Roads and Transit: It’s BAAAAACK

The public has been ahead of the politicians on the issue of transportation for some time. Something poll after poll has shown.

http://t4america.org/blog/2010/03/30/new-t4-pol…

Now we have to get ahead of them for real – by voting Mary Margaret Haugen, Julia Patterson and the other “head in the sand” electeds, who've continually made a mess of building transportation for a sustainable future, out of office.

Ugh. This is infuriating. The plan also takes credit for the entirety of ST2 light rail, already passed and funded by voters (the same ones who rejected the highway projects in the plan), and includes essentially no new light rail except for an extension to Tacoma.

It's not just the exurban politicians who are supporting massive new highways. I understand if they do. But Dow Constantine and Tim Burgess? You are not getting re-elected.

Environmental leaders, run for office!! All of you! We will elect you, even if you have a massive cash disadvantage (like McGinn) or an establishment-supported opponent who says you want to put a toll booth on every street and double electricity bills (like O'Brien).

Hey Linda Brill jr, how about a link, or posting the document.
Your “selective editing” is lite on facts and heavy on comments from people that agree with your opinion.

This is journalism?

The issue that these politicians and planners forgot is that none of these zombie projects are funded, and thanks to the populist nature of our system of government, they will have to go before the voters to get funding for these projects, giving us plenty of opportunity to reject them all over again. The difference this time is that everyone is wise to the “roads and transit” ploy. The public will insist on voting on “roads” and “transit” separately, and that's not good news for roads.

“The TCC sent a letter to PSRC last year outlining their concerns about Transportation 2040, but did not formally oppose the proposal.”

was this letter strongly worded ? Followed by something resembling a U.N. Resolution ? Maybe a follow up e-mail that contained upper case words in bold was sent ?

Stop me before I type again, next time in all caps!

Maybe they should have resisted using the wingdings font.

How about including the South Park Bridge!

It was rejected by voters when it was part of the Roads and Transit ballot. Just like light rail to Tacoma.

what if they put lite rail on it?

which is why opposing roads + transit in the first place was a really dumb position to take. Anyone who thought that voting against that was going to stop any of these roads projects was naive. in the end, the roads will be built anyway, and we will have less transportation than was in the original roads + transit package.

Dow Constantine is not getting re-elected? I laugh in your face.

It would be helpful if somebody explained what PSRC's long-range transportation plan IS. These projects aren't back from the dead because they're not funded. This (unlike, as Rep. Deb Eddy thinks, our state's greenhouse gas reduction goals) is an aspirational plan. It may be that not everyone agrees with the aspirations, but this is really a silly thing to get so worked up about or to claim that you'll vote someone out of office over.

What do you mean? These projects aren't funded. PSRC just wants them.

Ben:

There are two types of projects in the plan: those on the “constrained” list and those on the “unconstrained” or “unprogrammed” list.

For the purposes of a metropolitan transportation plan, like T2040, one must identify sufficient funding to satisfy the feds. The plan with funded, or likely funded, projects is the “constrained” plan. The projects they'd like to build if it started raining dollars are in the “unconstrained” plan.

FWIW, Transportation 2040 lumps most of the bad road projects into the constrained plan, so they're planning on building them during the 30-year planning horizon.

It won't be Erica, she just heard about Transportation 2040 and the PSRC last week.

forevergreen, their constrained plan isn't funded. If you disagree, point to their programmed funding source for me.

lorax, realitybased, I think Erica assumes you're capable of typing “what PSRC's long-range transportation plan is” into google, as you will immediately get the result.

Link Light Rail was on the Roads & Transit ballot issue that the voters rejected. Yet, it was back on the ballot again the next year. The roads projects were all proposed because somebody wants them, just like light rail. And, they still want them.

South Park Bridge is in there – as well as a lot of other things. Hope about linking to the whole plan?

+1 to Some Dude. He's exactly right. All of the roads in the old R&T plan will eventually be built. All of the transit? Maybe.

Ben:

To develop the constrained plan PSRC must approximate revenue from current or allowed,but unprogrammed, sources.

If you look at the documents on their site, you'll see references to anticipated federal contributions, state gas tax, tolling, etc.

This from FHWA's Guide to Metropolitan Transportation Planning:

Resources are limited at all levels of government, and financial
planning is fully appropriate for transportation plans and TIP's. The
purpose of this requirement is to encourage good financial planning and to prevent plans and TIP's from becoming “wish-lists” of projects with no realistic chance of implementation. Without constraints, the need to make choices and set priorities is often ignored. Financial constraint requirements also ensure that maintenance and operation of the existing system is funded.

The plan must also include a financial element which identifies
resources that are reasonably expected to be available to carry out the plan and recommends any innovative financing techniques needed to fund projects and programs, including such mechanisms as value capture, tolls, and congestion pricing.

Although the MPO adopted plan must be financially constrained, at the option of local officials, a “vision plan” may be prepared that provides value by illustrating additional facilities and services that the region may wish to implement. Vision plans are useful as way to explore new, imaginative, or innovative funding sources for transportation investments.

Does that clear things up?

Erica doesn't understand that the region extends beyond Capitol Hill.

The extent of this piece cited a wide and diverse number of sources including the Sierra Club, Cascade Bicycle Club, and Transportation Choices, and Mike McGinn. This resembles a Fox News panel discussion that is “Fair and Balanced” but prepared for the Stranger crowd. How about telling us something about what is really going on here? The only Zombie here is the author.

McGinn is now favoring what he terms “the Surface Option.” He says that if we tear down the bridge the cars will go elsewhere. People will be forced to walk or bike to work–healthier alternatives. Any remaining trip miles can be absorbed by adding an extra lane to I-90 and re-timing the traffic lights on Lake City Way. This is the only way to achieve our stated goal of being a carbon-negative region.

Me hope about linking to the whole plan too.

It probably used to be true that linking transit to roads was a way to get transit funding.

Recently, linking roads to transit was certainly a way to get roads funded, and this may still be true in many places. However, by killing roads & transit in 2007, we made clear this strategy will no longer be a clear path to funding success in Washington. This was a huge shift, but only a fool would take it for granted.

Did anyone else notice that the two NO votes on T2040 were from McGinn, who opposed the roads focus, and Coppola, who objected to the transit and tolling.

And don't forget that everytime we have to beat down roads spending at the polls, we spend a great deal of money and energy that could be used elsewhere. This is the Eyeman effect.

I have to agree with Ivan. Who's going to run against him? Besides what are the chances his opponent will be better on transit? More likely his only real opponent will be another developer shill who wants to get rid of the CAO and build freeways everywhere.