When the Sierra Club sends me press releases decrying the “Roads” part of the “Roads and Transit” package, I sympathize. They see only the worst in the package. For example, they don’t see that a “yes” vote on “Roads and Transit” will build more light rail in the Seattle region than currently exists in Portland, Oregon. They don’t see the huge investment in HOV lanes that will make riding a bus in the suburbs quick and easy. They don’t see how RTID’s investment in Seattle streets will make possible the “Surface + Transit” viaduct replacement plan. And if anyone should understand that last item, it’s the Sierra Club. They, after all, were one of the first environmental groups to support the “Surface + Transit” plan.
It took years to get this package to the voters. If “Roads and Transit” goes down this November, don’t expect to see anything back on the ballot anytime soon. And what makes the Sierra Club (or Josh Feit for that matter) so confident that the next package will be any better than the current one? Count on the next measure to include far less rail and more buses. Money that would have replaced the South Park bridge or expanded the Spokane Street Viaduct will be shifted to replacing 520 and widening 405. Without roads investment, the “Surface + Transit” plan is toast. The ultimate irony would be if the Sierra Club’s campaign against the “Roads and Transit” package actually resulted in the building of another Alaskan Way Viaduct.
There is one upside for the Sierra Club concerning the viaduct. At least they’ll be able to get to their Interbay office that much quicker.
From what I’ve seen about the “package,” it looks transit-heavy. That ensures my support, really, but I thought that the road-builders would be the pissed-off ones. If both sides hate this, won’t that, you know, hurt its chances?
Hey Daddy Love-
Both sides don’t hate this. Look at the endorsers on the campaign’s website http://www.yesonroadsandtransit.org – enviro supporters of the package include: Washington Conservation Voters, Transportation Choices Coalition, Futurewise and the Tahoma Audubon in Pierce County.
Then look at all of the businesses on board – surprisingly the Bellevue Chamber of Commerce (along with Everett/Seattle/Tacoma), Microsoft, Boeing, etc.
It looks like the only people against this are on the fringe – Sierra Club and Kemper Freeman. Talk about odd bedfellows.
This is not the first time where a Sierra Club Chapter has had problems with a transit proposal. In New Jersey, their is plans to restore the Lackawanna Cutoff on the New Jersey Transit rail network, but the Sierra Club there opposes it for some reason. Lost the link where I first heard it, think it was the New Jersey Association of Rail Passengers, though.
Will
You are hitting at a terribly important issue. If we do not do this, we may never get anything done.
The absence of Chapp, CG, Murray, Cantwell, sunny Jim, etc. etc. from the public debate over these issues might be good if I believed they were working together. The absence of public stances of these shared issues is all too telling.
Frankly, one reason I contribute to Darcy is her willingness to take positions and her obvious grass/net roots ties. I would love to see her and Tom debate the future of NS traffic through our region. Even politically, this could be good since the monied interest on the Eastside know they are headed for bad times unless the regional transportation problems are solved.
I wonder.. is there some way we can use the blogosphere to cause this sort of thing to happen?
@4
I absolutely agree with you on the importance of this issue for the region, but I don’t understand why we need to hear from either Murray or Cantwell. This is a local issue. They need to remain focused on national issues. The fact that Darcy understands our traffic problems is great, but I don’t understand why that should factor into why we should be sending her to DC. Am I missing something?
I will probably support this package in order to get the roads built. If the price of the roads is more wasted money on light rail, so be it.
Lee,
It seems to me that a lot of our problems are due to the lack of leadership and these folks are our selcted leadership.
How is this relevant to Sen. Murray? Transport east of the Cascades has exactly the same relevance as her rightful concern for the fate of Msoft and the lazy B. For that matter it is also comparable to Se. Cantwell’s pre-campaign for Puget Sound. Moving traffic, all kinds of traffic through the corridor east of the mountain, is an essential aspect of the role our region can play in the national economy.
I am not talking just about a federal dole to support our local needs. I am looking for leadership that can draw our regional interests together.
Let me give you a personal example,. you and I have very different ideas about the role of downtown Seattle in the overall city (hopefully friendly disagreement). The issues in our relatively small world are .. sic smaller than regional transport, but the problem is the same. Left to their own devices, developers, property owners,etc. will create a mess. Brought together under as good leader, hopefully, everyone can benefit. Much as I dislike the Mayor’s status as a “unitary” government, I do admire his obvious talent in bringing divers interests together to achieve thinsg in Seattle. Hell, I am likaly to work for the man next election time if President O’Bama does not recruit the mayor to head OMB.
Back to now and why national senators should be involved in local issues. The NS traffic effects defense (Everett, Hood Canal), International economy (both Canada and the role of our Port), the new industries represented by MS and the lazy B, etc.
More than enough national reasons for the Senators to pay attention.
The local Sierra Club is dominated by Seattle folks. The cascade chapter is supposed to represent all of western Washington, but often doesn’t. I know many Sierra Club members from other parts of Western Wa that are supportive, but were shut out of the conversation.
@7
The more I think about it, I think there’s a little more truth to what you’re saying. If this entire effort fails, it does certainly impact the region in a way that we’ll probably need help from Washington DC to bail us out of it. From a standpoint of how the package is put together, however, that’s a level of detail that Cantwell and Murray need not be concerned with (for example: what percentage of the package goes to which freeway, etc).
@6
I will probably support this package in order to get the transit built. If the price of light rail is more wasted money on roads, so be it.
…and that’s why it’ll pass.
Nearly all of the “roads” funding in the proposal is actually infrastructure funding — repair and improvement of existing road-miles.
If it takes belated attention to the decay of our existing roads to garner enough support for a significant expansion of rapid mass transit capacity, that may be a worthwhile trade-off. And I would have said that even before the I-35W incident.
@ 11
Yeah, that sounds about right.
I was amazed to learn that the 50 miles of proposed light rail is more than the current 43 miles that currently exists in PDX. And Portland is a city with its shit together!
@6 So, you think only partially funding 520 is a good idea? That a concrete-pontoon bridge costing $550,000 per lineal foot is a good deal? That we can build our way out of congestion by adding ultra-expensive single-occupancy-vehicle lanes?
@11 “Nearly all of the “roads” funding in the proposal is actually infrastructure funding — repair and improvement of existing road-miles.”
That’s not quite true. Converting 520 from a four-lane to a six-lane bridge doubles its cost.
The Sierra Club responds.