Backgound

In the November 6, 2007 general election in the Seattle Area there was a ballot measure, known as Proposition 1 or Roads-and-Transit, for a big multi-billion dollar transportation improvement package that would have improved major highway bottlenecks and also added fifty miles of light rail in the region.

The Results

Proposition 1 was defeated in the election.

My Opinions

In summary, I think that there was too much over too long of a time.

There were many billions of dollars in highway projects and an even greater amount in light rail construction. The increased taxes will last for about thirty to fifty years, and the taxes would have been relatively high, which would have made it difficult to raise taxes for other projects for the next few decades. If Proposition 1 had been approved, we would have committed ourselves to spending the next twenty years building highway and transit projects according to plans that were established in 2006. It is as if we were forced now to complete projects approved in 1990 even if they don’t fit the requirements we have now and that were not anticipated in 1990. How can we know now what will be the best highway and transit work that will be important in 2025?

To make things worse, our predictions of transportation needs over the next twenty years may be much more inaccurate than those made twenty years ago. There are several trends now that could drastically change transportation needs in the future. For one thing, gas prices have been going up, and as we use up the petroleum resources and as existing resources are harder and more expensive to pump and refine, gas prices will most likely continue to climb. As more cars use roads, congestion continues to get worse, it becomes more difficult and expensive to find parking places, and people spend more and more time out of their life to drive to and from work or school. Most drivers say they will never take transit or make other changes in their life style, but as the years pass, more and more people will make life style changes — move closer to work, use mass transit for commutes, ride a bicycle — in order to cut the high costs of driving and spend more quality time at home. This does not mean all those people will give up their cars, although some will, but in most cases they will just drive a lot less.

It is because of these factors that I predict that it is very likely that over the next twenty years there will be a major shift toward a need for more and better mass transit and less need for highways, but probably in ways that we really can’t predict very well now. Also, new technologies may change transportation requirements. Therefore, I think it is a dangerous mistake to commit many billions of dollars to a twenty-year plan that may turn out to miss the mark by a big margin as to our requirements in 2027.

Many people have also said that it was a mistake to put roads and transit into one package. I am not convinced that this was a major factor in the defeat of Proposition 1, but I think it may be very possible. The expert opinions are for Sound Transit to submit a smaller transit-only package to the voters.

My Suggestions

I am in favor of a new Sound Transit package to be presented in the November 2008 general election. The new package should be much smaller, with a few smaller projects that can be completed in the next few years.

I would suggest extending light rail from the University of Washington to Northgate, and from SeaTac Airport a few miles further south. I would also urge a starter monorail line — a portion of the Green Line from Dravus Street to Safeco Field. Also consideration should be given to more definite plans for mass transit service on the Eastside. There would also be improvements in bus service.

Then, in two more years, place another transit package on the ballot, extending light rail a few miles further and probably construct a starter line on the Eastside. Every two years, there would be another small package, extending service a little further and improving bus service.

By presenting relatively small packages every two years, there would be a greater likelihood of voter approval because of lower taxes and faster completion time. Also, the packages would be based on current conditions, keeping up with changing requirements. There would be the additional factor that with each new proposal the public would already be experiencing the results of earlier packages. In the beginning there may be a tendency of people to vote against the proposals because it will not reach their neighborhood. However it should be pointed out to those people that voting in favor the of package will bring transit a step closer to them, and that it is important to proceed step by step.