Orphan Road - RTID - 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.

Yes, yes, I know what

Frank — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:17:24 -0700

Yes, yes, I know what per-capita means. And yes, the graph is far from perfect. But if you think voting "No" is going to stop these roads from getting built, you're in for a surprise.

Oh. My. God. NO.

scotto — Thu, 18 Oct 2007 00:45:06 -0700

You know what "per-capita" means, don't you?

Your bar graph compares the global warming pollution added by the passage Prop 1 -- which will be produced by a subset of three counties of one middling state of the US -- to the global warming pollution produced by about a third of the planet. If you insist on this ridiculous comparison, then a respectable analysis would require that the _benefits_ of Prop 1 also be evaluated after being spread over a third of the planet. Here, "benefits" are train rides for people who really like trains, because as we know, there are no C02 benefits for Prop 1.

Prop 1 will make global warming worse.

You're saying that there's no need for us to be responsible. There's no need to exercise discipline and to avoid dumping tens of millions of extra tons of C02 into the atmosphere because the rest of the world will dump hundreds of millions. Because you fail to divide by population, you're saying that it's just fine for you, as an American citizen, to emit about ten times as much C02 as the average Chinese. In fact, you're saying that it's just fine to keep getting worse, to vote enthusiastically for Prop 1 which, by the PSRC's own estimates, will INCREASE driving by 45% -- at a time when you know that we need to DECREASE our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80%.

That's not just dumb, it's wrong.

Okay, well, then I just

Frank — Wed, 17 Oct 2007 14:00:28 -0700

Okay, well, then I just don't understand what you're talking about. If your point is that the CO2 emissions for RTID and Sound Transit are both inconsequential in the grand scheme of things, then yes, I agree with both sentiments.

But that's an argument FOR Prop 1, no?

I'm not being sarcastic

scotto — Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:44:23 -0700

I'm being serious. I'm using exactly the same logic as with the C02 bar graph. Accept one, and you must accept the other.

But perhaps, the logic is bad and they are both transparently flawed arguments?

thanks for the sarcasm,

Frank — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 21:00:55 -0700

thanks for the sarcasm, scotto, much obliged. :)

I am depressed

scotto — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 15:07:01 -0700

I was sooo psyched to vote YES on Prop 1 but after seeing this, I am depressed and have to vote NO.

I made a bar graph with the projected Sound Transit trips next to all the car trips in the US and China -- I couldn't even see the train trips, and I used my fattest crayon!

More Tools for Dialogue and Debate

morganb — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 22:55:07 -0700

Frank, I hear your points. I too would prefer that GHG was not the only leverage point in the dialogue on roads. We don't want to put all our eggs into the climate change basket. But, the Climate Change metaphor is effective, because it is current with year's wave of attention on the topic. It is the vehicle of the day; it is in vogue.

What I hope is that we continue working on other arguments, like those you listed. I don't think that the issue of Climate Change is likely to disappear any time soon, but as we make progress on it we still need to be able to make progress on other issues, like flood control and water purification (wetlands). For now, arguing that roads can kill wetlands, which impact the water cycle and habitat, is too complicated for most venues.

btw - Shellenberger & Nordhaus will be at Town Hall later this month talking about exactly this stuff. I loved their opening salvo in 2004.

RE: Acting Locally

Frank — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 18:13:23 -0700

Morgan,

Thanks again for your comments, and for reading all of my blogs! :)

My problem with the current debate is that I feel like we're starting to equate building highways with global warming. The relationship is there, but it's tangential. Highways themselves do not clause global warming. It's the cars that drive on them.

It's convenient to use global warming as another reason to oppose highways, but I don't think it's a very good one.

I wholly agree, as I've said before, sprawl is inherently problematic because it requires great energy to move people great distances. Even the electricity in electric cars has to come from somewhere. So I'm all for denser development in general.

I just worry about the aims getting confused here. If we're worried about global warming, yes, you're right, cars are the issue, and so Washington State can do what California does, and impose strict emissions standards on the cars that are sold here, or more easily, we could impose a much higher gas tax. Either would do wonders directly for global warming.

Maybe I'm overreacting, but I think it's important to clarify the debate. For example, a few years ago, lots of environmentalists (like myself) got all excited when conservatives started worrying about oil addiction as a national security issue. It was another tool in our arsenal, we thought, to convince people to stop burning fossil fuels.

The problem was that those same conservatives turned around and said, "okay, so we'll just have to drill in ANWR and make more ethanol in Iowa." Egads, that's an environmental disaster on so many levels!

And of course, there are problems to sprawl in and of itself: congestion, destruction of farmland, obesity, etc. All of these things are problems and arguments need to be -- and can be -- made against them on their own terms.

Washington State's Growth Management Act is one of the best tools we have for dealing with this at the state level. At the county level, look what they're doing to make more walkable neighborhoods throught King County. This is all good stuff. More of that, I say.

Acting Locally

morganb — Thu, 04 Oct 2007 11:17:12 -0700

Frank, while I agree that both transportation and climate change are two of the most complex dilemmas we face, I disagree with one of your main points. You say that stepping back for a moment allows us to see the largest causes of global warming. Though true, this perspective doesn’t help us here in the Puget Sound decide what to do. We need to address our own actions, and as you reluctantly admit, almost half of our emissions come from vehicles. Were we talking about a national proposition, then I would be referencing such national stats.

On a lesser but equally popular point in the broader discussion, I would love to read (not enjoy) an analysis of the net effect of congestion on VMT, peak congestion, fuel consumption and GHG emissions. I know that I avoid gridlock by riding my bike, driving at a different time, getting a ride or just not making the trip. I guarantee you that congestion reduces my transportation footprint.

Cows

Frank — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:18:00 -0700

hehe...thanks. It's true! Scientists are actually working on changing the cow's diet so they fart less. It's a huge problem for global warming, and unless we convince the world to go vegetarian, it will continue to be, no matter how many highway-miles we build...

"somehow figuring out...

Carless in Seattle — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 16:27:23 -0700

...how to stop cows from passing gas."

Funniest "serious" line in a transportation blog entry EVER. Made me laugh out loud.

Sims

Matt — Sun, 30 Sep 2007 09:12:10 -0700

I feel like Sims had a good point in there somewhere that got edited into incoherence. He's basically saying that we need to work faster to solve our problems ... but, Ron, you know how much people in this region love to sit on their butts and talk talk talk. The fact that the RTID is on the table at all at least provides a legal framework to get started working; nothing says we can't move faster once things are under way.

I get the socio-economic angle, but again he's misguided. A transit package is not the place to debate the regressive nature of WA State's tax system. Sounds like Ron's been hanging out with too many local activists at county meetings.