"The reason why I voted “yes” on Proposition 1 comes down to my standard, does this measure make it harder to drive and easier to live without a car."
--
You insufferable fool. That is why this measure deservedly will go down in flames.
--
"I feel that it isn’t going to break many budgets. Yes, I know, there are poor people for whom $60 a year is a lot."
--
Just keep trotting yourself out there, Roger, with statements like this one. You are indeed your own agenda's most effective saboteur.

Roger has done a great job of describing why i'm voting no on Prop 1.

It raises the car tab by $100 at the wrong time, for the wrong people, for the wrong reason: to make it harder to drive. (Or bike.)

Prop 1 appears to be the work of deal making between special interest transportation advocacy groups who got together to divvy up the spoils: to the bike group, the streetcar crowd, etc.

The next time we see a transportation measure on a Seattle ballot how about one that demonstrates how it keeps the streets from falling apart? And doesn't place the burden disproportionately on the the poor?

Yep, Roger makes a great case for voting NO. But, it is more conclusive proof that he has never met a tax he didn't like, if you were still wondering.

The Geezer

Roger, your comparison of driving cars to smoking is very revealing as far as how you think, but it also shows why you are so out of touch with real Seattleites. Smokers realize they have an unhealthy, even potentially deadly habit; drivers see their cars as useful tools that help them live their lives better. There's nothing wrong with the way you think, it's just that you're part that minority of ultra-left voters, about 20 percent of the city population, who will vote for McGinn before he gets put out in the next mayoral primary. $60 car tabs are going down!

I am a transit user, pedestrian and bicyclist. Every chance I get, I walk, ride my bike or take the bus. I also work for myself and have to attend client meetings all over the region, usually multiple meetings each day. There's no way I can do that riding my bike or taking the bus.

Slowing me down as I drive lowers my productivity, and when I think about all the other non-commuting drivers who need to get to various locations everyday, I think making driving harder could hurt the local economy.

We need a transportation system that makes as many modes feasible for as many people as possible. Transit should be the centerpiece. Bikes are part of the solution but hardly the primary one. Cars also need to be in the mix, like it or not. It's irresponsible for us to try to force folks from their cars when there are not workable alternatives.

What tipped the balance for me on Prop. 1, though, was the regressive nature of the tax. The pre-Eyman car tabs were based on the value of the car--the fancier the car, the more you paid. A flat tax is unconscionable when so many people are hurting--especially lower income folks, who weren't doing that well even during the boom.

Contrary to Roger's assertion, I think the $60 car tabs will hurt more than help. The economic downside will exceed the environmental upside.

I think this is the first time I've voted against a Seattle tax increase.

Crosscut's saving grace is how many readers connect shallowness of thought with manipulation.

Message to Mannix: true left iconoclasts are routinely marginalized and replaced with corporate state mandarins and the other hangers-on needed to purge independent thought. Cloying piety is a near certain sign of the captive left, not the "ultra-left."

"Yes, I know, there are poor people for whom $60 a year is a lot. But my guess is that there are far more people out there for whom $60 represents the last straw, the final cost that provokes carlessness or at least coming up with a plan to be car-free."

Mr. Valdez has said a lot of utterly idiotic things here, but this really has to take the cake.

The number of transit corridors that will be improved is as few as four, not eight, on two of the three spending plans released by SDOt in the last two months. Undisclosed at the time this was placed on the ballot is outside funding is required to do this. Speed increases also come at the cost of removing bus stops, making it *tougher* for older folks and the disabled to ride the bus.

David Miller

Another example of someone who knows how I should live my life and is willing to spend my money to make me live his way.

If you make it harder to get around in a car then more cars will be idling in long traffic lines spewing pollutants into the atmosphere.

Making it harder to drive is harmful to the environment.

Seattle's citizenry needs to rid the palace of courtesans like Roger Valdez.

What is the one thing that links the following:
1) People having difficulty getting around on bikes
2) People finding it uncomfortable riding buses
3) People finding it difficult to drive on city streets

Streets in poor condition! So we have a problem that affects all users of all transit modes. The ST had an excellent article on 10/24/11 on just how bad the problem is, I urge you all to take a look. The essential problem is a huge backlog caused by deferring maintainance.

Given that, we need a ballot measure, or some other method that will direct SDOT to come up with a plan that will catch up on deferred maintainance, and then a budget that will tackle that problem.

Like the author, I voted for the Proposition, holding my nose, because it was better than not devoting money to transit altogether. But it has problems on its individual components.

Worse yet, it continues to promote an illusion that has to be exposed: that mobility, access, and environmental problems associated with transportation can be dealt with on the basis of a Chinese menu: one helping of street improvements, one helping of bike lanes, one helping of street cars, one helping of bus routes. This works great for picking dim sum at Sunday brunch in the International District, but is not going to work for transportation. I repeat something I have said in earlier posts: There is not enough money or geography to take care of all transit modes. What is needed is a realization that says 1) People drive cars because they have no realistic alternatives, not because they are bad; 2) The only way to get people out of their cars is to pick AN alternative (not 3-4 really expensive and long-term ones) that is most cost-efficient and easiest to implement and then stick with it until it can provide the same level of comfort, safety and convenience that cars do; 3) That unless we are going to flying cars, that alternative will have to operate on a road grid of some kind, ergo, we need roads in good condition.

Swear to G--, this is not rocket science.

Why villainize cars and drivers? Everyone just wants to get from Point A to Point B quickly and efficiently in the manner that best serves him. Transit can't go everywhere. Everyone can't ride bikes. Some of us can't walk. Many people drive cars and trucks by choice. Drawing a comparison to public smoking is silly in the extreme. Could it be that Roger Valdez is some kind of fictitious shill flack, like his brother-caricature, Juan?

Valdez is just another car-hater. But, at least he admits he wants to force people out of their cars. So, he is honest, if not intelligent.

Prop 1 is a regressive tax, with most of the revenue wasted on garbage like streetcars, curb bulbs and bike lanes, and less than 20% to pavement repair and maintenance.

Vote NO on Prop 1.

When bicyclists pay a $5 per year bike tab fee then I'll be more likely to consider hiking fees on my car for bike studies, bike trails, and bike lanes.

I pay $35 x 3 on my tab fees for the three cars my family owns. But I ride my bicycle, so do I get a rebate for not ruining the streets?

Anyway as a bicyclist I want the streets repaired. A pothole is a pain for a car, its a lot worse if I hit it on my bicycle. And I'm all for street repairs that seal the surface so that they last longer than a quick patch. While I like bike paths, I ride maybe 20% of my commute on them. The rest of the time I'm dodging potholes with the rest of you.

When I was in public health and working to eliminate the calamitous health effects of smoking, we landed on a mission statement that I thought summed up what we were trying to do: make King County the hardest place to smoke, and the easiest place to quit smoking, and live smoke free. It seemed an elegant way of capturing what success would look like.

After Proposition 1 gets squished and I-1125 and I-1183 win, you might also contemplate the fate of Tim Gallagher, the head of Seattle Parks and Recreation. He resigned in April 2010 after his proposal to ban smoking in city parks was greeted with a wave of opposition.

Seattle residents don't appreciate the various puritans, liberal or conservative, who want to run their lives. We pay for this circus, and in return we'd like to drive, smoke, and drink in peace. Not all three at once, mind you, but those who arrogate to themselves the authority to tells us what we can and cannot do need to realize that we are freedom-loving people.

Freedom starts, and for many, ends with those little things. So, Roger, you don't want me to drive? Expletive deleted, buddy. Run your own life, and only your own life. Stay the hell out of my knickers. If I need to teach you this lesson at the ballot box, so be it. Now go play on the freeway, you little brat.

Roger, we are so glad we have you to make us stop smoking, driving cars and having to live in high density rabbit warrens. Anything else we little people can do to help you achieve your version of utopia?