Calculating the carbon cost of more lanes of freeway
Environmentalists like those of the Sierra Club aren't happy about the pavement portion of Proposition 1, the $17 billion roads-and-transit measure on the November ballot. So in terms of the carbon footprint, how bad is it?
By Clark Williams-Derry
October 10, 2007.
Over the past week or so, there's been a big to-do about greater Seattle's transportation measure, Proposition 1, which will appear on the November ballot in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The measure would spend more than $17 billion on new roads, road maintenance, and rail transit, mostly through an increase in sales and vehicle taxes.
To many people's surprise, King County Executive Ron Sims, a former board chair of Sound Transit, came out against Proposition 1 last week in an op-ed published in The Seattle Times. A chief reason for his opposition: global warming. Said Sims:
Tragically, this plan continues the national policy of ignoring our impacts upon global warming. In a region known for our leadership efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, this plan will actually boost harmful carbon emissions.
On this latter claim, I think that Executive Sims could well be correct.
We recently took a look at the greenhouse gas implications of building a new lane-mile of highway in a congested urban area. Our conclusion – which you can read in full [88K PDF] – is that every extra one-mile stretch of lane added to a congested highway will increase climate-warming CO2 emissions more than 100,000 tons over 50 years. Those emissions are broken out as follows:
- Road construction and maintenance: 3,500 tons.
- Net congestion relief: -7,000 tons (that's negative, folks).
- Additional traffic on the roadway: 90,000 tons.
- Additional traffic off the roadway: 30,000-100,000 tons.
- TOTAL: 116,500-186,500 tons
For a variety of reasons, which the full memo discusses in greater depth, these are conservative estimates. And to put all this in context: CO2 emissions in the U.S. currently average about 20 tons per person per year. So 100,000 tons per lane-mile is a fair bit of CO2 – not as much as a coal-fired power plant, but worth being concerned about. As I understand the package, Proposition 1 would add over 150 lane-miles of general purpose roadways – which, over the long term, could increase CO2 emissions by some 15 million tons.
Obviously, this isn't a full analysis of Proposition 1. It doesn't look at the greenhouse gas impacts of building or operating a train or HOV/HOT lanes, nor of the land-use impacts of more compact development that light rail might help foster. Still, Executive Sims may be on to something; if our estimates are even close to the mark, the greenhouse-gas impact of building new roads is pretty substantial.
The relationship between road building and CO2 emissions has relevance far beyond this year's Proposition 1 debate. British Columbia is considering a massive roadway expansion in greater Vancouver called the Gateway Program, which includes a controversial twinning of the Port Mann Bridge. And major road-widening proposals occasionally rear their heads throughout Cascadia and beyond.
To me, the most curious thing is that some supporters of this sort of road expansion try to claim the environmental high ground: Adding lanes to crowded highways, they claim, will relieve congestion, which will reduce overall emissions.
Our analysis shows this claim is bunk. Sure, congestion relief might help in the short term – say, five to 10 years. (Even then, it's pretty slim stuff.) But over the long term, traffic in crowded urban areas tends to fill all available road space. And when roads fill up, we'll just have an extra highway lane filled with idling traffic – and the extra emissions from new traffic positively dwarf any temporary decline in emissions from congestion relief.
Sightline isn't taking a position on Proposition 1 as a whole. There are a lot of complicated tradeoffs that we just haven't looked at – and which, frankly, we don't have time to examine. [Editor's note: Crosscut contributor Emory Bundy has taken a run at calculating the carbon footprint of light rail.]
For example, the Proposition 1 financing scheme, relying heavily on a sales-tax increase, falls most heavily on working families. And that would make our tax system – already the most regressive in the US [76K PDF] – even less fair. But building roads and trains can create high-wage jobs for people who don't have college degrees. The overall economic equity impacts are hard to gauge without an in-depth look at the regional economy.
Just so, the long-term impact on land use is hard to judge. Building light rail could foster compact land use, and folks in compact neighborhoods tend to drive less. But this will depend in large measure on what happens to the land surrounding each rail stop: Will it be up-zoned and surrounded by complete, compact communities? Or will it become parking lots and kiss-and-ride stations surrounded by sprawl-as-usual? Plus, even if trains do foster compact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods, will that offset the car-dependent development made possible by the new highway capacity? (After all, Proposition 1 adds more than twice as many lane-miles of roads than of transit.)
And finally, if the state of Washington (or the U.S. as a whole) does adopt a comprehensive, aggressive greenhouse gas cap, the issue of CO2 from road building is more or less moot. A cap would force overall carbon emissions down, regardless of how many new lanes of highway are built. Sure, highway building could make greenhouse compliance more expensive. But it won't put it out of reach. That said: Who knows how the politics of global warming will play out? We could wind up with no cap, or a phony cap that excludes transportation fuels. If so, extra roads could become a real problem.
Sure, I have some hunches about how these sorts of issues would play out. But hunches shouldn't substitute for facts. Before Sightline took a position on Proposition 1, we'd want good, reasoned answers to many of these questions – answers that we, regrettably, don't have time for.
Still, one thing is clear: Building highways for the sake of "congestion relief" will increase CO2 emissions from highways. And now we have some numbers to back this up.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 6:41 a.m. Inappropriate
We're growing. Growth will cause huge increases demand for travel. We're clearly not near ready.
If we don't provide a attractive alternative to the car, greenhouse gases will grow with population. An additional 50 miles of a light rail spine, along with the compact development that comes with it, has multiple environmental benefits, including the potential to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Most proponents of Prop. 1 are pretty vague when it comes to what they'd do instead. One side wants even more roads and buses (not electric rail) to continue to disperse growth and serve it with dispersed road systems. The Sierra Club's alternative is not as clear but seems oriented to a no new road future, which doesn't seem reasonable, or particularly responsible in the case of the sinking 520.
This Sighline data is interesting, and the report that goes with it is helpful. But it really doesn't answer the big question: will Prop. 1 ereduce greenhouse gases better than the alternative, which right now means no action?
I'm voting for the light rail as the best of any alternative. The compact development that comes with it and the clean energy light rail uses are a better alternative than doing nothing, which means living with what we've got, which may in fact be the worst alternative when it comes to addressing global warming.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 8:06 a.m. Inappropriate
There's no easy way to deal with climate change. Shame on TCC for dishonestly claiming that we can build billions of dollars of new highways without making global warming worse.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 9:10 a.m. Inappropriate
The gist, for those who didn't read the article, is that the environmental impact of the mining operation that extracts nickel used in the Prius in addition to the energy expended to build the vehicle has a greater net negative impact on the environment than a Hummer. So the irony being that a "green" car isn't so "green".
I think that it is a positive sign that popular debate about things like civil engineering projects or automotive technology includes an diverse analysis of environmental impact (i.e. not just what comes out of the project, but what resources go into construction as well).
But I think that our interpretation of diverse environmental impact needs to be equally diverse. We have to be careful not to fall into a logical fallacy whereby we confer a negative value judgement overall simply because the proposed solution has some draw backs.
To read both this post and the Prius article linked above, one could reasonably argue that both Prop 1 and the Prius are bad for the environment, and therefore if you care about the environment then you shouldn't support Prop 1 or drive a Prius.
In this context, the logic behind the argument doesn't persuade me, because while the Prius contains things like nickel and requires more energy to produce (making it less enviro-friendly than a Hummer), I don't think that people are misguided to own one. And I certainly don't think that Toyota should stop building the Prius, leaving the Hummer as the de-facto, if not explicit, alternative.
Change doesn't happen at the drop of a dime. Change comes slowly in increments, and you have to take the good with the bad. Is the Prius the solution to climate change? No. Is bio diesel the solution to climate change? No. But are they incremental steps in the right direction? Yes.
If our ultimate goal is to move towards a lasting solution to the challenge of climate change, then we have to take the long view on these things. And while new road construction has some up front impact on the environment, ANY solution will have an impact on the environment.
Not to mention that Prop 1 is just about roads. It has 50 miles of new light rail. How come nobody ever talks about this? So many of the posts on local blogs I've seen have focused on the roads portion. What is the environmental impact of light rail? Would it offset the negative gains in emissions outlined in this post? What would the numbers in this post look like if Prop 1 gets voted down, and we end up down the line with another proposal that doesn't include light rail? What would THOSE numbers be?
It is important to take the environmental impact of civil engineering projects into account--and to have real numbers--but one shouldn't dismiss a proposal out of hand simply because it isn't a zero-impact solution.
Zero-impact solutions don't exist right now, and they won't come into existance in a vaccuum.
Prop 1 has massive support for Light Rail, which seems to me to be the mass-transit option most likely to have lasting impact on "congestion". We also have to accept that as the area continues to grow, new and existing road infrastructure needs to be maintained.
The lack of concrete alternatives with demonstrable outcomes make it impossible for me to simply vote no to Prop 1. We need a solution to both road and mass-transit problems, and so far Prop 1 is the best SOLUTION I've seen.
Give me a better solution, and I'll vote for it. But don't give me the status quo as an alternative merely because Prop 1, which will be a step forward, isn't ideal.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 9:25 a.m. Inappropriate
The foundation of America is individual responsibility, not the abrogation of it. You might well be happy living under Kim Jon Il, and you are certainly free to move to North Korea, if you wish.
The pragmatic choice now is to plan on corridors on exactly the land use priorities you put forth, but don't tie us to a technology, or a single provider.
BTW, have you ever ridden the Link in Tacoma? Do you really think it will work to 'link' Seattle and Tacoma better than the Sounder train or buses we already have?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 9:31 a.m. Inappropriate
However if we spend our entire budget on much less than 10% of the entire transportation demand what have we accomplished? Nothing but created a whole bunch of ancilliary problems.
We need to solve the global warming problem within the context of reality. There is nothing saying that you can't run electric vehicles on highways - just as there is nothing preventing the running of old style diesel engines on rail.
BTW - one big difference between rubber tired and steel wheeled vehicles is that rubber tired vehicles stop a lot quicker. Not such a big deal for a traditional rail corridor, even with fatalities they are safer than highways - however if we are running rails down every neighborhood street???
BTW, have you even ridden the Tacoma Link?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 9:38 a.m. Inappropriate
But it needs to earn its way, and it has not yet demonstrated anything, save as a worthwhile downtown circulator in Tacoma. As I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) the bloom is also just now coming off the rose with the Max system in Portland.
I am heartened by the response to the balance between roads and transit in this package. But that is not how it was designed, it is a very poor 'bi-partisan' compromise between two camps rather than a system engineered to make the best of the combination of goals. This argues for a stronger voice for independent voters in our electoral system, but it doesn't mean we should get rid of the parties.
It is an argument against the 'real' status quo. Do you even know what that is? Have you ever even ridden the Tacoma Link? Or for that matter the Sounder Trains or Buses?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln District, Tacoma
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 10:29 a.m. Inappropriate
I use regional transit on a daily basis, but I do not commute to/from Tacoma so I can't speak to that.
I agree that Light Rail needs to prove itself, but that said, the overall point I made was that Light Rail is already starting to be established and will soon be running from downtown to the airport. This system already has some infrastructure in place, and building that out further is a good idea. Prop 1 does that.
If you want mass-transit and roads to be separate, then I want to know what the plans for each are. There aren't any alternatives being proposed in this debate.
It's been a pleasure, Doug.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 12:15 p.m. Inappropriate
In their own words, "Obviously, this isn't a full analysis of Proposition 1. It doesn't look at the greenhouse gas impacts of building or operating a train or HOV/HOT lanes, nor of the land-use impacts of more compact development that light rail might help foster."
So Sightline (formerly Northwest Environment Watch) admits that they are only studying the potential effects of a part of the package. Yet they want to appear as a totally neutral think tank. So are they? History suggests not. Their director, Alan Durning, was a supporter of the Sane Transit crowd and has a long history of not liking Sound Transit.
Here is an excerpt from a 2000 Seattle Times article on Sane Transit's opposition to light rail;
"Until newer technologies develop, Bundy wants the region to pursue less-expensive programs such as free buses and van pools. He contends such baby steps toward reducing congestion add up to a better solution than light rail.
That "least-cost" approach intrigues Alan Durning, director of Seattle's Northwest Environment Watch research center. He worked with Bundy on the theory and joined Sane Transit, though he doesn't usually align himself with conservatives like McKenna.
"I do think there are better alternatives, therefore I don't think it would be a tragedy if the thing died in the process of financial scrutiny,"
Indeed, Mr. Durning has a long history of opposing Sound Transit and light rail in the region. I read Sightline often and believe they do some good work, but look through their archives and you will find very little support for light rail and very little anaylsis of light rail's impacts. Very odd for a group that claims to care about sprawl and our environment.
So, does an organization that has a history of opposition to Sound Transit fairly weigh in on this debate. The facts suggest no. In the original post on Sightline the Roads and Transit package is referred to as the "RTID" rather than Prop. 1. This either betrays a lack of understanding or a built in bias towards the Sierra Club's branding habit of calling the package the "RTID".
Sightline also says;
"Sightline isn't taking a position on Proposition 1 as a whole. There are a lot of complicated tradeoffs that we just haven't looked at – and which, frankly, we don't have time to examine"
But are we to believe them that they didn't intend to weigh in this debate? Once again, history suggests not.
Sightline's analysis not only doesn't look at the transformative power of building 50 miles of light rail to match the Central Link and University Link projects already underway, but they also don't even look at the roads in the RTID package.
They ignore the fact that all of Seattle's money is being invested in worthy projects in the city that will help BRT and perhaps a surface /transit option.
They ignore the fact that the RTID investment on 520 pays for the new transit/HOV lane in each direction, not the GP lanes. Similarly, they ignore that the 167 investment also pays to complete the HOV network.
And they ignore the question of whether these roads are likely to be built even if this measure fails. History suggests that they will. The state legislature builds roads. Freight and suburban interests won't go away. Most of them will likely find a way to be built.
So, in considering this essay by Sightline, make sure you also consider their built in biases. And also consider what they failed to study, and why.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 1:01 p.m. Inappropriate
Totally agree. It seems to me that if you vote against Light Rail, you're implicitly voting for an all-roads agenda.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 1:02 p.m. Inappropriate
Are there false assumptions at work here? Is reality that static?
I used to own a 1972 Buick Electra 225...a big, honkin' V-8. Please don't yell - it was given to me, which leads me to warn all: the most expensive car you'll ever own is the one you receive as a gift.
I digress...My point is simply that my Buick - I called it the Dreadnaught, it was so damn big; it should have been articulated iin order to corner more tightly - was a gas-guzzling, pollution spewing automotive dinosaur the likes of which are not only not available from a new car show room, but not even from the worst of the worst of Aurora Avenue or South Tacoma Way used car lots.
Technology, I assume, continues to advance in pollution control, alternative fuels, composite materials, and other areas, so why assume that cars 10 years from now couldn't be environmentally neutral? That the furious argument that casts them as Satan's instrument of our environmental destruction won't be rendered moot such that roads will again be all the rage?
Prop 1's new light rail is 50 measly miles at a cost of how much per mile??? At what level of indebtedness??? For how long??? Adding how much cost to the average regional family's already strapped budget??? What advances in technology or changes in anything will relieve us of that???
I can't help but be seriously dismayed that Williams-Derry's article is simply the latest in a long line of those who push this stuff without regard to what it will actually do to the lives of ordinary people. Jam 'em into overcrowded urban spaces, shove 'em onto cattle-car-like trains, take away their freedom of movement and restrict their economic freedom by taxing them into near servitude, create more bureaucracy, build new and massively expensive infrastructure that follows a model as yet untested in this region that will enslave us with debt, refuse to adequately maintain what we have now, and simply ignore the realities of what people do with their lives on a daily basis.
There's also something very scary about combining floating bridges with "light" rail. Think Thanksgiving, 1990.
Dan Evans and Judith Runstad, two of the well-healed area glitterati who recently weighed in on the issue in a Seattle Times Op-Ed, to cleverly advocated for Prop 1; no skin off their noses or real dent in their well-padded wallets. But what it will do to the cost of car tabs or whatever will make a difference in the budgets of Joe and Jane Doakes and their ability to take the kids to the seashore next summer.
I'm sorry, but I just don't buy that the sky is falling...Given the probable cost of Prop 1, nobody has that kind of money!
The Piper
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 1:11 p.m. Inappropriate
The neglected 520 bridge is another story. The right time to get going on that has long past.
-->Aaron
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 2:11 p.m. Inappropriate
Certainly if you saw the status quo as I do you would not be voting for this package - it's a point of disagreement, that's all. FWIW your response is a good example of the passive aggressive strategy so often used by the status quo. Take that as you will.
More importantly you totally stereotype my opposition - responding not to my concerns but the typical right wing response. This is a complicated issue and we need people who can balance these concerns, not merely view it as a partisan issue.
Contrary to your assertions I am arguing for the combination of roads and transit, and that we can do a lot better if we make that the goal. We aren't voting on alternatives now, we are voting on a specific plan.
At the Sound Transit meeting immediately after the first defeat there were two people that stood up and spoke for a less rail centered plan, myself and former director Bob White. That was the alternative that passed in vote two. However the 'status quo' didn't like our position and both of us were attacked. I can't speak with authority on Mr. White's situation, but I know mine - and it certainly looks like he was made the scapegoat for the Status Quo's financial malfeasance.
I'd love to continue this discussion, but please respond to my suggestions, including that of putting a much higher priority on bus/HOT lane rapid transit, at this time, with only a small amount of additional money for rail.
Hopefully that would be a pleasure for both of us.
-Doug
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 3:13 p.m. Inappropriate
Still, Washington DOT employees were, and trying to build a span that will accommodate "light" rail plus allow it to operate when the weather sucks (like it has recently) does not engender much confidence.
And the neglected 520 bridge? Prop 1 does, of course, provide 100% of the funding to do all repairs/refurbishing/replacement necessary...correct? Or will we simply indebt ourselves up to our eyeballs only to have to indebt ourselves even more because the original indebtedness was insufficient to get the job done?
To me, that's a recipe for insanity!
If I'm going to be asked to buy the Brooklyn Bridge, I'd at least like to be able to buy the whole thing!
The Piper
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 3:27 p.m. Inappropriate
RE: 50 measly miles: For you Scott, we have a lay-away-plan. I know that meshes nicely with your general attitude about public works.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 3:38 p.m. Inappropriate
When I was using that term, I was using it interchangeable with a "do nothing" option that would leave all transportation projects--road and mass transit--where they are.
As for viewing things in non-partisan terms, I am not responding as a partisan. I am concerned with finding the best possible solution to the problem, so in this area I think we are in agreement--if your goal is to have a plan that takes roads and transit as two pieces of the same puzzle then you have no argument from me there.
When it comes to bus/HOT lane rapid transit taking priority over rail, I don't really see those solutions are long-term fixes. Since you seem to prefer them, I would be interested in hearing why you like road-based mass transit over rail.
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 4:25 p.m. Inappropriate
The biggest obstacle to finding a solution will be those that don't respect the needs of the 'other' camp. I believe 'they' know this full well, and will take advantage of that as much as they can.
The capital plan path I argue for is similiar to what we have seen in the bus tunnel. Invest first in bus corridors, then add rail, if justified, later. HOT lanes are bus corridors and I think that eventually the modernization path of such will include more and more electric vehicles. People like their private vehicles and I think that trying to FORCE something else is not wise, nor without backlash.
Give people the choice of paying the real cost of their trip - via a HOT lane, or the cheaper transit, running, in corridor, at full speed. Convert the whole freeway to rail in 100 years, if that is what makes sense then, but for now let's do what makes sense now.
And I'm not saying don't put any money in light rail - just that we shouldn't be spending all of it on this single technology with a single provider. Choice is a good thing - let's not give it up, ever.
-Doug
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 4:57 p.m. Inappropriate
:-)
-D
Posted Wed, Oct 10, 5:59 p.m. Inappropriate
Of course, one could look at the pattern of the last ten years for some guidance, where emissions per car have declined, but net emissions have continued to grow. That seems more sensible than hoping for a net-neutral vehicle and then demonizing an arguement that doesn't share that hope.
Posted Thu, Oct 11, 11:17 a.m. Inappropriate
If we looked at the pattern of the last ten years for everything, we would spend all our time walking with our backs to the future. Neither history nor technology are that specific.
If technology can advance to the point where a net-neutral car is possible, then eventually the total number of cars will be irrelevent since anything times zero is still zero.
To me, an underlying premise in much of the rhetoric associated with environmentalism and global warming is control; there's more political philosophy in what I hear than pollution control. Nothing new, really, since these efforts have been around for eons.
Whether it's deriding Guttenberg, Luddites in England, Paul Ehrlich and his Population Bomb alarmists, sky is falling pronouncements don't come true. Here we are again being told that if we don't cave to light rail, then we're functionally environmentally genocidal. Talk about demonization!
Yet the reality of Prop 1's gargantuan financial liability remains perhaps the 6,000,000,000 lbs gorilla in the room, a gorilla we'll never see the backside of, and who's even larger brother necessitated by plans for the next 50 measly miles will be upon us before you know it. I'd say that's worth demonizing.
Light rail does not equal holy grail, but it could put us all into a debtors' jail. Pardon the silly rhyme scheme, but the more I hear, the sillier it all seems.
The Piper
Posted Thu, Oct 11, 12:20 p.m. Inappropriate
How many new general purpose lanes get created by RTID/ST2: The global warming stuff is zealotry at its worst. Does Prop 1 give us any new road capacity for single occupancy vehicles and drivers??
Posted Thu, Oct 11, 3:07 p.m. Inappropriate
If we looked at the pattern of the last ten years for everything, we would spend all our time walking with our backs to the future. Neither history nor technology are that specific.
Whether it's deriding Guttenberg, Luddites in England, Paul Ehrlich and his Population Bomb alarmists, sky is falling pronouncements don't come true.
Oh I see, historical perspective is only important when you, use it. Silly me.
The more I hear, the sillier it all seems.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Posted Fri, Oct 12, 12:30 a.m. Inappropriate
I do agree with Sightline's analysis of the complexity of the decision making matrix and how it's difficult to pin down the methodological mercury in trying to decide whether RAT is good or bad. I'm particularly galled by the basic assumption that we accept the population growth numbers and have no choice but to submit to them. The people are coming! we are warned, so we have to build light rail! A more scalable approach than this exoskeleton of freeways and railroads would be MUCH preferred. That's why voting no, and scaling up with congestion pricing, tolling, and focused light rail investments paid for by local constituencies would seem infinitely better than blanket taxation and a byzantine building program that doesn't address Seattle as it is now, but some future Utopian dream of walkable downtowns connected by light rail populated exclusively by people who will someday move to the region. It's as if we're voting to increase the taxation on the people who live here to pay for the people who will someday live here. RAT is the preposterous proposition that all the people who live in homes and drive cars to work are evil and that what we need to do is ENCOURAGE people to move here, degrade our quality of life, and PAY for their future transportation system, so that these future potential citizens won't have to. Whatever happened to the GMA and concurrency? Aren't the cities (and not the RTID) responsible for building concurrent transportation infrastructure? Aren't developers supposed to pay for it? Why are ALL King County and Snohomish County and Pierce County households paying for this? The whole pathetic scheme is a colossal rip-off of current residents, and makes Boston's Big Dig look like a toddler in a sandbox.
Posted Fri, Oct 12, 2:25 a.m. Inappropriate
We degrade our quality of life by ignoring this, the truley galling part of your story.
Your different ideas are interesting (perhaps Utopian?) and generally well understood but they are not on the ballot for multiple reasons I suspect you are well aware of - but most basically because of a lack of much interest.
We're going to need to scale up on pricing no matter what, but it won't work without the high quality transit that moves on rails. The sooner we build them, the better.
In the meantime, on global warming, it is sensible and necessary to compare alternatives, and completely stupid and misleading to promote the silly stand alone footprint work, as Bundy is doing and Sightline risks.
Your ideas amount to a do nothing anytime soon approach, which is the worst possible way to get real about global warming and prepare for next steps on pricing.
Posted Fri, Oct 12, 9:17 p.m. Inappropriate
Quality is also important: Keep in mind the the package includes startup funding for the most environmentally destructive road project in Washington in decades - the Cross Base Highway. Cross Base will fragment the largest remaining intact native prairie in western Washington, possibly the rarest ecosystem in north America, as well as causing the extipration of the rarest mammal in western Washington and negativbely immpacting two rare plant species. Saying that 50 miles of light rail outweighs this makes any claim of sustainbility or consideration of the future a bad joke.
Posted Thu, Oct 18, 11:43 p.m. Inappropriate
A No vote on Prop 1 (i.e., the status quo) has three advantages: 1) it costs tens of billions of dollars less, 2) it acts as a governor on out-of-control unwanted population growth, and 3) it sets the stage for a variety of legislative initiatives to push forward with pricing and tolling and creative financing solutions for those who are willing to spend the money or are willing to accept the taxes. (E.g., I hear that Portland's light rail is financed with taxes on local businesses. This is the sort targeted taxing solution that is appropriate for particular corridor solutions.) General taxation through the sales tax and the MVET is simply the wrong way to fund light rail. In essence it taxes one form of transportation and one set of users so that another set can ride free. Drivers will resent it, and riders of transit haven't earned the almost free ride, particularly when "free" means spending tens of billions on the light rail cost elephant.