<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: RTID is a compromise</title>
	<atom:link href="http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/05/25/rtid-is-a-compromise/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/05/25/rtid-is-a-compromise/</link>
	<description>Transit in the Greater Seattle Area</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:26:09 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Cait</title>
		<link>http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/05/25/rtid-is-a-compromise/#comment-469</link>
		<dc:creator>Cait</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 01:40:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/05/25/rtid-is-a-compromise/#comment-469</guid>
		<description>The package seems fairly impressive.  I agree that it&#039;s not perfect, but nothing ever will be.  This is, however, an impressive start to a solutution.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;It drastically reduces the tri-counties&#039; carbon footprint.  Between fixing various traffic problems and improving the light rail system, people will spend a lot less time on the roads.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The package seems fairly impressive.  I agree that it&#8217;s not perfect, but nothing ever will be.  This is, however, an impressive start to a solutution.</p>
<p>It drastically reduces the tri-counties&#8217; carbon footprint.  Between fixing various traffic problems and improving the light rail system, people will spend a lot less time on the roads.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bill</title>
		<link>http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/05/25/rtid-is-a-compromise/#comment-106</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 May 2007 05:14:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://seattletransitblog.com/2007/05/25/rtid-is-a-compromise/#comment-106</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been out of town for a few days, so just catching up.  But, I find your response to the climate concerns re: RTID projects quite disturbing, or at least showing a profound underestimation of the problem.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;I&#039;m going to be testifying tomorrow morning  at the RTID meeting in favor of the joint ballot because RTID staff and board have made some fundamental improvements to the RTID package and, more importantly, because it&#039;s essential that we get the ST2 going as quickly as possible.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;However, there is no way you can just flippantly dismiss the carbon footprint of the new RTID road projects, if they are built and operated as hoped for by their proponents.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;In Washington state, our biggest source of carbon emissions is transportation.  Gov. Gregoire and the legislature have stated that we must cut emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (about 60% below current levels).  Scientists argue we need to reduce emissions  a minimum of 80% below current levels by 2050 to achieve climate stability, thereby avoiding the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.  So, not only must we stop digging the hole deeper on our biggest source of carbon emissions, we need to cut them drastically.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Building out Link light rail, beefing up commuter and intercity rail service, adding some BRT lines, expanding bus service with cleaner vehicles, improving bike/ped facilities and dramatically changing land use practices will all be critical to reducing VMT to the level necessary to drastically cut transportation emissions.  (Clean car technology and cleaner fuels are also part of the puzzle, but nothing on the next 40 year horizon will be enough avoid a need to dramatically cut VMT).  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Most of the new capacity that will be built under RTID exacerbates this problem dramatically.  In theory, we probably should shut down I-5, but you very well know that it is much easier to not build something than it is shut down capacity that already exists.  But, needless to say, radical changes in how we live and move around will be necessary.  &lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;As I said, I and my organization-Environment Washington- will be supporting the joint ballot because we must build out ST2 ASAP  to help achieve changed land use patterns and the alternative network to get people out of their cars.  But, most of the new lane miles in the RTID package are indeed quite harmful and we will do everything in our powers to in some cases prevent projects from being built (through legal and legislative action), change the form of others with the same tactics, and price the rest.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been out of town for a few days, so just catching up.  But, I find your response to the climate concerns re: RTID projects quite disturbing, or at least showing a profound underestimation of the problem.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m going to be testifying tomorrow morning  at the RTID meeting in favor of the joint ballot because RTID staff and board have made some fundamental improvements to the RTID package and, more importantly, because it&#8217;s essential that we get the ST2 going as quickly as possible.  </p>
<p>However, there is no way you can just flippantly dismiss the carbon footprint of the new RTID road projects, if they are built and operated as hoped for by their proponents.  </p>
<p>In Washington state, our biggest source of carbon emissions is transportation.  Gov. Gregoire and the legislature have stated that we must cut emissions 50% below 1990 levels by 2050 (about 60% below current levels).  Scientists argue we need to reduce emissions  a minimum of 80% below current levels by 2050 to achieve climate stability, thereby avoiding the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.  So, not only must we stop digging the hole deeper on our biggest source of carbon emissions, we need to cut them drastically.</p>
<p>Building out Link light rail, beefing up commuter and intercity rail service, adding some BRT lines, expanding bus service with cleaner vehicles, improving bike/ped facilities and dramatically changing land use practices will all be critical to reducing VMT to the level necessary to drastically cut transportation emissions.  (Clean car technology and cleaner fuels are also part of the puzzle, but nothing on the next 40 year horizon will be enough avoid a need to dramatically cut VMT).  </p>
<p>Most of the new capacity that will be built under RTID exacerbates this problem dramatically.  In theory, we probably should shut down I-5, but you very well know that it is much easier to not build something than it is shut down capacity that already exists.  But, needless to say, radical changes in how we live and move around will be necessary.  </p>
<p>As I said, I and my organization-Environment Washington- will be supporting the joint ballot because we must build out ST2 ASAP  to help achieve changed land use patterns and the alternative network to get people out of their cars.  But, most of the new lane miles in the RTID package are indeed quite harmful and we will do everything in our powers to in some cases prevent projects from being built (through legal and legislative action), change the form of others with the same tactics, and price the rest.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
