This November, those of us who live in and around Seattle will vote on a $17.7 billion transportation package that would expand light rail (by 50 miles) but also include billions for road expansion -- including roads that will primarily serve sprawling developments to Seattle's south and east, making the package a Hobson's choice for environmentalists. (The state legislature tied the roads and transit votes together last year, on the theory that road supporters will only support transit if it's accompanied by pavement, and vice versa.)
A lot of the debate around whether the package is good or bad, environmentally speaking, has centered around whether the roads part of the package (known as the Regional Transportation Investment District, or RTID) consists mostly of "good" or "bad" roads. There are a lot of elements to this debate, the first of which is: What constitutes a "good" road? Are new HOV lanes "good" (because they serve people who are carpooling) or "bad" (because they're still new road miles), and could they have been created by converting preexisting general-purpose lanes to HOV lanes?
Another issue is whether roads that are designated primarily for freight, but can be used by single-occupancy cars, count as "good" or "bad." Further confusing matters is the question of whether already-clogged roads produce more or fewer greenhouse gases when they're expanded to accommodate more traffic, because traffic moves more smoothly (at least for a little while.)
Given all those variables, it's not surprising that Seattle's environmental community is split on whether RTID/Sound Transit is a good or a bad thing.
On the pro side: mainstream enviros like the Transportation Choices Coalition, who argue that most of the roads in RTID are "good," because they include lots of new HOV lanes and freight capacity. By the TCC's calculation, only 15 percent of the entire joint roads and transit package, or about $2.6 billion, is made up of "bad" roads; according to their analysis, "good" roads make up about 23 percent, or just over $4 billion.
On the other side are environmental purists like (no, really) the local chapter of the Sierra Club, whose own analysis places the percentage of "good" roads at around 8 percent of the entire roads/transit package, or about $1.4 billion, and "bad" roads at around 30 percent, or $5.2 billion.
The primary difference between the Sierra Club's and TCC's numbers is that TCC included two expensive road expansions -- the extension of SR 167 between Puyallup and the Port of Tacoma, and the proposed new six-lane bridge across SR-520 between Seattle and Bellevue -- among their "good" roads. The 520 proposal is controversial because, under the most likely scenario, it would remove 2.3 acres of Seattle's Arboretum (and include more columns and ramps through the nature preserve) and destroy much of Marsh Island, a wetland near the University of Washington. (In addition, it keeps the number of general-purpose lanes the same, which some argue is hardly an "green" alternative.) Extending 167 is controversial in some circles because there's no guarantee it would only be used for freight; according to the Sierra Club's Mike O'Brien, "our concern is, is this corridor going to fill up with new development?"
The larger debate, of course, comes down to whether enviros should stomach a ton of new roads in exchange for transit. The argument for: Sound Transit is shackled to RTID, and if both fail, it'll be at least 2009 before Sound Transit is on the ballot again. (Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire seems not to recognize that high Democratic turnout in 2008 equals high King County turnout for Gregoire and transit.) And since transit projects historically have not come back to the ballot a second time larger than the first, this is probably our only chance to get 50 miles of light rail. Given that, it's worth it to bite the bullet and vote for roads.
The argument against: Building new road capacity cancels out the environmental and climate benefits of building new transit; given that our region's goal is to reduce greenhouse gases 80 percent by 2050, roads expansion shouldn't be a priority. Additionally, Sound Transit will be so politically popular once it opens in mid-2009, passing a large expansion a few months later will be a no-brainer. After all, the entire mainstream political establishment in Seattle said a new freeway on the downtown waterfront was "inevitable"; they were wrong, and we're now moving toward a surface/transit option to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct instead. Conventional wisdom could be equally wrong here.
Personally, I haven't decided where I come down on this one. Ideologically, I side with the Sierra Club: We should not be spending a single penny (given what we know in 2007) expanding roads for single-occupancy cars -- especially not suburban freeways like I-405, which would get two new general-purpose lanes in each direction. The political will for transit will only grow as climate change becomes accepted as a reality.
Pragmatically, I side with TCC: I don't want to see light rail sacrificed on the altar of ideological purity. If they're right, and a 2009 light-rail package would end up smaller and less region-wide than the current Sound Transit II proposal. And maybe some of those roads (like 405 and the controversial Cross Base Highway in Pierce County, south of Seattle) won't end up getting built anyway; if greens are right about climate change becoming orthodoxy, roads expansion will start to look much less appealing (and much more vulnerable to lawsuits.)
It's a tough decision.
Learning how to count to 350
Comments
View as Threaded
sunflower Posted 8:02 am
23 Aug 2007
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 10:36 am
23 Aug 2007
The Bailo Plan for Greater Puget Sound:
Sink the 520 into Lake Washington (when no people are on it).
Read my lips. No new viaduct...surface option.
No new roads...no road expansion.
Eliminate and scrap light rail project. Turn access way into bike lanes.
Use all "mass transportation" monies for establishment of subsidized taxi (texxi.com) service...computer routed shared taxi cabs.
Encourage people to swap out cars in 2010 for Chevy Volts, Toyota Prius and BMW Hydrogen (for the rich dudes in Bellevue).
Miles Was Right.
Less is More.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:12 am
24 Aug 2007
This is one of those cases where "pragmatism" is just a facade for being corrupted into supporting evil because it comes with a cherry on top.
It's pretty bad when jabailo makes more sense than the powers-that-be, but he's got one thing absolutely right: no new pavement.
King County and Seattle should do a hard cap-and-trade on pavement: any new roads must be paid for by an equivalent acreage of "depaving" or conversion to car-free modes.
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 10:08 am
24 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:17 pm
24 Aug 2007
"Hobson's choice," truly so-called, amounts to "take it or leave it." That may indeed be a kind of dilemma, since neither "horn" is satisfactory; but it is still rather different, because the selection of one horn, the "leave it" horn, leaves the chooser only in his/her original situation, plus time passed.
So let us leave it to you Seattlites to describe what you are facing. And if you have a choice between "Hobson's choice" or "dilemma," that choice is itself neither, because one option will be clearly preferable to the other.
Anyway, I can imagine your disappointment, when the coverage of your situation on the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer a couple of nights ago suggested there was some new urgency about your decision on the fate of the elevated highway by the water, because of the fatal bridge collapse in Minneapolis.
Funny, how nothing seems to raise intractable controversies among environmentalists, at least the Gristmill kind, than questions about urban transportation. It is rather like Catholics on liturgical matters. So, what does that tell us?
If, by the way, by some unusually bizarre turn of Fortune's Wheel, I were suddenly named King of Seattle, never having been there before, I would confidently close off the Alaskan Way to traffic, shore it up, and build a park on it.
Any decent way to get water up there, for the fountains?
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 12:13 am
25 Aug 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
gmunger Posted 3:33 am
25 Aug 2007
BioD- Demolish the road...succession will certainly proceed...pioneer species at first...alder and willow...pretty soon a hemlock-cedar forest. Oh wait, you meant secession
(:
One angle not yet discussed occurred to me. How can we expect regular automobile users to change their ways if we continue to accomodate them? If we build more lanes to ease congestion, then there is that much less motivation to try alternatives. Fuel prices? Most polls show folks aren't likely to change their behavior until gas reaches around $6 (I'm pulling this number out of my hat, but my point remains). Global warming? Peak oil? For the mainstream, these are still abstract concepts...not something to motivate changed behavior, at least not yet. But make driving increasingly inconvenient and now we're talking action. Especially if auto commuters are provided a more convenient alternative, like a well-designed transit system.
Permalink
racc Posted 4:36 am
25 Aug 2007
Even worse, many hybrids actually get worse gas mileage at highway speeds than conventional vehicles. Hybrids are ideal though for stop and go traffic. So, as people get more and more hybrids, drivers should be encouraged to travel slower to save fuel and thus roads should not be expanded.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 7:38 am
25 Aug 2007
Yes. Lower speeds lead to better merging which removes bottlenecks. Also, as described in the book "Carfree Cites" the amount of space per car is much smaller at 30 mpg than 60mpg because of spacing between cars.
It has long been my proposal that all Interstate highway traffic be restricted to traveling at 30 mph during rush hours.
John Bailo
Sutext:
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 7:53 am
25 Aug 2007
Jabailo,
Every once in a while you toss a pearl. If you would just stop insisitng that global warming is a positive thing, your credibility would go way the hell up. Only fruitballs think that.
Speed limits would also do amazing things for biker safety. If cars in Seattle never exceeded 25 MPH on the roads they would be so much safer. Politicians are not touching that one with a ten foot pole.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 8:14 am
25 Aug 2007
That has been well proven. U.S. suburban roadway design standards and level-of-service standards are obsessively focused on fast, free flowing traffic. When compared to walkable neighborhoods, those standards cause more vehicle miles traveled, more GHG emissions, and more traffic crash fatalities per capita.
For more about street patterns and VMT, see Connectivity Part 6: Vehicle Miles and Traffic
For more about street patterns and traffic crashes, see Connectivity Part 7: Crash Safety
Also, an interesting study about removing or reducing roads is Traffic Impact of Highway Capacity Reductions, which was mentioned by Jane Jacobs in her last book. Basically, it says that street networks continue functioning when capacity is reduced -- drivers find alternate routes or they switch to other travel modes, depending on what's most convenient.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:27 pm
25 Aug 2007
But be assured, I was not proposing that the Alaskan Way Viaduct be destroyed. Nor do I know anything about how Seattle works. But wasn't there something in Grist a while ago about how the structure is weakening? And aren't there criticisms that the waterfront is not being sufficiently utilized for recreational purposes? The Seattle Aquarium is over there, appropriately enough -- but is that a big enough deal?
(No comment on the huge arthropodoid sports stadiums that dominate the view to the south, save to suggest that if they were supposed to have a similarly brilliant effect on the Seattle harbor as does the Sydney Opera House in Sydney, well, um, no.)
So the idea seemed to be floating out there, that the viaduct should be closed off to traffic, and converted into a green space, a park, or a series of gardens. Here in NYC, that has been done with a few blocks of old and abandoned elevated roadway in Chelsea and the West Village, close to the Hudson River.
Of course I would never wish to disturb BioD with the vision of the North and South of Seattle seceding from one another on account of the destruction of a major connecting thoroughfare. No, not at all. Instead, I would propose that there be built a tunnel.
And that is a very NYC solution. Consider how in the early 20th century, mass transit was a system of elevated trains, the most famous of which fell victim to King Kong's twisted/twisting and yet righteous fury. These have mostly been converted to subways, save for a few lines in far-uptown Manhattan and the outer boroughs.
So, no roads have been destroyed, they have only evolved. I would indeed love to destroy the Cross Bronx Expressway, Robert Moses's creation, which must be one of the ugliest and most unpleasant roads on the planet.
Actually, it seems that one small but not unimportant road has been destroyed here, recently, or at least indefinitely closed: the 72nd Street exit of the uptown West Side Highway. My source tells me that Donald Trump -- by no means my favorite New Yorker -- is behind it. In the past few years he developed a neglected area west of Lincoln Center and built a few upscale apartment buildings there. Apparently he thought that all that exiting traffic might discourage his prospective buyers. In fact, I do not see that that could inconvenience too many drivers who would want to exit there, since there is another close by at 79th. Also, the redirection of traffic might somewhat alleviate the horrid intersection of Broadway and 72nd, crossed by Amsterdam Avenue.
On the other hand, New York has been slow to follow the example of some other eastern cities, such as Philadelphia and Montreal, and close off a narrow downtown street having many shops along it to traffic, and allow only pedestrians. We could do it if we tried: 5th Avenue from Central Park South to the NY Public Library would work, as would Broadway from Union Square to Houston.
On the different subject of how free-flowing traffic allegedly does not conserve GHG emissions: That is counter-intuitive, and Racc and Laurence should explain it. It makes sense only if you are contrasting the circumstances of suburban driving to those of urban, stop-and-go driving. Naturally the suburban drivers have greater distances to travel. That is the way the suburbs are designed.
But you Westerners perhaps do not have much experience of our typically Eastern toll roads. You have no idea what grief and anguish they cause, what heartbreak, to say nothing of painful and even embarrassing episodes with bladders that are pushed to the limit.
And so, one of the most splendid and admirable inventions of recent times, truly a blessing, and really Nobel-Prize worthy (the one for Peace, no less), is EZ-Pass. Surely this whole group of commuters having to pass through the same toll-collection point are intending to drive comparable distances. But while the ones with EZ-Pass go sailing fairly swiftly through, the others have to come to a complete stop, several times, and proceed like that for a number of minutes, their engines all the while going "Puff puff puff! Damn you, Atmosphere! Puff puff puff!"
Therefore this curious piece from today's NYTimes should raise some interest. Pennsylvania actually wants to make its stretch of the northerly I-80 a toll road, even as the southerly I-76, the Pennsylvania Turnpike, has been a toll road for ages:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/us/26highway.html?_r=1& ...
The shrewd Governor Ed Rendell, Democrat, former mayor of Philadelphia, presumably knows what he is doing. For one thing, he could use funds; he has needed badly to reorganize his highway patrol and security system, since last winter's terrific embarrassment, when, during a sudden colossal snowstorm high in the sparsely populated Appalachians, on I-81, not far from Hazleton (the bigoted, anti-Latino town that Lou Dobbs loves), a good number of drivers of all kinds, in all kinds of vehicles, were stranded for nearly 24 hours before help reached them.
Obviously there are questions that one may ask. Less important for us are the legal ones, about whether a state can make an interstate highway, built with federal funds, a toll road, with proceeds going to the state.
More important is the environmental one: How much will the required slowing-down and stopping at a toll-collecting station, while the engine is still running, add to GHG emissions?
It is suggested in the article that toll roads are the wave of the future, and we just better get used to.
How 'bout that. And here I thought things were getting better and better.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 1:13 am
26 Aug 2007
You explain the effect well. Here's another take on the issue by Kenworthy and Newman. And these maps illustrate what CO2 emissions look like on the city-wide scale: low in the center, high in the suburbs.
The case of congestion charging in London provides some interesting air quality results. Between 2002 and 2003, reductions in traffic volume caused an 8% reduction in CO2 emitted. Reduced traffic jams and idling, and therefore increased speeds, reduced NOx by 8%, PM10 by 7%, and CO2 by 7%.
(BTW, London is proposing additional charges for CO2 emissions. The cleanest vehicles would get free entry into the charging zone, and high-CO2 vehicles would pay a £25 fee.)
It's important to realize that while speeds have increased in London, the increases have been very small. The main effect has been to reduce gridlock and idling, not to allow freeway speeds. The average speed was 8.6 mph in 2002; that increased to 9.3 mph in 2006. Without congestion charging, the estimated average speed would be 7.1 mph.
London already had a low level of traffic crashes, but the congestion charge has resulted in 40 to 70 fewer personal injuries per year from traffic crashes.
Ped Shed Blog
Permalink
tinydancer Posted 12:45 pm
29 Aug 2007
It adds more HOV lanes across the counties that it covers, fixes choke points on the existing roads and fixes bridges that might collapse in an earthquake. I know that the population is always growing, but we can't stop coping with it. Washington is expanding, especially Seattle, so we have to do something.
As for the environmental aspect, the express buses and the light rail extensions will make public transportation all the more appealing. People always talk about how much public transportation helps reduce greenhouse emissions, but there's one big problem: not that many people want to take it. With more appealing options, maybe more people will leave their cars at home and opt for the rail or a bus.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 4:38 pm
29 Aug 2007
I suspect Sound Transit has done their homework (with public opinion surveys, etc.) to produce a winning formula, in the volatile political environment here, where a right-wing backlash could easily derail transit planning once again as it has in the past.
A major concern is the regressive nature of the tax burden(sales tax). But even at a few hundred dollars per year per average family I think it's a good bargain. As peak oil unfolds, having a light rail skeleton across the region will make all the differerence to keeping the local economy afloat as oil shocks start to take their toll.
The light rail is not cheap (and opponents claim we could build a network of Rapid Transit buses for ten percent of the cost), but the light rail if approved will bring additional advantages in the form of Transit Oriented Development and increased urban density. (Most of the money spent will recycle and stimulate the local economy, anyway.)
Of course, if it's not approved, we may have the future opportunity to build a network of street cars along the major arterials and reclaim our transit heritage. But it does seem to be the case that the longer we postpone mass transit, the more expensive it becomes.
Permalink
wackatalpidae Posted 1:12 am
30 Aug 2007
clear the rabble from my path
low-income people should use mass transit (and pay for it)
a sparkling chip dangling from my mirror
will open all doors like magic
and my sleek SUV will get better gas milage at 65 mph
no more stop and go
or, like the wealthy of Mexico city, I will just acquire a helicopter
Permalink
piehole Posted 6:29 am
08 Oct 2007
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/virgin/334080_virgin04.html ...
Permalink