalates, and we shouldn’t overlook the costs associated with GHG legislation already in the works. Finally, no matter what anyone thinks about light rail, the roads component will dominate what little rail can do for our future. Neither rail nor road building is a long term transportation solution. On balance, the actions advanced in Prop 1 are little more than a palliative step. At best they only begin to address our challenges and at best they provide a framework that would have served us well 10 or 20 years ago. Prop 1 is too little, too late. We have no choice but to do better (Diamond’s Collapse), but not all agree with me on this last point.

So, let us consider that Prop 1 will help us a little and that it is the best we can do for some time. We are still foolish to grab at such an expensive proposition. Due to its sheer size, Prop 1 will prevent us from acting in the very near future while public opinion continues to swing heavily in favor of taking responsibility for climate change and acting accordingly. Environmental issues, with climate disruption leading the way, are gaining public support faster than any of us would have believed, even just 10 years ago. I think that those among us who believe we will be unable to pass an alternative to Prop 1 in the next year or two should be arguing for a dwarfed Prop 1 so that we preserve significant capacity to propose better policy as the political climate changes. Not only will public support for sane transportation and sane development continue to rise, but ST1 will be coming online very soon, and I can only bet that this will help our ability to pass wiser transportation policies in the very near future. Even our experience with the Narrows bridge will probably be giving us encouragement to expand this TDM tool elsewhere.

So, while I believe that the imperative to act is more urgent than some do, I really think that focusing on this moment in time as our only opportunity prevents us from looking into the future. Politics on transportation and on the environment are in flux right now, and we need to preserve our capacity to adjust as the times change.

You're right, but ...

Matt — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 17:07:06 -0700

Hi morganb. Thanks as always for your comments. Has been a long week for me at work, and to me this is such a no-brainer that I'm finding it challenging to be constructive. Too many memories of the Monorail debacle still too fresh in my mind.

While it's true that there are theoretical alternatives to much of Prop 1 (and there always are), the question for me is -- what's the alternative in front of us NOW?

Given what I've seen of the political culture here in the PacNor, I find it challenging to believe that a "better" plan (i.e., one involving less compromise [i.e., one involving fewer roads and/or better funding]) will ever be passed.

Let me be clear: I agree with pretty much every criticism of this bill, including the funding issues. One of the reasons I supported Ron Sims for governor, after all, was his courageous effort to implement an income tax in WA state. However, politics (little "p") being what they are -- messy, and involving uncomfortable compromises -- I stick to my guns here: at least Proposition 1 is a step towards SOMETHING. And if the folks in Bellevue really want a 30 lane highway in the middle of their downtown, so what? I don't live there, and nor do I plan to visit.

Exhasperation

morganb — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 18:23:37 -0700

Matt,

You're sounding a bit exasperated and, consequently, not at all persuasive. You orphans are usually above this.

Of course, there is no alternative plan to Proposition 1. There are never alternative propositions as there are alternative candidates. Currently, though, there are alternatives to numerous components, especially how we will address congestion and road carrying capacity.

On the issue of how much it does and how much it'll cost. Yeah, the ST2 is alright but not brilliant by anyone's reckoning. And certainly any rail project is going to be expensive.

Are you convinced, though, that taking our sales tax to the limit is a great idea? There are the obvious justice issues. But, I’m also worried that in a state with no income tax, we’re going to be out of revenue options to fix the inevitable transit mess we’ll be in within 5 or 10 years. I’m also concerned that too many will think that once Prop 1 passes, our work will be done -- congestion will clear, changing land use patterns will produce in-fill and density and our war on climate change will be over. Those of us who watch these issues all know that Prop 1 is at best a bend in the road.

Proposition 1 - What's the Alternative?

Matt — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 11:18:41 -0700

Since Frank Bruno has declared weapons free on those who (irrationally) oppose Proposition 1, let me play el Abogado del Diablo for a momentito and ask the Hard Question: what, exactly, is the alternative?

I've started seeing signs for the last few days stating, basically: "Costs too much, does too little." Let's break this down [Frank, apologies ... I know I'm covering much the same ground as you did in the post linked above.]

Anyway, to break it down:

* Cost -- well, infrastructure costs money. And it doesn't cost less money in the future, especially with the dollar likely to continue its weakness in the coming years. We pay global prices for things like concrete (and even labor and engineering services), and those prices -- fueled by China and India's massive growth -- will continue to rise. So, yes, Prop 1 will cost money, but not taking steps now means we're only postponing the inevitable, and guaranteeing that we'll pay more for it when we finally buckle down. Remember, we're in the mess we're in today because we failed to make these investments 40 YEARS AGO when there was more federal money on the table and costs were relatively much lower.

* Does too Little -- okay, Prop 1 opponents, so YOUR plan does more? Wait. What's that? Ohhhhh. You don't HAVE an alternative plan. Okay. So, ah ... ? Truly, not to get all "I have a high school education" and everything, but "little" is a relative term, as in, Prop 1 does too little relative to WHAT? If there's no alternative, well, maybe that's sad, but the fact is that if we fail to pass Prop 1 it will set back infrastructure development in this region by decades ... maybe more, given our political culture.

[And, if you're a Green who thinks, like Ron Sims, that Prop 1 doesn't go far enough to alleviate global warming, I ask you the same question -- WHAT'S YOUR ALTERNATIVE?]

Okay, people, this is getting serious now. We must pass Proposition 1.