Sierra Club and allies pushing for ST2 to be on 2008 ballot

Sierra Club, other groups push for transit plan vote
Puget Sound Business Journal (Seattle) - by Deirdre Gregg

A coalition of environmental and labor groups, including the Sierra Club, wants to see a Sound Transit plan on the ballot this year -- as long as the plan meets certain conditions.

In a press conference slated for Earth Day, April 22, the ad hoc coalition will issue "a strong call to the Sound Transit board saying 'go to the ballot in 2008,'" said Shefali Ranganathan, director of education and outreach at the Transportation Choices Coalition, one of the members of the broader coalition.

The Sound Transit plan would likely expand existing light rail in Seattle and other locations.

Sound Transit's board has not yet decided whether to put the plan on the ballot in 2008 or at some point in the future. The board will likely decide the timing of a ballot measure at its next meeting on April 24. If it does choose a 2008 measure, Sound Transit would have until July to develop a plan.

The Sierra Club's inclusion in the coalition is notable. Last year, the organization broke with the mainstream environmental movement to oppose Prop. 1, a massive roads and transit ballot measure that failed with voters in November 2007. At that time, the group took issue with the roads component, saying it would outweigh the environmental benefits of increased public transit.

The Sierra Club and other groups are not making an official endorsement at this point, and will not make a decision on whether to do so until they see what the Sound Transit board comes up with.

The coalition of environmental groups wants to see a Sound Transit plan that does three things: reduces total greenhouse-gas emissions; offers a range of options for commuters to access stations, rather than commuting to park-and-rides; and eventually allows light rail across State Route 520 linking Seattle and the Eastside.

In addition to the Sierra Club, the coalition includes the Transportation Choices Coalition, Cascade Bicycle Club, Tahoma Audubon, Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, Futurewise, Amalgamated Transit Union 587, Environment Washington, Bicycle Alliance of Washington, Tacoma Streetcar, Fuse and WashPIRG.

Sierra Club opposes Prop 1 due to roads component

Environmentalists balk at roads plan

By Mike Lindblom

Seattle Times transportation reporter

Two environmental groups are criticizing this fall's proposed "Roads & Transit" ballot measure, making a tough sell more challenging for elected officials who seek its passage.

The Sierra Club says there are too many general traffic lanes, in spots such as Interstate 5 north of Federal Way, that would worsen global warming instead of solving safety problems.

And the Transportation Choices Coalition believes a proposed six-lane Highway 520 floating bridge is too large through the Washington Park Arboretum and the state doesn't plan to raise the full $4.4 billion needed for construction, said executive director Jessyn Farrell.

At $31 billion, a joint roads-and-transit package is nearing its final shape, five years after the Legislature created the Regional Transportation Investment District to propose road improvements for King, Snohomish and Pierce counties.

State law requires new regional road and transit taxes to pass together, or they both fail. The Sierra Club prefers a separate public vote on Sound Transit's proposed light-rail extensions to Lynnwood, Overlake and Tacoma.

Plan supporters point to polls done for Sound Transit that indicate firm public support.

Officials are talking with the environmental groups. Roads-group Chairman Shawn Bunney, a Pierce County councilman, called the task "a fine balancing act."

Many road projects the Sierra Club dislikes are things that commuters in some communities insist upon, he said.

State Sen. Ed Murray, D-Seattle, said support from environmental groups "is one of the key components to a successful election. Their active opposition would make a campaign that much more difficult."

Sierra Club claims its No votes killed Prop 1

Pro-Light Rail Enviros May Have Swung Prop. 1 Election

Posted by Erica C. Barnett on November 8 at 15:27 PM

The most interesting conclusion from the Sierra Club’s exit polling of 5,000 voters in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties, released today, is that pro-transit environmental voters who opposed Prop. 1 may have been decisive in its defeat on Tuesday.

Stay with me: Among people who voted “no,” 20 percent (31 percent in Seattle) said they were most concerned by environmental impacts like global warming. (The largest group—45 percent—voted against it mainly because they didn’t want higher taxes, and another 19 percent were opposed to specific projects).

Among “no” voters who would have supported Sound Transit alone, 39 percent voted no because of the environmental impacts of the roads in the package. Crunching the numbers, that group amounts to six percent of all voters. “What was unusual and what was unique about this election was the decisive role of a small group of voters,” pollster Tom Riehle said in a conference call this morning. “In the absence of their concern about global warming, this would have been a much closer election than it was.” Prop. 1 was going down, as of the latest count, 56 to 44 percent—so if those pro-transit defectors had voted yes, along with a few other “no” voters from the anti-tax and specific projects groups, the election would have gone the other way.

A few more interesting findings from the exit polling:

Among voters who voted “yes,” more than half—54 percent—did so because of both the roads and transit components of the package. Thirty-five percent voted “yes” because of transit alone, and just 11 percent voted “yes” because of roads alone.

Looking deeper into the “no” numbers, a plurality of those who didn’t want higher taxes—35 percent—said they were most concerned by the fact that some of the taxes (specifically, for Sound Transit) would last 50 years. That plurality is somewhat deceiving, though—combining people who said they were most concerned about the sales tax increase (21 percent) and those who said they cared most about “the fact [that] the taxes hurt the poor more than the wealthy” (14 percent), which are both anti-sales tax sentiments, yields a total of 35 percent—the same as the number who said the taxes lasted too long.

Even more interesting: A strong plurality (47 percent) of people who were opposed to specific projects cited extension of light rail to Tacoma as their number-one concern. The other light rail extension (to Microsoft) didn’t make the list. That concern was most pronounced the furthest away from the extension (in Snohomish County) and least pronounced in Pierce County, where the extension would be.

The numbers also reveal that the roads part of the package probably wouldn’t have passed on its own: Just 45 percent of all voters said they would have voted for it, and 39 percent said they would have voted against it, with 16 percent undecided. What is more clear is that light rail alone would have passed—something the state legislature was fully aware of when it yoked the two proposals together in 2006. More than half (52 percent, and 64 percent in Seattle) said they would have voted for transit alone, 36 percent were opposed, and 12 percent were undecided.

The poll also refuted the conventional wisdom that people won’t vote for tolls. Fifty-four percent believed major transportation projects should be funded through user fees like tolls, and just 25 percent supported the kind of general tax increases that the failed package would have put in place. Fully 70 percent supported electronic tolling on the I-90 and 520 bridges.
Permalink

Nickels want Sound Transit on ballot in 2008

Nickels wants new light rail vote next year
Poll: Road, transit plans might have passed separately

11/9/07 By CHRIS McGANN
P-I CAPITOL CORRESPONDENT

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels says Sound Transit should rebound from Tuesday's drubbing at the polls and come back with a new light rail plan for voters on the 2008 ballot.

"This is a critical problem, we need to do the work, but we shouldn't take two years or three years or four years to make this decision," Nickels told the agency's board of directors on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Puget Sound voters rejected both the roads and the transit plans in Proposition 1. Those were listed separately on the ballot, but voters had to approve both to pass the multibillion-dollar tax measure.

Even before all the votes were tallied, people began second-guessing linking the two proposals and speculating that it would be years before a new transportation plan appeared on the ballot. Indeed, new polling suggests pairing the roads and transit measure was a mistake.

Nickels said he was open to running a stand-alone transit plan but wasn't ruling anything out.

"I'm not making any assumptions about what that package looks like," he said. "I don't think the voters were saying, 'We don't want to invest in transportation, and it's not a problem.' But I think they were clearly telling us something, and we need to spend some time going out and listening."

Though voters rejected Proposition 1, an extensive poll commissioned by the Sierra Club showed that if the transit element of the measure had appeared on the ballot alone, it would have passed.

The Sierra Club joined forces with the anti-transit crowd and campaigned against Proposition 1, believing the measure included too much freeway expansion, relied on general taxes, including the sales tax, and did not address global warming.

According to the poll, 52 percent of voters say they would have voted for the transit portion had it been presented alone.

The poll also indicates that if the roads portion of the ballot measure had been presented independently, it might have passed as well.

Forty-five percent of those surveyed said they would vote yes and 16 percent were undecided on the package of road improvements in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.

The poll surveyed 5,004 voters and had a margin of error of 1.4 percentage points.

Nickels said better voter turnout in 2008 could turn the tables for either or both plans. This year nearly 70 percent of the registered voters didn't cast a ballot.

"I recounted to (the Sound Transit Board) what happened in 1995 when the first Sound Transit plan was turned down, and I think that it offers us a pretty good lesson," Nickels said. "We went back to the ballot in 1996, in a presidential election, with the second Sound Transit plan and it was very different than the first one ... and we won going away."

Sound Transit officials haven't said yet when or if they'll put something back before voters.

John Taylor, spokesman for the Regional Transportation Investment District that created the roads plan, said he had not seen the poll and that it was too early to predict the next step.

Nickels said it doesn't make sense to relegate transportation measures to off-year elections. In the past, Democratic leaders in Olympia have resisted allowing transportation tax packages on the ballot in on-year elections.

House Majority Leader Lynn Kessler, D-Hoquiam, said the Legislature won't be inclined to rush out with a new tax measure.

"I don't think anybody today thinks the public is ready to go vote for a new tax," Kessler said. "I think everyone is getting together and talking about what, if anything, we should do and before we do anything we need to start talking about the 520 Bridge."

Kessler said that House Speaker Frank Chopp, D-Seattle, typically proceeds with caution when it comes to tax measures.

The results of the Sierra Club poll contradict what transportation planners from the roads and transit camps thought -- that voters would not support just roads or just transit.

Pollster Thomas Riehle from RT Strategies said the exit poll revealed a concern that voters had that could have changed Proposition 1's outcome.

"We found that there was a group of voters who we would describe as pro-transit defectors," he said.

This new class was identified by cross-tabbing voters who said they would have voted yes to a transit-only plan with those who voted no on Proposition 1.

"The single largest reason they gave (for voting no) was environmental impacts like global warming," Riehle said.

Ric Ilgenfritz, Sound Transit's director of planning and public affairs, acknowledged that twinning the roads plan with the transit plan turned out to be detrimental.

"The strategy was to build a big-tent coalition to support a comprehensive approach and try to do roads and transit together," he said. "That was obviously a heavy lift. It drove us to a larger package and took us into that zone where people start to get nervous."

TRANSPORTATION POLL: THE NUMBERS

Voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties on Tuesday rejected Proposition 1, a multibillion-dollar tax package to fund road improvements and mass transit. A poll taken Nov. 4-6 found:

52% percent of voters said they would have voted for the transit portion of Prop 1 had it been presented by itself.

AMONG ALL 'NO' VOTERS

45% objected to higher taxes.

20% objected to Prop 1's impact on the environment.

Source: Poll of 5,004 voters commissioned by The

Sierra Club. Margin of error of 1.4 percentage points.

Sierra Club Briefing on the Importance of Wetlands

1/1/ 07Wetlands Protect Us All
Protection from flooding
Habitat for fish and wildlife
Recreational opportunities

America's wetlands provide something for everyone. Wetlands protect us all in many ways -- they filter pollutants from our drinking water, protect our homes by storing floodwater, and provide homes for fish, shellfish, and wildlife.
Wetlands help prevent flooding


Wetlands help prevent flooding.

Although the true value of wetlands cannot be put into a dollar figure, Americans should be aware of the societal and economic benefits of wetlands. Wetlands are crucial for clean water, serving as a natural filter absorbing water-borne pollutants and damaging nutrients before the water enters our rivers, lakes, and streams. Clean water is important to Americans. For example, when choosing a place to live, Money Magazine readers ranked "Clean Water" as the top concern in all but one year since 1990. Wetlands also protect us from flooding, act as nurseries for fish, shellfish, provide homes for wildlife, and create recreational opportunities for all of us.

Wetlands protect our families and our property from flooding

* Wetlands act like sponges, soaking up rain and storing floodwater runoff. Wetlands slowly release flood waters back into streams, lakes, and groundwater; making flooding impacts less damaging. One acre of wetlands can store more than 360,000 gallons of water if flooded to a depth of one foot. States that have lost 80% or more of their wetlands, (Ohio, Kentucky, California, and Missouri, for example), have experienced the worst flooding in the last four years.

* Wetlands save billions of dollars in property damage by absorbing flood waters and serving as buffers during coastal storms. The National Weather Service estimates annual flooding costs are up to $3.1 billion per year. Flood damage has tripled in constant dollars since 1950.

* Destroying wetlands and converting the land to agriculture increases water runoff from fields by 200 to 400 percent. Conversion to roads and pavement increases runoff even more (Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team, 1994). Wetlands remove pollutants from runoff and keep clean waters clean.

* Studies have shown that natural wetlands filter out pollution and remove sediment from surface water.

Wetlands act as nurseries for fish, shellfish, and provide homes for wildlife

* Most fish and waterfowl species are born in wetlands. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service estimates that up to 43% of the threatened and endangered species need wetlands for their survival. For many other animals, such as the wood duck, alligator, and heron, wetlands are primary habitats. For others, (more than half of the nation's migratory birds), wetlands provide important seasonal habitats where food, water, and cover are plentiful (Academy of Natural Sciences).

* Fishing is big business in this country. The destruction of wetlands threatens the viability of the $45 billion commercial fishing industry. The National Marine Fisheries Service scientists estimate that nearly 70% of the annual commercial fish catch depends upon inshore-wetland habitats.

* Nowhere in the nation is the link between wetland habitat and fish production more obvious than in the Gulf of Mexico, where National Marine Fisheries Service scientists estimate that 98% of the harvest comes from inshore, wetlands-dependent fish and shellfish. Gulf shrimp head the list of the region's wetland dependent species according to the EPA.

* Nearly one out of every three shellfish beds were closed or restricted during 1994 (EPA, 1996) due to pollution and habitat destruction.

Wetlands create recreational opportunities for wildlife watching, fishing, canoeing, and hunting

* Wetlands are nature's efficient pollution fighters, helping keep our waters clean. Because of their position between water and land, wetlands provide a buffer zone that intercepts polluted runoff before it contaminates lakes, rivers, and coastal waters.

* Poor water quality threatens the $380 billion recreational/tourism industry, whose most popular destinations are beaches, lakes, and rivers (EPA, 1996). In 1995, coastal and Great Lakes beaches were closed or had advisories posted warning against swimming on more than 3,522 occasions (NRDC, 1996). [Wetlands for Clean Water, 3].

* Wetlands are critically important to maintaining healthy fisheries. Fishing has always been a favorite outdoor recreational pastime for Americans. Over 49 million Americans spend $24 billion a year on sportfishing, for striped bass, flounder, trout and other species.

* Wetlands provide opportunities for popular activities such as hiking, fishing, and boating. For example, an estimated 50 million people spend approximately $10 billion each year observing and photographing wetlands-dependent birds (EPA, 1995).

* Ducks and other birds that depend on clean water and wetlands also generate economic activity for the recreation and tourism industry. Roughly 3 million waterfowl hunters spend over $600 million annually in pursuit of wetlands-dependent birds (EPA, 1995).

Currently, Congress offers limited protection for wetlands under the Clean Water Act. However, a 1997 survey by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports that roughly 120,000 acres of wetlands are being destroyed annually. Thus, it is clear that Congress must strengthen clean water and wetlands protection programs in order to preserve and protect our valuable remaining wetlands.

Mike O'Brien and Kemper Freeman Strange Bedfellows

If you love him so much, why don’t you marry him, Kemper? [UPDATE!]
by Will, 09/20/2007, 1:10 PM

I just got a text message from someone down at the Seattle City Club event where Kemper Freeman, Jr. is speaking. You know, the Kemper Freeman who thinks mass transit is for Communists:

Kemper just said he “loves” mike o’brien at the city club.

If I was a road warrior from Bellevue, I’d love Mike O’Brien too.

[UPDATE]

I get an email update about Kemper’s man-crush on the Sierra Club’s Mike O’Brien:

He also said “Mike is my new best friend.” Mike smiled uncomfortably.

Nice.
Permalink | RSS 2.0
53 Comments to “If you love him so much, why don’t you marry him, Kemper? [UPDATE!]”

1. MichaelW says:

Nice Will. Keep on bashing our largest environmental group. If you keep it up, I’m sure that the conservatives will love you to. Or maybe you just don’t believe in global warming?
09/20/2007 at 1:28 pm

2. Mark The Redneck-Goldstein says:

Say goodbye to being preznit hillary.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200 70920/ap_po/gingrich2008
09/20/2007 at 1:48 pm

3. Mark The Redneck-Goldstein says:

BTW, the sun causes global warming.

Thought you might want to know that…
09/20/2007 at 1:49 pm

4. otterpop says:

Two questions, Will.

1) Do you believe in global warming?

2) Is building new highways an appropriate way to deal with it?
09/20/2007 at 1:49 pm

5. joanne says:

You are an idiot Will. Do you really think if you were a “road warrior from Bellevue” you would love Mike O’brien from the SIERRA CLUB? Have some respect for our intelligence. The Sierra Club is saying everything we know to be true about RTID but no one wants to admit. It builds a bunch of new roads and hides behind light rail. We don’t need a massive expansion of roads to get more mass tranist. We can put mass transit on the ballot alone next year and fix our highways with Congestion Tolling, something that will actually reduce cars on the road, shorten commute times and is BETTER for the environment all around.
09/20/2007 at 1:52 pm

6. DT says:

I don’t understand what Mark the Redneck is saying. If Gingrich was nominated that would virtually guarantee any Democrat being elected President, especially Hillary. Hell, even Kucinich could beat him. The Clintons ran him out of DC before and they would do it again.
09/20/2007 at 1:57 pm

7. Mark The Redneck-Goldstein says:

I’m hoping all you gullible moonbats who believe in global warming take those fucking trains and get the fuck off the freeways so I can get where I’m going in my CO2 spewing luxury SUV.

My time is too valuable to have you in the way when I’m trying to get somewhere.
09/20/2007 at 2:00 pm

8. Lee says:

@1
Have you stopped to really think about what’s happening here? The opposition to RTID is coming from two fronts. One front is saying that RTID is bad because it has too much transit. The other front is saying that RTID is bad because it has too many highway improvements. If this coalition to defeat it succeeds, each front will obviously continue to push for the transportation solutions that they prefer. If you’re in the transit-only camp, you’re betting that your camp is much more powerful than the pro-roads camp and that the legislature will be more likely to bend to your will in the future rather than theirs. I hope you’re right because I realize global warming is a threat. But I’m not sure you are. The bottom line is that when you find yourself aligned with people who are furthest away from you ideologically, you might need to step back and make sure you’ve thought it through.
09/20/2007 at 2:00 pm

9. Lee says:

@6
I don’t understand what Mark the Redneck is saying.

You’re not alone.
09/20/2007 at 2:08 pm

10. MichaelW says:

@8

Even former republican party chair Chris Vance agrees that this is probably the last chance to get this huge highway package through.

Light rail will be back — in fact, getting it passed will be even easier once the initial line opens. That’s how it went down in Denver and Minneapolis, two places that are generally more conservative on taxes than King County.

When we defeated R51, the legislature relented and gave us what we wanted. This will be no different.
09/20/2007 at 2:14 pm

11. ArtFart says:

6/9 Hell, Mark doesn’t understand what he’s saying.
09/20/2007 at 2:15 pm

12. Lee says:

@10
I hope you’re right.
09/20/2007 at 2:16 pm

13. i just wanna be cool says:

No, Will, if you were someone who cared about global warming enough to do something about it instead of rushing to join the in-crowd who believe nothing can be done - then you’d love Mike O’Brien.
09/20/2007 at 2:23 pm

14. scotto says:

I’m really disappointed to see Will stoop to the level of personal attacks against a guy who’s just trying to tell the truth, which is:

RTID highways will make global warming worse (apologies for that)

Lee is more fair, and more reasonable — just wrong on this one. I’d be interested to hear from Goldy.
09/20/2007 at 2:27 pm

15. jim says:

Mike O’Brien (Kemper’s best friend) also pissed all over the Tacoma extension of light rail saying it will have weak ridership.

True environmentalists understand the transformative nature of light rail investments and how they can influence land use, smart development and increase employment and residential density.

that is what has happened around Sounder stations in Auburn and Kent and that is what will happen along the light rail alignment south of the airport.

That is why a majority of the environmental community supports this plan.
09/20/2007 at 2:35 pm

16. Mark The Redneck-Goldstein says:

Name even one Murkan city where trains work. There are none. In every fucking case, The Producers have money taken from them to subsidize the losers who ride them.
09/20/2007 at 2:41 pm

17. Shizzle Bizzle says:

@14 Scotto - That’s not a personal attack…it was the truth and will probably be on the Seattle Channel or King 5. Kemper (hearts) Mike.

You are posing the wrong question - It isn’t do you believe in global warming? The real question is will 50 miles of light rail transform how we make land-use decisions. Will targeted highway investments make them more efficient so commuters don’t burn billions of gallons of fuel into the atmosphere sitting in traffic.

The whole 700 Club needs to stop evangelizing and start putting their money where their mouth is regarding climate change.

The arrogance that only the Sierra Club cares about global warming is both inaccurate and dumb.
09/20/2007 at 2:44 pm

18. Lee says:

@16
Name even one Murkan city where trains work.

New York

Are you going to tell me that people in New York don’t think their train system “works”?
09/20/2007 at 2:44 pm

19. peter says:

Even the ST2 part of RTID/ST2 has problems. There could be more federal grant money used, as well as some taxes that only businesses pay. We simply do not need more general sales taxes here - they are near the highest in the nation already.

Couple a more progressive revenues package with some variable-priced tolling to ease road congestion, and “Plan B” will pass in a heartbeat.

It is pretty clear we should vote down this first offering in November though. That is what the politicos are basically asking us to do. The “no/no” vote on the lousy viaduct options earlier this year was a good dress rehearsal for Seattle voters . . . .
09/20/2007 at 2:45 pm

20. otterpop says:

Hey Lee, don’t take our word for it…listen to what the head of Sound Transit herself said on the Robert Mak show.

http://www.king5.com/video/upf ront-index.html?nvid=175408

“We hear stories about once it opens the critics fall away, people love the system.”

That would tell me that even Joni Earl thinks we’re better off politically to try to expand Sound Transit once it’s operating.
09/20/2007 at 3:00 pm

21. rtidstinks says:

This isn’t about light rail, this is about global warming. Who will be more powerful in the long run - road advocates, or climate defenders? The road bullies are just hanging on here, and the importance of global warming as a political issue will continue to grow. Light rail and transit will continue to get more popular. Give in now to the road bullies, and we waste a multibillion dollar opportunity to reduce global warming pollution, and responsibly improve transportation. Tell them no, and catch the next train. It will be better. Tell them yes, and it just guarantees that we will be losers on global warming.
09/20/2007 at 3:13 pm

22. jim says:

hey otershit

Sound Transit is operating. Sounder, Express Bus, Light Rail in Tacoma. New bus access lanes.

You obviously drive alone alot.
09/20/2007 at 3:13 pm

23. Lee says:

@20
I think that will certainly be true for Seattle voters (and even some south end voters), but I’m still very worried about the eastside. My concern is that the longer we delay the schedule for getting light rail out to the eastside, the less likely they are to give up on their demands for more highway funding. And they have some deep pockets to influence the debate (as we’re witnessing from Mr. Freeman right now) and potentially start reclaiming legislative seats if the traffic becomes an even bigger headache. And I’m also concerned that any delay in expanding light rail will have some tail in terms of negatively impacting sprawl.

But again, I’m fully capable of admitting that I’m wrong if RTID is voted down and my concerns in that regard don’t pan out. I’m just not willing to take that risk based upon how it looks right now.
09/20/2007 at 3:18 pm

24. jon says:

For all the heat the Sierra Club is getting over this (no, I am not a member), they do seem to be the only ones who have crunched numbesr to find out the overall climate impact.

And their result is clear: RTID will harm the climate.

If you’re still in denial over this, that’s fine. Everyone is allowed to be wrong. Just please let us know when you decide to join the reality-based world.
09/20/2007 at 3:19 pm

25. jon says:

@10 seems to be exactly right — if we reject the current highly flawed proposal, trains will be back after the existing light rail opens.

The only reason that wouldn’t happen is if the initial branch has horrible problems. And in that case, well, we shouldn’t enable them to continue building until the problems are solved anyway.
09/20/2007 at 3:22 pm

26. Michael Caine says:

This entire affair sums it up in a nutshell why I am dreaming of moving to Yakima in the next couple of years. Everyone demands to have it their way and if they don’t petulant hissy fits are thrown that would embarrass a two year old. No package put together by compromise is going to satisfy you.

It has been over 7 years since the Alaskan Viaduct was deemed to be critically unsafe, yet no one has done a thing to replace it. Why? Because it has to be my way or the highway. Your either for my package or you are the enemy. Sounds familiar. Can’t place it but I’m sure such thoughts fit a current national office holder that we in Seattle love to gripe about.

To those that decry the roads aspect. How do you propose that the extra 500k or so people that are going to be living on the Eastside over the next decade going to get to their mass transit sites? Do you really think that you can stop people wanting to have a house of their own? Where do you propose they build the house in Seattle? Do you really think the population is not going to continue to grow?

To those that decry the transit aspect. Why is your argument any less short sighted than it was in the 1970’s, 1980’s and 1990’s? The costs would have been cheaper if we had done it then, what makes you think its going to get any cheaper or easier if we keep putting it off?
09/20/2007 at 3:46 pm

27. Michael Caine says:

Oh and why is it that everybody that is so sure that a light rail package will pass and be implemented once this package is killed. No memory of the Monorail and its failure to cling to life. Just a bunch of people sitting around convincing themselves that if they believe hard enough their shit will be turned into gold. If I was interested in doing that I would be a regular on unSound Politics.
09/20/2007 at 3:49 pm

28. joanne says:

I would love an RTID supporter to answer the question about Global Warming: Do we really want to expand roads to drive more cars given what we know about global warming? More roads = more global warming. It is that simple.
09/20/2007 at 3:53 pm

29. Beckett says:

Time is short, chunks of ice are melting the size of Florida and we are proposing to waste money on a solution that was outdated in the 1950s. Roads. They fill with traffic and we build more. Those full up and we build more. Look at LA, IT DOES NOT WORK. We should stop wasting time and money on old technology.
09/20/2007 at 3:56 pm

30. chadt says:

@16

Washington DC, Dorko
09/20/2007 at 4:01 pm

31. Shizzle Bizzle says:

@28
Joanne…it is not that simple.
#1 - you don’t have the research to say what 1 mile means in CO2 emissions.

#2 - more cars are coming regardless of what we do, we need to make our roads more efficient. We waste billions of gallons of gas sitting in traffic and trains can’t get everywhere

#3 - shouldn’t we give people a choice to get out of their car? Mike O’Brien doesn’t think that folks in Pierce and South King County deserve a light rail. Mike isn’t thinking about what the region will look like in 10 years.

Given the 700 Club’s ineptitude when it comes to filing for a voters pamphlet, Mike will be thinking about 2027 in 2030.
09/20/2007 at 4:01 pm

32. Shizzle Bizzle says:

@16
Boston
Chicago
Denver
Salt Lake City
Portland
San Francisco
09/20/2007 at 4:03 pm

33. scotto says:

@17, Naw, it’s a personal slam. It’s pretending that Mike is friends with Kemper Freeman. This is obviously not the truth. Please.

Anyway, I didn’t ask if you believe in global warming — that almost doesn’t matter if you won’t do something about it.

You’re saying that we absolutely have to vote for RTID highways right now because if we don’t, we might get more highways in the future. Our choices are certainly making global warming worse or maybe making global warming worse. So let’s pick the sure bet.

My god, Democrats are still acting like they lost the last election.
09/20/2007 at 4:04 pm

34. YIKES says:

Seattle is ready to collapse under the weight of it’s love for excessive process.
Question:
How much TAXPAYER money has been spent on these ideas with nothing being built???

Seattle has created an unsustainable Cost of Living situation. Look ahead 20 years. Plot the cost of living figures in Seattle the past 20 years & draw a line.
There will be no working class folks….so you won’t need mass transit.

What we have here is a classic case of BUREAUCRACY GONE WILD. The Bureaucrats don’t care if anything is ever built….all they want is more tax dollars to feed their glutoness, pathetic selves.

I hate seeing Seattle collapse in this morase of costly, bureaucratic goo.
Perhaps Bill Gates will leave all of his money to Seattle!??
Yeah, that’s what we ought to do, ask Bill Gates to pay for all of this transit staff….so we can have a pretend sustainable community.
Pretty Sad, ain’t it?
09/20/2007 at 4:11 pm

35. bob says:

By attacking the south light rail extension
The 700 Club today proved they have no clue about land use, transportation planning, or any neighborhood outside of The Nation of Seattle.

A new land use report was just released by King County today. Maybe Mike and Kemper will cozy up by the fire togther tonight and learn a little about land use and growth patterns in King County.

IV - 2 2007 King County Buildable Lands Report

South County, having issued permits for 38% of its targeted
residential growth, has grown fastest with respect to level of growth envisioned in the CPPs.

• Approximately half of all new units UGA-wide were multifamily units, half were single-family
detached units.
09/20/2007 at 4:50 pm

36. My Left Foot says:

Mark the Red dicked asshole:

Boston has the T, Chicago has the L, New York has a subway (yes Markie, those are trains too), Los Angeles has the Metrolink.

That’s four. Pay your debt to Goldy and shut the fuck up.

Word of advice: Don’t ever ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.
09/20/2007 at 6:51 pm

37. My Left Foot says:

Sorry, Shizzle Bizzle beat me to it.
09/20/2007 at 6:52 pm

38. otterpop says:

@31

Joanne…it is not that simple.

Actually, it is…

#1 - you don’t have the research to say what 1 mile means in CO2 emissions.

But cars do emit CO2 every MINUTE they drive right?

#2 - more cars are coming regardless of what we do, we need to make our roads more efficient. We waste billions of gallons of gas sitting in traffic and trains can’t get everywhere

Couldn’t agree more. That is why we need congestion tolling for more efficient commutig, less time on the road which means less idiling and less polluting.

#3 - shouldn’t we give people a choice to get out of their car? Mike O’Brien doesn’t think that folks in Pierce and South King County deserve a light rail. Mike isn’t thinking about what the region will look like in 10 years.

Be intellectual honest at least. You know Sierra Club supports light rail, just not at the expense of a massive road expansion.

Given the 700 Club’s ineptitude when it comes to filing for a voters pamphlet, Mike will be thinking about 2027 in 2030.

I don’t know what this means or who the 700 club is
09/20/2007 at 7:36 pm

39. GS says:

The Price of your little dig just went up 100 Million, Damn glad we said no to the Big Dig!
09/20/2007 at 8:36 pm

40. Will says:

@ 33

I never said Mike is friends with Kemper. I said Kemper is friends with Mike.
09/20/2007 at 9:03 pm

41. MichaelW says:

Hey, you can be a light rail fan and not support Ladenberg’s political move to overrule the Sound Transit planners. Light rail to the car dealerships in Fife is not the best use of our limited transit dollars. We need more light rail where people will actually use it.
09/20/2007 at 9:24 pm

42. Marmot's Whistle says:

Shizzle Bizzle @31:

#1 - you don’t have the research to say what 1 mile means in CO2 emissions.

We do know there is such thing as induced demand where added highway capacity prompts more trips leading to more vehicle miles traveled. See Todd Litman’s work at http://www.vtpi.org/ for details on how and to what extent this occurs. More vehicles on the road traveling more miles means more fuel burned and more emissions. The Puget Sound Regional Council estimates a 43% increase in VMT due to growth in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties from 1998 to 2030 including the effects of building the RTID/ST2 projects. While the transit investments will prevent this increase from being worse, the highway capacity expansion enables more trips and miles traveled.

#2 - more cars are coming regardless of what we do, we need to make our roads more efficient. We waste billions of gallons of gas sitting in traffic and trains can’t get everywhere

The biggest problem is the development patterns that create automobile-dependent travel. This will be difficult to retrofit but our success at doing so will go a long way to determining whether we are successful at reducing our carbon footprint or usher in a drastically altered climate. We can make our roads more efficient without expanding lane capacity. One way to do this is through congestion pricing which will help induce mode shift, carpooling, and changes in time of travel to less congestion periods. It will also provide revenue to support better transit alternatives and fund necessary maintenance of the roads we already have. As for physical configuration, intersection and interchange improvements can reduce bottlenecks without adding more lanes between. The analogy in a piping network: improve the valves and connectors without putting in larger pipes.

#3 - shouldn’t we give people a choice to get out of their car? Mike O’Brien doesn’t think that folks in Pierce and South King County deserve a light rail. Mike isn’t thinking about what the region will look like in 10 years.

Residents in Pierce and south King County deserve more effective transit, including light rail, than what is found in ST2. Light rail works best where it can extend the range of the pedestrian and serve lots of walk-up and bike-up users (as opposed to drive-up users). A great place to spend Pierce Co. transit fund$ is on extending the light rail in Tacoma to serve more areas of the City of Destiny which already have a well-developed street grid. Tacoma could benefit from the high capacity transit service with the accompanying transformed land use and more pedestrian-friendly development.
Light rail from the Airport to Federal Way will help produce better land use patterns if it runs along Pac Hwy (SR99) and not in the I-5 envelope. Between Federal Way and Fife/Port of Tacoma is questionable due to low ridership, even looking a decade or two out. For longer trips (Tacoma-Seattle), light rail will not be as quick as Sounder due to the LRT routing through the Rainier Valley (which is good for the added ridership it generates there). The point is the shorter suburb-to-suburb trips will need to justify the cost since Tacoma-Seattle commuters find faster trips on both Sounder commuter rail and express bus. I want to see the system succeed and that means putting high rider/$ segments in place sooner. Electrifying the Sounder heavy rail route would help reduce the carbon footprint, but is also pricey and raises issues with freight railroads. Nobody said it would be easy!
09/20/2007 at 10:16 pm

43. ron says:

@42

You contradict yourself only about 6 or 7 different times in your silly, drawn out post.

“The biggest problem is the development patterns that create automobile-dependent travel.”

Really? Then support 50 miles of light rail to transform how our region will accept 1.2 million more people.

Just like the Rainier Valley is being transformed with new communities along the light rail line that otherwise would not be there.

“We do know there is such thing as induced demand where added highway capacity prompts more trips leading to more vehicle miles traveled.”

And we also know that our inefficient road system and inefficient HOV system is causing us to waste billions of gallons of fuel every year and making our bus system slower every single year.

That is not a recipe for fighting global warming.

I doubt you have even read the RTID plan. If you did you would see many safety and interchange projects that help HOV and transit, you would see targeted investments that help King County metro express bus service funded under Transit Now and you would see investments in freight mobility.

What’s your plan?
09/20/2007 at 11:08 pm

44. fhfw says:

Look up the 700 Club online and if you don’t get the comparison to the Sierra Club, find another hobbie besides political blogging.
09/20/2007 at 11:35 pm

45. Scott White says:

The Sierra Club/700 Club did take a stand against light rail South to Tacoma today. Mike OBrien, you are reading these posts. Care to argue with that?

From the just release buildable lands report from King County:
South County, having issued permits for 38% of its targeted
residential growth, has grown fastest with respect to level of growth envisioned in the CPPs.
09/20/2007 at 11:41 pm

46. Marmot's Whistle says:

Ron @43:

What matters is where and how we build the light rail to produce the transformative land use that we both want to see. Specifically, we need to pay close attention to the rider/$ ratio of the LRT alignment we build. Fiscal constraints are real, and we cannot afford to squander money (and political capital too) on an underperforming transit line.

Freeway envelopes are not good places to expect land use changes that we want. Not many people will be interested in a condo right next to I-5 with a view of all lanes. The LRT proposed for south Snohomish County is alongside I-5. An Aurora Ave/Pacific Hwy/SR-99 alignment would perform much better in ridership and redevelopment potential.

I have read the Blueprint, probably too many times! You are correct that it does contain some good projects that increase the effectiveness of transit and vanpools/carpools. But these projects (many added at the last moment when funds were diverted from the AW Viaduct project) are like the green bicycle on the back of the global-warming SUV that is the full RTID package. The good projects in RTID total about $825 million or ~10% of the total spending. If you include extra lanes in the HOV system that are still going to add to vehicle miles traveled and therefore more greenhouse gas emissions, although they do help HOVs, the total of all these projects is about $2.4 billion or maybe 1/4th of all the spending. Nearly three-quarters of the spending proposed in RTID is for capacity expansion in mega-projects that add unpriced lanes. A recipe for more traffic, more sprawl, and more GHG emissions.

The plan is to reject this funding package that raises the wrong taxes to fund the wrong highway projects. Then bring ST2 or an improved better ST2.1 back to the voters in 2008 and approve it. Meanwhile, introduce congestion pricing on the limited-access highways in the region to:
1) make better use of the highway network we have;
2) fund transit, both light rail and more bus service; and
3) provide maintenance funds to take care of the existing road system.

We can use a more appropriate revenue source like local option gasoline tax to raise additional revenue for the HOV direct access ramps, street/rail grade separation projects, and single-point interchange modifications that will relieve traffic chokepoints. King County and WSDOT have received a federal DOT grant that includes a stipulation for tolling the 520 bridge to raise funds for its rebuilding. This is just the start of a system that will make more efficient use of our existing highways and allow more light rail to be built sooner. But let the transportation planners at ST and other agencies do their jobs. Too much micro-management and interjection of pet projects by the electeds has put us in our present quandary.
09/21/2007 at 12:57 am

47. please pay attention says:

Marmot’s Whistle @ 42 illustrates the Sierra Club’s utter lack of involvement in helping Sound Transit build light rail in the region. If they were in regular contact with like-minded people who work in transit in this town, they would understand a little more about building light rail in this town. Lets look at Marmot’s comment #3 about light rail.

“Residents in Pierce and south King County deserve more effective transit, including light rail, than what is found in ST2. Light rail works best where it can extend the range of the pedestrian and serve lots of walk-up and bike-up users (as opposed to drive-up users).”

–No shit, Sherlock. That is one of the main reasons I want to build 50 miles of light rail. Developers LOVE rail stations. This is our chance to build dense, walkable, liveable transit communities throughout the region.

“A great place to spend Pierce Co. transit fund$ is on extending the light rail in Tacoma to serve more areas of the City of Destiny which already have a well-developed street grid. Tacoma could benefit from the high capacity transit service with the accompanying transformed land use and more pedestrian-friendly development.”

–OK, this is where the Sierra Club truly illustrates its lack of understanding of light rail engineering. Tacoma Link is very nice, but it is not light rail. It is a fucking STREETCAR. It is the same streetcar that runs in Portland and will soon run in South Lake Union. As such, it is relatively cheap. South Lake Union is $45 million. Sound Transit, the City of Tacoma, the tribes, and private developers will find a way to extend it soon just like it is happening in Portland. Pierce County electeds decided what they wanted to spend their ST2 dollars on. But I suppose the Sierra Club knows better from their Seattle homes what is better for them Tacomans.

“Light rail from the Airport to Federal Way will help produce better land use patterns if it runs along Pac Hwy (SR99) and not in the I-5 envelope.”

–Unless you actually look at a map and see that 99 runs right next to I-5 from Federal Way to Fife. In any event I don’t believe Sound Transit has made any route decisions yet.

“Between Federal Way and Fife/Port of Tacoma is questionable due to low ridership, even looking a decade or two out.”

–Only if you assume the entire world revolves around getting to Seattle for your high-tech job. In the real world people get jobs wherever they can and need to commute between Tacoma and the Kent valley. And did it ever occur to you that Pierce County folks might want to go to SEA-TAC to catch a plane?

“For longer trips (Tacoma-Seattle), light rail will not be as quick as Sounder due to the LRT routing through the Rainier Valley (which is good for the added ridership it generates there).”

–Once again, stunningly ill-informed. The route through the Rainier Valley is four miles long. Trains will move about 25 mph through the valley. If they went down a dedicated right of way light rail usually travels twice that or 50 mph. Simple math tells us that four miles at 25 mph would take about nine minutes. Four miles at 50 mph would take almost five. FOUR MINUTES is not what gets people out of their cars. It is the reliability of rail that people book on, because they can’t always rely on the traffic-bound bus. And the Rainier Valley route is the biggest opportunity this city has had in years to infill density in Seattle. Four dense station areas and an economic revival to Seattle’s poorest neighborhoods–I think Marmot understates what his happening in the Rainier Valley when he refers to us Southies as “ridership”.

“The point is the shorter suburb-to-suburb trips will need to justify the cost since Tacoma-Seattle commuters find faster trips on both Sounder commuter rail and express bus.”

–People will want all kinds of modes depending on where they live. Sounder travels through the east side of the Kent valley. Light rail will travel through the west side of South King County. And don’t people in Federal Way, Des Moines, and Sea-Tac often work and travel to Seattle too?

“I want to see the system succeed and that means putting high rider/$ segments in place sooner. Electrifying the Sounder heavy rail route would help reduce the carbon footprint, but is also pricey and raises issues with freight railroads. Nobody said it would be easy!”

–The railroads historically were granted some of the best right of way in this country and plenty of protective laws to protect them. They are notoriously difficult to negotiate with for track use. Part of the reason is the train freight lines are almost packed to capacity. And part of the reason is that they are dicks. The railroads would not give away their right of way and electrify lines that they need to carry freight. Not easy, indeed.

It truly distresses me that Sierra Club members are criticizing the transit investments in this ballot measure. Their membership is heavily concentrated in affluent Seattle neighborhoods and like all of us, the world revolves around their reality. I think they ignore the real needs of working class people who work in all kinds of crap jobs around this region selling them stuff.

Why should we trust the light rail advice of a bunch of well meaning folks who know little about how to build it?
09/21/2007 at 1:14 am

48. Scott White says:

The Sierra/700 Club can’t stop contradicting themselves. “Rainier valley light rail will be slow because it is not on I-5″ “We need to build light rail through communities not along freeways so we can affect developtment”

Which is it?
09/21/2007 at 7:11 am

49. wutitiz says:

Shizzle Bizzle 32, and my left foot @36, does the Chicago train system ‘work?’

It depends on how the definition of “works” works. I lived in Chicago for years and would not necessarily say that it worked. To get on the El on the South side where I lived meant taking your life in your hands. There were robberies and such all the time, and the El cars were junkyard material. The IC commuter rail was plush but pricey. Usually, I used to take the #6 Jeffery Express bus, which went down Lake Shore Drive, or drove my car.
Also, the El was popular as a means of suicide. Once I walked onto a platform and a lady was crying and shaking. She had just witnessed someone jumping in front of the train. There were chunks of human being spread over the tracks. If the left blames ‘gun availability’ for causing suicides, what about ‘train availability?’
09/21/2007 at 6:06 pm

50. thor says:

No one, anywhere, has crunched any credible numbers of the global warming impact of RTID or Sound Transit.

This local Sierra Club campaign against light rail should be called what it is: an insult to an otherwise respected environmental organization.

Has anybody asked the leadership of the Sierra Club to try to silence this new local nutcase?
09/21/2007 at 6:26 pm

51. Buckin' Broncos says:

www.seatrans.blogspot.com/2007 /09/sierra-club-has-no-credib ility.html
09/21/2007 at 8:20 pm

52. John Niles says:

Sound Transit and Federal Transit Administration jointly issued a Record of Decision (ROD) on North Link light rail (downtown Seattle to Northgate) in 2006 as part of the environmental clearance required for Federal funding. This ROD is published full text on the Internet at http://www.bettertransport.inf o/pitf/NorthLinkROD.htm . (Sound Transit may have it published on their web as well.)

Appendix D of this ROD is the only published analysis to date of the greenhouse gas impacts from a component of Proposition 1 Roads & Transit. (North Link Light Rail as far as Husky Stadium is already funded. The continuation under the U of W to Roosevelt and Northgate is funded by Prop 1.)

I have never seen any reaction from an environmental advocacy organization about what this ROD document reports on greenhouse gas emissions on the full life cycle of construction and operation of the forthcoming Seattle Light Rail Subway from downtown to Northgate. The recommendation of the Mayor’s Green Ribbon Commission to complete light rail to Northgate came out before this ROD was released, and thus is not informed by what it says.

The bottom line in Appendix D of this ROD document is this statement: “Subtracting the estimated 631,932 metric tons of carbon dioxide generated during construction [over seven years] from the estimated 1,409,500 metric tons saved during operation [over the 100 years following the end of construction of the line] results in an overall project savings estimated at 778,763 metric tons of carbon dioxide.”

The net greenhouse gas savings from this light rail line begin about 45 years from now. This is considered OK by Sound Transit and the U.S. Government because the operational lifespan of this project is considered to be 100 years.

Some individual environmentalists consider this 45 year waiting period to be bad news. Most have no comment.

The greenhouse gas implications of other light rail components of ST2 and of the RTID road investments have not been analyzed and published at all to my knowledge.

My own take is that unless GHG emissions from private motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses) are regulated down to zero rather quickly worldwide, the global atmosphere will continue to heat up faster than it would otherwise.
09/23/2007 at 4:19 pm

53. Buckin' Broncos says:

“Some individual environmentalists consider this 45 year waiting period to be bad news. Most have no comment.”

The day an environmentalist is stupid enough to support this idiotic junk science, cranked out by Discovery Institute and Washington Policy Institute hack John Niles - one of Kemper Freeman’s longtime pavement hounds - will be the day that environmentalist commits political suicide.

John Niles and his barely sane friend Emory Bundy have a very unhealthy obsession with killing light rail in favor of a lot of other stupid stuff which changes yearly.

“My own take is that unless GHG emissions from private motor vehicles (cars, trucks, buses) are regulated down to zero rather quickly worldwide, the global atmosphere will continue to heat up faster than it would otherwise. ”

Which makes sense, since the alternatives to light rail Niles has been coming up with for about 30 years always involve an internal combustion engine.

The only thing Niles and the anti-transit ideologues are consistent with…is their inconsistency.

Parking Cash out laws

Parking Cash-Out

Cash in lieu of using a parking space

Don Shoup, the father of parking cash-out (cash in lieu of using a parking space), explains how federal law has been changed to make PCO available to more employees. While focusing on California, it is applicable to all states. Demand it from your employer.

14 Aug 97

FROM: Don Shoup

Thanks for your invitation to explain to the Sierra Club how the recent federal tax bill will affect parking subsidies. I will explain what I think has happened.

California law requires many employers to offer commuters the option to choose cash in lieu of any parking subsidy offered. This cash-out requirement applies to employers of 50 or more persons in regions that do not meet the state's clean air standards, but only for parking spaces that employers rent from a third party. Thus, if a commuter trades a parking space for cash, the money previously allocated to renting a parking space directly funds the commuter's cash allowance.

Unfortunately, the federal Internal Revenue Code has prevented California from enforcing this cash-out law. Until last week, Section 132(f)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code provided that if an employer offers commuters the option to choose cash in lieu of a parking subsidy, the parking subsidy itself ceases to qualify as a tax-exempt fringe benefit. Therefore, commuters who were offered the cash option but continue to take the parking were supposed to pay income taxes on the market value of the previously tax-exempt parking subsidy. This adverse tax impact of offering to cash out employer-paid parking has prevented California from enforcing its cash-out requirement, and has led California business interests to seek a repeal of the cash-out requirement.

Fortunately, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (the recent "balanced budget" agreement passed by Congress and signed by the President) has removed the tax barrier to cashing out employer-paid parking subsidies. The tax code now specifically allows employers to offer commuters the option to choose taxable cash in lieu of a parking subsidy. This federal tax change does not require employers to offer commuters the cash option, but it will allow California to enforce its own parking cash-out requirement without encountering any tax problems.

Just as the federal tax code was being changed, a bill was introduced in the California Senate to repeal the state's cash-out law, on the grounds that it hadn't worked (which it hadn't, because of the tax problem). Fortunately, this bill (SB 1320, Hurtt) was later amended to serve another purpose that had nothing to do with parking cash out, and the attempt to repeal the cash-out requirement appears to have failed in the legislature. The strong opposition to repealing the cash-out law was in large part due to the hard work of the Sierra Club, and especially of Bonnie Holmes-Gen and Megan Mullan in the Club's Sacramento office.

So the upshot of all this is that (1) the Internal Revenue Code now allows employers to offer commuters the option to choose between either a tax-exempt parking subsidy or taxable cash, and (2) California law requires many employers to offer commuters the option to choose taxable cash in lieu of any parking subsidy offered.

Although the Internal Revenue Code now allows parking cash out, it continues to favor solo driving to work because parking subsidies remain tax exempt. Therefore, merely allowing employers to offer commuters the option to choose taxable cash in lieu of a tax-exempt parking subsidy may seem a small reform. But as Justice Ginsberg recommended in her Senate confirmation hearing, "Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances."

Some firms in California have already begun to offer their employees the option to cash out parking subsidies, and I have recently completed case studies of eight firms that have complied with California's cash-out requirement. For the 1,694 employees of these eight firms, the solo-driver share fell from 76 percent before cashing out to 63 percent after cashing out. The carpool share rose from 14 to 23 percent, the transit share rose from 6 to 9 percent, and the combined walk and bicycle share rose from 3 to 4 percent.

Per 100 commuters, cashing out employer-paid parking induced 13 solo drivers to shift to another mode. Of these 13 former solo drivers, 9 joined carpools, 3 began to ride transit, and one began to walk or bicycle to work. These mode shifts reduced the number of solo drivers by 17 percent, increased the number of carpoolers by 64 percent, increased the number of transit riders by 50 percent, and increased the number who walk or bike to work by 39 percent.

Vehicle miles traveled for commuting fell by 12 percent, equivalent to removing from the road one of every eight automobiles used for commuting to the eight firms. Carbon dioxide emissions from commuting fell by 807 pounds per employee per year.

The eight firms' spending for commuting subsidies rose by $2 per employee per month because payments in lieu of parking increased slightly more than spending for parking declined. Federal and state income tax revenues increased by $65 per employee per year because many commuters voluntarily traded tax-exempt parking subsidies for taxable cash.

Employers praised the cash option for its simplicity and fairness, and said that it helped to recruit and retain employees. The benefit/cost ratio of the eight cash-out programs was at least 4/1. In summary, these eight case studies show that cashing out employer-paid parking can benefit commuters, employers, taxpayers, and the environment.

If you would like a copy of my recent research on the effects of cashing out parking subsidies, please call me or e-mail me and I will send you a copy.

Source Sierra Club Web site