Carless in Seattle has a great round-up of the anti-prop 1 ads that have just started airing. The comparison of the Pierce County ad with the Seattle Ad is pretty interesting.
King 5’s Robert Mak, whose show “Upfront with Robert Mak” is one of the most (unfairly) unintentionally hilarious programs on television because of Mak’s resemblence to Kermit the Frog, discussed the issue and sums up the anti-transit side of the story though in a little bit simplistic way.
“When you find out how little it does, and how much it costs, it’s the largest public works project ever proposed in America,” said Kemper. (STB – What? It’s the largest project works project because of how little it does?)
Some opponents are now running radio ads claiming the extra license tab and sales tax would add up to $157 billion by the time the last bonds are paid off in 50 years.
But transit supporters say the estimates are wrong, because after the year 2027, Sound Transit may choose to reduce taxes if it doesn’t need them.
Anyway now I finally figured out where the $157 billion number comes from, they assume that all taxes that are being collected will be collected for the 60 years that started in 1996 and will end in 2057 without building any more than is in the plan today. If prop 1 passes, the taxes will start to decrease after 2027 – when final construction finishes – unless new construction is approved by another vote.
The other thing, is the $157 billion number is mentioned in year-of-expenditure dollar amounts, which are inflation-adjusted. That means that the 2057 dollar amount is listed along side the 2007 dollar amount even though nothing in 2057 will cost the same as it does in 2007. Confusing right?
We’ve gone over and over again why using inflation-adjusted number make no sense (short recap: 1) All inflation numbers are estimates, so we don’t know the actual number anyway, 2) inflation adjusted numbers over huge time spans vastly over emphasizes later expenditures because inflation has increased those numbers, and 3) population growth increases the number of people who are paying the taxes, so per-person numbers are mis-estimated). By including money that is not being taxed (full taxes instead of debt-servicing from 2027 to 2057) 30 years from now, they are adding the largest possibly number because inflation will make costs 50 years from now so much higher than today. They are also dividing by current population numbers, to come up with a $94,000 per household figure.
Liars and crooks with deep pockets trying to confuse voters because of an ideological opposition to mass transit. Wow.
$157 billion is totally a scare tactic
Just for kicks, you could build 3,140 miles of light rail at 50 million per mile with that $157 Billion.
But we’re getting closer to $200 mn per mile in Seattle because of hills/tunnels and water.
I wonder, does Kemper ever “think” about what light rail might do for his businesses? I am not a business type of guy, but I have got to believe that if I am “responsible for the new face of Bellevue” then I want many people to have access to the fruits of my labor? Wouldn’t you? A light rail line would bring in more people without having to wait to drive across the bridge, wait in traffic for every moron (oops…I mean person)in their SUV talking on their cell. I see more people bringing in more money, making my business more successful? Maybe I am wrong here but he needs to rethink his anti-transit strategies.
You know, this is all really beside the point, which is why I’m joining the Sierra Club in voting NO on Prop 1.
If you concede that global warming exists — and I mean really concede, as in you admit that we have to do something about it — then Prop 1 is not the way to go. For decades to come, it’ll plow scarce transportation money into new highways, at a time when we know we must move away from cars and towards mass transit (repair of existing highway infrastructure is almost entirely neglected, meaning that in the future, we’ll inevitably need even more new taxes to pay for roads).
True, there is Sound Transit funding, but in parallel, Prop 1’s new highways will dramatically increase vehicle miles traveled. Unless trains can somehow suck C02 out of the air, the net result is that Prop 1 will make global warming worse.
We can do a lot better — in fact, we have to. Future generations will thank us for wisely saying NO to Prop 1, and then in 2008 or 2009, saying YES to a transportation package that makes sense.
“increase vehicle miles traveled”. It’s not necessarily true that all highways and all vehicles will always burn fossil fuels. What if they ran on electricity, would you still oppose new highways?
I think it’s rather funny to see the same tactic used to kill the monorail — running taxes out in YOE dollars and across the entire period to pay off bonds — used to kill this pet project of so many legislators who worked to kill the monorail.
daimajin seems to be suggesting that EV miles are free of environmental impact. This is akin to Prius hubris.
When thinking about vehicle travel, I think it’s important to consider the full system effects and energy/material flows. For example, an EV will still require construction, repair and deconstruction/disposal.
Secondly, we’re only barely making progress reducing the carbon footprint in the electricity production sector. EVs do add to our need to expand electricity production, which is far from impact free or even carbon neutrality.