It was strange to see the contrast in the Seattle Times over the weekend in dueling op-eds over Regional Proposition 1 – the ballot measure to raise $54 billion in taxes in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties for Sound Transit’s next 25-year burst of light rail construction.
Rather than delve to deeply into the arguments, just consider the sources of those arguments.
Standing firmly on the pro-ST3 side was the executive director of the Sierra Club, Michael Brune, from Alameda, California. Writing for the No ST3 camp was Chuck Collins of Mercer Island, who is described in the Times as “the director of King County Metro Transit for four years in the late 1970s when it was the fastest growing transit agency in the country.”
So, the person who wants us to raise taxes for the next 25 years for a fixed-route light rail system heads up a special-interest group in California, while the person opposing the measure has actually run a transit agency here. Interesting…
With that background, now consider the arguments. The pro-ST3 side talks mainly of climate change, and income inequality. The No ST3 arguments are about transportation – how to actually relieve traffic congestion (since ST3 does not), spend less money on better alternatives, and build a system that meets the transportation realities of the future, not the 19th Century.
Enjoy your reading…
Leave a Reply