The weight of even liberal opinion is shifting to "Yes" on I-912

Seattle columnist gets it right, for a change -- Bus tunnel epitomizes transit screw-ups -- and I applaud him for his surprisngly good job. Though a true-blue liberal, usually with only the most conventional and banal opinions, here he seems to think on his own and he adds his own enormous weight to my own inclination to vote for gas-rollback ballot measure I-912.

Comments

[Brian Miller]

Voting "Repeal" might be perfectly understandable and feel good-but will it solve the problem? What would you recommend doing?

[David Sucher]

It's not a "feel good" vote but a carefully considered policy judgment.

My reason for planning to vote Yes on I-912 is because the Mayor of Seattle (facing allegations of ethics violations) and the WA State Dept of Transportation are committed (which means they want us to pay) for a tunnel to replace the viaduct. Much as a tunnel might be a nice idea, there are hundreds of even nicer ideas out there and ways to spend the billions which a tiunnel would cost (above and beyond simply repairing the existing viaduct.) It's a matter of judgment and I do not trust the judgment of our leadership.

Moreover, the gas tax increase (which I-912 seeks to rollback) will provide only $2 billion for that tunnel --- less than half is what is (claimed) to be needed. That $2 billion will be merely a downpayment on what I believe will be a tunnel fiasco. So my vote for I-912 is essentially a vote against the tunnel and vote of no confidence in the political leadership of this state.

Btw, that $2 billion -- for a mere 2 mile corridor -- would use fully 25% of the money raised by this gas tax increase. And yet it doesn't even come close to solving the viaduct problem! I think that is a bizarre and foolish prioritization.

Otherwise, if I thought that the gas tax money would be wisely spent, I would have no trouble whatsoever paying it.

[Gomez]

I continue to insist that the vast majority of people who will vote yes on I-912 are doing so only because of high gas prices, foolishly thinking the repeal will significantly cut into those prices. It's not as much of a mandate against city and state transportation as you and everyone else thinks.

[David Sucher]

Gomez, What part of "My reason for planning to vote..." do you not understand?

[Gomez]

That part, David, I'm not arguing. But citing poll numbers to verify your position on I-912 comes across rather hollow, given the reasons stated in my previous comment. While there are several who see I-912 from a transport project POV, most see the repeal foolishly as a chance to save on gas. It sickens me to think that the viaduct could collapse on and kill dozens of motorists someday or that 520 will crumble into Lake Washington because a bunch of voters wanted to save 4.5 cents a gallon on gas.

[David Sucher]

Poll numbers? I wasn't aware that I had quoted poll numbers.

[Gomez]

My mistake... the John Connelly article to which you link cited poll numbers.

KING/5 had a first-rate SurveyUSA poll last week on Initiative 912 and the battle over whether to roll back the state's gas tax increase.

The rollback measure was ahead 52-41. When asked whether they trusted that transportation dollars would be spent wisely, only 25 percent of those polled said yes; 70 percent said no.

Nonetheless, the measure's got support, but mainly because people think it will significantly cut into gas prices, not because people see it as some sort of transportation mandate. The follow-up question in the survey (over trust towards the city) was vague and indicates nothing more than a general distrust towards the city. I just don't want you to kid yourself into thinking the city at large sees I-912 the same way you and some of us do. They just see it as a chance to save some money.

[Roy Smith]

The problem with the entire debate over the gas tax increase and I-912 is that it is only a yes/no vote on the entire package. If we could get rid of the truly awful ways to spend public money, and keep the rest, that would be great. However, I think we need to vote for I-912 and trust that the legislature will figure out a way to actually fund the safety issues and abandon idiotic ideas like replacing the Alaska Way Viaduct and expanding freeway capacity throughout western Washington. The Viaduct should be completely removed, not replaced or buried in a tunnel.

The money is grouped into projects as follows (numbers from WSDOT, comments are my own):

Roadway Safety: $3.257 billion - includes partial funding for AWV replacement and SR-520 expansion, which are both collosal wastes of money. Assuming everything else is actually for safety projects, $757 million of this is spending I can support.
Preservation: $0.5 million
Ferries: $185 million - none of this is for passenger ferries, which is a mistake
Multi-Modal Improvements: $85 million - grossly underfunded
Environmental: $108 million - sound walls and the like. Might not all be necessary if we took actions to cut automobile dependancy
Freight Mobility & Economics: $541 million
Choke Points and Congestion: $2.952 billion - this is code for building more freeway lanes and ramps, and is a collosal waste of money to destroy quality of life

Taking the last item plus the $2 billion for AWV replacement plus $500 million for SR-520 expansion yields a total of $5.452 billion (out of $7.139 billion) worth of projects that are worse than useless, and that actively contribute to worsening congestion in the state.

I would vote against I-912 if the gas tax increase were about safety and improving Washington's quality of life. Unfortunately, it is mostly about building more roads to encourage ever increasing sprawl.

Vote YES on I-912.