Well, Proposition 1, a major transit bill that included light rail and new highways, was defeated. This plan took 5 years to write. The next plan needs to be started from scratch. And, in the meantime, Seattle continues to grow, not building the infrastructure it needs to sustain that growth effectively and responsibly.
Depending on who you talk to, this bill would have cost anywhere from $150-$375 per household per year in sales taxes, and an extra $80 per $10,000 of car value in car tabs annually. Opponents said it was too expensive for too little, that it would take forever to pay off, that it wasn't radical enough to save the environment (Sierra Club and others), that it wouldn't ultimately solve congestion problems.
At the end of the day, I don't know exactly why this bill didn't pass. We'll see. And I am willing to admit that it might not have been the best possible transit plan. But that is exactly what drives me absolutely crazy about Seattle politics: we are simultaneously too idealistic and insufficiently willing to actually sacrifice. "I am only going to vote on a transit plan that solves everyone's problems and doesn't cost me any money." And don't even think about expecting everyone to drive less, regardless of the cost of gas.
I voted against Prop 1. And here's my central reasoning: First, you called it, in your first sentence, a "transit bill". It is not. It's a "roads & transit bill" and I think it's shady politics to couple two issues (with the largest pricetags of any tax-project in Seattle history) that are, in my view, too conveniently connected (i.e. politically as much as practically) to each other, and force voters to accept them both or none, ne'er the twain shall split. Now, I'll grant--in fact, I've been vocal about it since the day I drove into town--that Seattle has a huge infrastructure problem. But, frankly, I have almost ZERO confidence that adding 187 miles of new lanes & roads would even begin to soothe congestion. Adding more infrastructure does not make less traffic, it makes more. This is historical. A badger carcass draws a bunch of maggots. A buffalo carcass draws a billion. My uncle lived here for 11 years, moved away almost a decade ago--citing traffic as one of the very few frustrating things about living in Seattle. This ain't a new problem, & more lanes ain't gonna make it go away. When I drive about once a month to the airport, and it's 11:00 on Sunday night, and, almost invariably, I-5 is crowded--not just full, but really crowded--you'd be hard pressed to convince me that all those cars are out because of the poor infrastructure. That's a usage problem. Moreover--and this is important--have you noticed how shitty the condition of nearly EVERY ROAD in the area is, especially in-town Seattle? It's amazing! And we're going to pay a ton of money to build new ones, instead??? Now, I am bummed that this waylays a chunk of funding for the 520 bridge. That is important. Not to mention the--oh, golly--viaduct. Or the South Park bridge. Astounding. Neither the viaduct nor the So. Pk. bridge were included in this behemoth. Separate these issues, we'll have something to talk about.
Ultimately, my nay-vote had nothing to do with taxes, which is unfortunate because that's how our friendly politicos are reading the results (and, even more unfortunately, it's probably true, by and large): that people don't like more taxes. Pete's sake, I'm more than happy to pay more taxes. Just on smart plans. Hell, when I had my car, I was all set to pay huge car-tabs for the monorail. Nor is my position entirely "environmental" (I'm getting sicker & sicker of that word). On principle, my concerns are fundamentally ecological, though, of course. However, I'm excessively frustrated with the opponents of this bill who disparage it for not doing enough to "save the environment". No one should have expected that. We're way past that. My concerns are over the ways that this two-headed monster does nothing to help us live better as a part of this terribly rich ecosystem--this rainforest inside of which Seattle was built. It's just living better. I simply do not see how new roads help people live better. The Seattle metro area is crawling with (awful, crumbling) concrete surfaces. There is absolutely no reason to make more of the same. Improving transportation infrastructure by building more capacity has done nothing--in fact, it's only worsened conditions--to ease traffic woes since Eisenhower created the Interstate system. That's over 50 years of experience. We haven't learned a thing.
So, to respond to your last sentence, I'm not thinking about expecting everyone to drive less. I'm simply expecting it, and it has nothing to do with gas. Build a much more focused and thorough transit system first, fix the crap roads we've got, if we need to, and then look to new roads.
In the end, it's just embarrassing that a plan that took this much money & time to dream up & propose was this short-sighted. That's what drives me crazy about Seattle politics: not that we don't want to actually sacrifice, but that our politicians are, by and large, business-brained oafs who all drive to work. I take it your frustration hinges on the collective failure to sacrifice financially--i.e. someone like me pay taxes for roads I hardly use--but it's clear (see gas-prices) that money isn't much of a sacrifice for Seattlites. The actual sacrifice we can't seem to make is getting off-road.
At any rate, we gotta git together soon.
Posted by: andy at November 9, 2007 4:06 PM