So what would be better than the roads-and-transit ballot proposal?
A leading critic of Proposition 1 takes up the challenge and proposes his notion of a better way to address the transportation problems of the Puget Sound region. Some of the solutions are surprisingly modest, like allowing less parking on Seattle arterials.
Both friends and enemies call me on the carpet for criticizing the tri-county roads-and-transit ballot measure, Proposition 1. They say that we have to do something, and that I offer no viable alternative. Fair enough.
My argument has not been against trains or roads as such. It is simply that the package proposes enormous expenditures in central Puget Sound for relatively little improvement to transportation, and that it fails to take into account the inevitable upcoming constraints on the use of our cars. Specifically, I have argued that the rail system usurps a giant share of transport investment but will deliver a tiny fraction of trips. Proposition 1, in my view, is a simple failure of elementary cost-benefit or opportunity-cost arithmetic, a skeletal system that accesses only a tiny fraction of where people live or work.
I have further argued that the system unfairly concentrates service on downtown Seattle, as it if were the only place that mattered, and concentrates benefits on educated and affluent professionals. Two other fatal flaws, in my view, are the inexcusably regressive and unfair tax burden on the 98 percent of the citizenry who won't use the trains (whereas road investments are paid by road users through gas taxes); and a failure to better accommodate the movement of goods that are so essential to the daily functioning of the economy.
As for the highways portion of the package, I have argued that the proposal also overemphasizes the same mega-project approach. In other words, Proposition 1 is precisely the same-old same-old "we can build our way out of congestion" mentality, a mindset that pretends that we do not have to change our ways. But we do need to "think anew," and so here is my roadmap to this new way of approaching our transportation challenges.
Let's start with some basic assumptions.
- The real cost of private automobiles (specifically SOV, or single-occupancy vehicle use) will gradually rise, enough to induce more people to evaluate alternatives like public transit or carpooling, or to accept some forms of direct payment, like congestion pricing.
- Planning and the market will both act to concentrate development somewhat, although much less than planners would prefer. Such increases in density will favor higher transit shares. A planning goal is a greater balance of jobs and housing, to reduce long-distance commuting. However, actual planning policies serve to segregate by household type and income, thus raising the length of the average commute. The rail portion of Proposition 1 serves mainly the commuting of suburban professionals to downtown Seattle.
- The voters have already approved the first stage of Sound Transit light rail. The downtown-to-SeaTac route should be operational, and the downtown-to-UW link has perhaps a reasonable chance of completion, even if the upcoming package fails. Extending to Northgate is not impossible.
Given these assumptions, what are the smart alternative strategies?
The first goal is to maximize the capacity of the road system to accommodate both people and goods, as efficiently as possible, under a strategy to increase transit and carpool use substantially, through targeted enhancements to both the freeway and arterial road systems, and though implementation of increased demand management.
Since I am assuming that the rail system will be only the central link from SeaTac to the University of Washington, or Northgate, via downtown Seattle, I am relying on buses carrying possibly several times more passengers within 30 years.
A key component of a superior bus system will be seamless express-bus and bus-rapid-transit service on the entire freeway network, connecting all major centers. These routes are where the trains would go under the Sound Transit extensions in Proposition 1, but I have in mind a much more complete network by using buses. My scheme would require dedicated transit/HOT (high occupancy toll) lanes in both directions, starting with Interstate 90 from Seattle to Bellevue as a priority test.
Enhanced bus express service will be needed on a large network of non-freeway arterials, as well, which would require both some reconstruction of selected arterial highways and some form of preferential transit treatment. The most critical is Highway 99 from Marysville through Tacoma, but there are many other prospective routes. The broader Metro Transit and Sound Transit bus networks are not bad, although with improved publicity, cheaper passes, etc., service can potentially be much increased. In fact, why not free passes for elderly, youth, the poor, maybe to anyone who takes transit at least three days a week?
Serious attention should be given to adding some form of jitney service, especially in lower-density, far-suburban areas. Planners have long overemphasized the shares of jobs in "major centers," whereas in the real world more than half of the jobs are dispersed in many smaller concentrations. For these outlying job centers, greater incentives for carpooling and ride sharing make sense.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 6:12 a.m. inappropriate
Nice Try - But......: Unlike most of the Prop. 1 bashers, at least you have come up with an alternative.
The trouble is that it would take 10 years at least for anyone to agree to parts of it, if ever. The last poll showed support for "congestion pricing" stood at a whopping 25%!
The problem with all of the more bus schemes is that they are all rely on roads, which we'd need to build more of to support more buses. In addition to the obvious impact of more roads on global warming, what about all the other polluting features of buses that you don't get with rail?
Two things that appear to help with a multitude of environmental issues are "electric" light rail and more compact development. If we left it all up to the market, the plan outlined above would result in more sprawl, more roads, more bad stormwater, and more global warming.
The costs of operating a car are going up. That's one of the best reasons to get off our duffs and get moving on our best chance to actually do something about traffic around here, starting now in the real world, not in a dream world like the one described above.
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 7:20 a.m. inappropriate
Is it legal to lie about the Public's Finances?: This argument that opponents of Prop. 1 have no alternative is a lie, if not an outright fraud.
The fact is that the Sound Transit Board has completely failed in their financial responsibility to manage two major areas of their capital responsibility - regional bus service and commuter rail. They have chosen a less effective technology as a panacea not to serve the needs of the public but 'their' own self serving desire to create a 'sustainable' monopoly.
It is a political fact that the opponents are of very different minds and would likely not be able to draft a compromise. I do think the bringing together of the RTID and Sound Transit was a wise step forward, but it is a path we need to go further along before we should provide a fifty year funding source. Realistically, we are going to need to do this with two feet, not a monolithic effort as has been now put before us.
And given Sound Transit's failures the way to do that is not to give Sound Transit the opportunity to give the priority they criminally failed to address in their first submittal - it is in fact for the RTID folks to take on more of the responsibilities of the transit camp. Remove responsiblity for bus rapid transit from Sound Transit and transfer it to the RTID.
Congestion pricing is also a subject that the RTID should administer. It is tough leadership, but I believe it can work - if we proceed under the following constraints:
Start with single lanes, so called HOT lanes (bus rapid transit, carpoolers, and those who choose to pay the price)
Establish a net no new taxes policy for additional funding except for congestion pricing revenues.
REQUIRE that all congestion pricing revenues be spent ONLY on the particular segment of road for which they are collected.
Responsibility for Commuter Rail should also be removed from Sound Transit - the complete lack of a plan/study for Eastside Commuter rail is another great example of the FAILURE of Sound Transit to administer their technologies in service of the PUBLIC. I personally believe Commuter Rail should be extended not only to the Eastside but also to Olympia and Bellingham as well as Wenatchee/Yakima.
Creating a new agency might be a good way to do this, however the State DOT might well be better - a new division of comparable status to the Ferry system. The City of Tacoma also has a small rail operation and that might well be an organization to consider - perhaps 'selling' it to the state to start their division???
I also think there are congestion pricing issues that exceed that of either the Sound Transit or RTID boundaries. Personally, I believe that we should substantially redevelop the major arterials that extend just outside of the RTID as managed roadways, including tolls. This allows for the collection of some revenue from those using the regionally financed roads and also offers us an opportunity to improve access, functionally and aesthetically, to our major, nearby, natural areas. These corridors might well be an extension of RTID authority or operated by DOT.
We should a second vote for Sound Transit as well. However it should drop, at this time, plans to build the SeaTac-Tacoma segment of light rail and should consider dropping the Eastside segment. (Personally I think they should reserve the I-90 right of way for bus transit and build a bus tunnel (ST funded) in downtown Bellevue, along the same phasing strategy as the Seattle Tunnel. 520 should be re-built to handle rail, without limitation.f additional funding is necessary to complete the original ST contract with the public - as an extension and/or expansion of existing tax authority - that is okay, but that need to be honest about that fact. (Continues as a reply)
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 7:28 a.m. inappropriate
Can 'they' handle the truth? (continues above): The fact is that 'they' can't handle the truth - this marks the difference between a good organization and a bad one (as well as a bad lawyer and a good lawyer). Rather than responding to their critics they have sought to discredit them, including, in my case, criminal allegations of harrassment for asking 'them' to be accountable through strictly legal channels.
Besides funding a Bellevue Tunnel, completing their original committment, only a few other areas of light rail development merit consideration at this time.
My personal first thoughts would justify the following:
an expansion of the Tacoma link to the area of UPS, on 6th Avenue and the already proposed (and financed?) extension to the Emerald Queen Casino.
a spur to Renton along with a study of eventual Valley links, including eventual eastside expansion and a Kent/Auburn loop to SeaTac.
An initial Snohomish County route - perhaps Downtown to Alderwood Mall? - or their own bus tunnel type corridor development, at their preference.
And that's it - that's all they've earned. IF even that.
I also agree with Dr. Morrill's priority on the subject of arterial management - much can be done there, including removal of parking for peak time periods, etc. The parking of delivery trucks in the middle of the street might actually already be illegal, but I strongly believe this is a good thing in pedestrian districts - it is very convenient, and safe, for the driver in these congested areas and any congestion they theselves create should only add to pedestrian safety.
Dr. Morrill has it about right. I hope you like some of my extensions of his proposals - some I consider almost no brainers, some only personal preferences.
Of the no-brainers is the need for the public to respond to the large failings of Sound Transit, for the RTID to take the high road in future submittals (with the guidance of the legislature), and for a no new taxes approach to road financing save for those strictly justified by congestion pricing revenues created on a specific segment of road.
When 'they' accuse private individuals of being 'trash', or similar for attempting to rationally participate in these important discussions the only ones who are evidenced as trash are they themselves. Although these public and private agents of the public will hold themselves as virtuous it is in fact the opposite. These 'folks' need to grow up and act like responsible adults. That would start by the complete forfeiture of all ill-gained assets and the begging of the rest of us not to treat them like the trash they are for the remainder of their lives.
'You' made that law, can you live by it?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln Hill, Tacoma
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 8:02 a.m. inappropriate
This is a serious transportation proposal, but...: This is a serious proposal to improve transportation in the region, and I would support it wholeheartedly if it were on the ballot. However, it's not on the ballot, and I doubt it would win if it were. More importantly, I don't believe Mr. Morrill's prescriptions are exclusive of the improvements that Prop. 1 will make.
Demand management is a great idea, but it's a really tough sell to a population wedded to its cars. The best strategy to get there, in the long run, is to provide an attractive alternative for people. Given the practical problems with buses, that alternative is light rail.
I think it will take at least a generation for tolling to gain a critical mass of support, and I'm unwilling to delay for another decade or two.
RTID is a significant step towards true BRT by its investments in HOV lanes in places like SR520 and SR167. SR99 is already going to get significant BRT investment (at least in King County) through the "Transit Now!" measure from 2006. Meanwhile, light rail addresses the I-5 and I-90 corridors, where there is no simply scope for further highway expansion. All of these ideas are complimentary to Sound Transit, not mutually exclusive.
The improvements to arterials he cites are long-overdue, but their cost is minor, particularly if funded by congestion pricing. We have the capability to do both those and major infrastructure investments like those in Prop. 1.
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 9:19 a.m. inappropriate
RE: This is a serious transportation proposal, but...: For the purpose of the ballot question the appropriate analysis of Dr. Morrill's outline is "are these things so obvious so as to indicate bad management on the part of Sound Transit?" The question is not whether another proposal would pass or not, but rather are the ideas contained so obvious and compelling that they argue for the failure of the current proposal.
I agree with your prioritization of the needs for alternatives - but we must be able to wisely choose among those. Sound Transit is not providing us leadership in this matter, and besides rejecting this flawed proposal 'we' need to 'fire' those most responsible. (and not the scapegoats that they have been shown to use in the past)
Light rail does have a place, but they must earn it. All 'they' are trying to do now is put forth a fifty year finance extension AND expansion BEFORE we even get a chance to see if we like it. BTW - have you ever even ridden the light rail link in Tacoma?
Congestion pricing will prove its worth if the RTID can do an effective job at starting to implement it via the judicial use of HOT lanes - as well as insuring that revenues are spent where they are collected.
Yes, the costs to improve our arterials are minor. That kind of illustrates the point of the failure of this submittal - it focuses on creating ongoing public works projects with no accountability. Alternatives matter, no just in transportation, but also in whom 'we' choose to do business with.
Timing is also an important factor. We need to proceed immediately with the most effective opportunities first. I-90 is a good example of a corridor for which we should be delaying light rail. Though I-90 can accomdate rails it can only take one train at a time - this mitigates much of the capacity POTENTIAL offered by rail technology. Better we should make a bus corridor on I-90 now and do 520 right, when we rebuild it.
Lastly, I may be out of touch a bit on the current BRT arrangement between Sound Transit and the RTID, but then again its not my job to do so. I've certainly done everything a prudent citizen should be expected to do before making an informed judgement on this plan.
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 5:13 p.m. inappropriate
Let's examine one element: on-street parking: It sounds good until one examines the details.
Morrill proposes reducing on-street parking, which appears harmless enough – until one realizes that something so simple as on-street parking is essential to a walkable. pedestrian-scaled neighborhood.
Consider Wallingford's 45h Street in or Eastlake Avenue East. Eliminating on-street parking would make those streets into arterial freeways. Imagine how they would if traffic is moving at +30 MPH in the curb lane: it would make the pedestrian experience extremely unpleasant. On-street parking as a common parking pool which cannot be replaced by off-street parking.
I am no fan of Prop 1 but Morrill is not offering an attractive alternative, at least so far as this element is concerned. If we get rid of on-street parking we get rid of the pedestrian-orientation of an arterial street.
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 5:32 p.m. inappropriate
Basically Agree: I basically agree with Prof. Morrill. Urban mobility can be divided between transit and general mobility. Let's take transit mobility (Mobility 101). The answer there is quite simple: price the HOV lanes. Doing so turns them into HOT lanes, providing Bus Rapid Transit a 50-60 mph right of way 24/7 throughout the entire metro Puget Sound. Cost to the public: nothing, since paying vehicles cover the cost (cf $57B for Prop 1, with authorized taxes of three times that amount).
Then add an equal number of bus-only lane miles on major arterials, taking them, where possible, from the parking lanes (for the sake of the merchants, replace on-street parking with convenient lots, perhaps on a 2 for 1 basis). These lanes can be bus-only 24/7 or rush hours only. Gates, like found in parking garages, keep out non-transit vehicles.
Transit mobility problem solved.
We will have our first HOT lanes on SR167 this spring. Other cities with these include San Diego, Orange County, Houston, Denver and Minneapolis. This is off-the-shelf technology.
General mobility (Mobility 102) is equally as easily solved, and by the same mechanism (pricing), but would take a great deal more political will. Pricing balances supply and demand, and pricing all freeway lanes, as proposed by Sims, the Sierra Club, and some business groups, would dramatically increase vehicle flow since a highway in semi-gridlock doesn't move many cars. (It also reduces greenhouse gas emission since cars stuck in traffic emit more per mile than those moving at speed.) Invest the net proceeds from pricing in more transit and/or more roads -- or return it per capita to the voters a la the Alaska General Fund, a progressive tax redistribution. Assuming it is not returned to the voters, this balances supply and demand dynamically, ie with greater supply (capacity) over time.
General mobility problem solved.
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 8:45 p.m. inappropriate
more buses won't get people to ride in them.: You're not going to get more people on Metro buses to save the environment because the environment *inside* the buses is so consistently horrible: daily assaults, fights, disgusting behavior, rudeness, filth, temperature problems, surly drivers.
*THAT* is what keeps the folks I know from taking the bus.
And lots of articulated buses on the road (e.g. 3rd, U-District, Montlake)can *cause* congestion and longer trips for those poor folks trapped inside the them.
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 8:46 p.m. inappropriate
Suck it up: Three things that would make a big difference:
1. Raise the driving age to 18, no exceptions.
2. Close all downtown areas to vehicles. Period.
3. Make ride sharing, carpooling, bus/train riding mandatory, not an option, to all job sites. Issue 50 miles of free local "anywhere" trips a month, use em or lose em, no trading, saving, or selling.
Posted Tue, Oct 23, 10:08 p.m. inappropriate
RE: more buses won't get people to ride in them.: Your argument is commonly extended as a justification for light rail - allegedly attractive to a better class of rider - which may well have happened in a market or two. But there is nothing save happenstance going on here.
I haven't ridden the bus regularly lately, but I can assure your stereotypes are way off base. Sure, poor people ride buses. Babies cry too. Deal with the reality of America, and life, and stop being a primadonna.
Commuter routes are by and large quite nice - I will admit to sharing your opinion as regarding one route - the one serving Harborview - which can get quite slow with the mobility impaired and others of the treated indigent class. C'est la vie.
Living in the world is not such a bad thing. Try it sometime.
-D
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 1:09 a.m. inappropriate
RE: more buses won't get people to ride in them.: I haven't ridden the bus regularly lately
Then stop pretending to be an expert. Buses are slow and unpleasant. I ride them everyday, so I actually know WTF I'm talking about.
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 1:19 a.m. inappropriate
Sit down before you fall down, chief.: Your solution is more buses? Please.
As a regular bus rider, I get to know the limitations of Seattle's sorry-ass bus only transit system. You shudder at the high cost of building rail right-of-way, but propose spending billions on goofy road projects that'll *somehow* speed up slow and unpleasant buses.
Everything you propose, including HOT lanes on I-90, has already been studied and passed on. Since you choose I-90 as an example, it's worth noting that when light rail starts service across the lake, 50% of the peak time trips across the lake will be made on rail. 50%! That kind of ridership isn't within spitting distance of anything you've suggested.
People ride buses because they have to, and rail because they want to. The only people who get excited about riding the bus are children.
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 11:18 a.m. inappropriate
RE: more buses won't get people to ride in them.: I have ridden Seattle buses quite a bit, but it has been a few years, and I may well be out of date. Please don't F'in insult me because I disclose possible faults with my proclamations.
A couple of thoughts about buses - buses aren't unpleasant it's all about people. Are you suggesting that we only route our light rail to rich areas so we avoid the unpleasant ones? Think about the consequences of your actions.
Is the downtown bus tunnel going to be any less slow or less unpleasant when it opens for light rail? I think not.
Final thought - how 'bout an apology?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln Hill, Tacoma
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 11:25 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Sit down before you fall down, chief.: Are you for real?
There isn't a single thing that's even worthy of responing to in this spurt.
I did respond to you in your reply to my comments about the potential quality of bus service, though for some reason you take me to task for riding the bus 15 years ago.
To restate my post, yes, there are problems with bus service, but they are merely a reflection of our society. Deal with it and we will have a better society, as well as actually solving our transportation problems combined with a market based approach to market vehicles - HOT lanes.
The only debatable question is whether 'Will of Horse's Ass' can ever speed himself up and make himself a little bit less unpleasant.
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln Hill, Tacoma
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 11:50 a.m. inappropriate
RE: more buses won't get people to ride in them.: I don't have much of a problem with the kinds of people who ride public transportation.
But, if I had a choice, I'd rather be jammed in a light rail train than a bus for the trip from downtown to the U-District. It'll be nine minutes by train, but it always seems like an eternity by bus.
No, I'm not saying light rail is only for the rich. Where did I ever say that? If light rail is for rich people, then why is the very first line going through one of the poorest parts of Seattle?
I like the bus tunnel. It's the easiest way to get from Westlake to Pioneer Square in the middle of the day. When light rail opens, it will only get more useful.
Oh, and light rail does attract new riders, the kinds that would never, in a million years, get on a slow, stinky bus. Whether or not you call these people "better" riders (I don't) is up to you.
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 12:04 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Sit down before you fall down, chief.: There isn't a single thing that's even worthy of responing to in this spurt.
You ride the bus 15 years ago, and you then lecture others about how we should trying "living in the real world."
To restate my post, yes, there are problems with bus service, but they are merely a reflection of our society.
You (yet again) mis characterize the nature of my (and other's) argument. The problem with the bus isn't the varied social strata that rides them, it's the fact that taking the bus isn't a quick and speedy way to get around. If I'm stuck next to a crazy homeless guy on a bus, depending on traffic, I might be stuck with him for a half an hour or more (and he with me!). But if I'm on a train to the U-District, it's 9 minutes, regardless of traffic, weather, or whatever.
I don't have a problem with the kinds of people who ride the bus. I just wish we could go where we're going a bit faster.
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 12:06 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Sit down before you fall down, chief.: Oops, lines 1 and 3 are not mine, but Tooley's. They should have been blockquoted but weren't.
Posted Wed, Oct 24, 4:28 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Suck it up: ...and then the little inconvenience of living in a free society comes into play.
Posted Fri, Oct 26, 4:26 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Sit down before you fall down, chief.: I agree with Will of Horses Ass. Dltooley doesn't have a clue and seems to be intentionally mis-representing Will's thought process. Light rail is the only way to go, it will be much quicker and more efficient in every neighborhood regardless of demographics. Buses often cause traffic jams and are very very slow to get from point a to point b. I would never ride a bus for this reason. I would ride a train if it got me to my destination faster than you can say "yes on prop 1"!
Posted Sun, Oct 28, 8:38 p.m. inappropriate
The Bottom Line - a different take: You know, I agree with much of your piece, except for all those overpasses with no estimate - my, that will be expensive. And congestion pricing - that will be a lead balloon here in car-happy Seattle with no mass transit alternative. I don't really care for your premises either, but skip that for now. Aside from those picky points, I just need to edit your last paragraph a bit:
The bottom line for any alternative package to Proposition 1 is to realize that urban transportation is expensive, and that driving our cars or taking transit will not be fun, but at least we should get as much product - that is, passenger miles - as possible for our investments and expenditures.
THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH!
That sobering up leads, I hope, to admitting that we must begin to change our behavior.
And with that, I reach precisely the opposite conclusion:
YES on Prop 1
There, much better now.
Posted Mon, Oct 29, 1:55 p.m. inappropriate
Light Rail, Bus Riders, Elitism, Crime, the Poor, and the GMA: People on buses: Because buses serve a wide network of people, the indigent, the homeless, and the criminal are likely to use buses more often than more expensive modes of transportation. The routes they use are unlikely to be commuter routes since commuters are commuting to work and thus unlikely to be indigent, homeless and criminal. Other bus routes will existent that seem more threatening to the intolerant, squeamish, and cowardly. On the other hand, some bus routes will exist that are in fact more dangerous to all riders.
Elitism and crime: Because light rail is selective and essentially elitist in its selection of routes (to the Airport, to the UW, to Downtown Seattle, to Downtown Bellevue, to Microsoft, etc.) the likelihood of meeting undesirable elements is lessened. Riders are likely to be Republicans going to work, traveling for work or pleasure, or their children attending the UW.
The point here is that light rail will have a certain self-segregating effect on population. There will be the 2% to 4% paying a couple of bucks to ride the thing who are the winners, and then there are the losers, who subsidize each ride by $10 or so and never have need to use light rail, ever, in taking kids to school, buying groceries, and generally living their lives.
Criminals will still ride the bus, but some will ride light rail. There was a report a few months ago about gangs who'd congregate at Portland light rail stations. And the stereotype of scarey subway trips in 1970's NYC persists in movies. In the future I can imagine gangs who use will use cell phones and light rail to increase the reach of their criminal activities, thus opening up crime and criminals to the entire region. Am I worried about this? Not a whole lot.
Light rail is more attractive than buses: I don't recall where I saw the study, but my take away (and I could be easily wrong) was that in an apples-to-apples comparison, transit would attract 50% more riders than buses on the same routes. I think this gets down to buses being a little less reliable and punctual than light rail because of traffic, and because light rail makes fewer stops, so gets where it's going faster. (But please note that light rail can't do milk runs and will do your typical express A-to-Z route, while buses can service A-to-Z runs and A-to-B-to-C-onto-Z runs, or anything in between.)
Helping out the poor: One of the Holy Grail fallacies of light rail is that it helps out the poor because now they'll have access to light rail. Unfortunately, what happens is that development around light rail stations gentrifies the local area, and the poor are priced out and move away. So the poor don't win, they get displaced. The winners are developers and landowners. That's why, I presume, that Portland chooses to tax business for its light rail (or so I've heard and never verified), which makes good sense.
Light rail is Anti-GMA: The Growth Management Act as it is applied in suburbs, requires that growth pay for growth, i.e., home developers pay for infrastructure costs up-front. These costs are than passed on to those who buy new homes. Clearly light rail is infrastructure designed to manage the intended growth of downtowns. Growth should pay for growth, so why aren't the new employers -- the Boeings and the Microsofts -- who are doing the hiring, and the new residents living in the downtown condos, paying for this growth? Why are we taxing everyone in the region with the MVET and the sales tax and subsidizing the new development for these new people who aren't even here yet? A consistent GMA "growth-for-growth" policy should be applied here, and the old failed inefficient and ineffective tax-and-subsidize financing methods of Prop 1 should be rejected forcefully.