Dumb logic for supporting Initiative 912
Dan from On the Road to 2008 writes about a few liberals (such as this commenter who also has his own blog) who have foolishly decided to support Initiative 912:
These projects will make Washington safer and lead to less fatalities out on the road. That's a good thing.
If you support Initiative 912, your priorities and reasoning are seriously out of whack. It's saddening to think that there are people who consider themselves to be progressive that would cast their lot in with anti-tax zealots:
And, as another of our commenters noted, Washington's environmental coalition agrees. The Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council, the Washington Conservation Voters, WashPIRG, Transportation Choices Coalition, and - Washington's #1 anti-sprawl group, Futurewise - all of these respected environmental groups oppose Initiative 912.
If you're a progressive and an environmentalist (and I am!), you can rest assured that voting NO on Initiative 912 is the right thing to do.
Support a better investment in the future of Washington State's public infrastructure. Vote NO on Initiative 912.
[A few] car hating liberals who would normally never find themselves voting on an anti-tax initiative concocted by rabid right wingnuts, have decided to get in bed with them, thinking they actually will benefit from the result of I-912 passing.The idea that the 2005 transportation package will create more sprawl is entirely ridiculous. The driving element in the package (pun intended!) is public safety. As in replacing seismically unsafe bridges and critical structures - such as the SR 520 floating bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct - but also new passing lanes on rural roads, guardrails, and highway medians.
How sadly wrong they are to think so.
The problem is that they are all working from misguided beliefs.
The gas tax can only be used for highways and ferries. On many of the highway projects bike lanes would be added. On the 520 bridge project, additional capacity would probably include HOV lanes and bike lanes, and perhaps plans to accommodate a rail transit system.
[...]
The best choice for people who support projects like Sound Transit or the Monorail would be to vote against I-912 so that the fund raising needed for our crumbling transportation infrastructure can occur without raiding the options available to pay for transit projects. Seattleites faced with an either or proposition would never support a Monorail project over improved roads and bridges. That's just not a feasibility. However, if given the chance for both, they will, and have supported such transit projects.
These projects will make Washington safer and lead to less fatalities out on the road. That's a good thing.
If you support Initiative 912, your priorities and reasoning are seriously out of whack. It's saddening to think that there are people who consider themselves to be progressive that would cast their lot in with anti-tax zealots:
I would vote against I-912 if the gas tax increase were about safety and improving Washington's quality of life. Unfortunately, it is mostly about building more roads to encourage ever increasing sprawl.Actually, the 2005 transportation package is about safety and improving Washington's quality of life.
And, as another of our commenters noted, Washington's environmental coalition agrees. The Sierra Club, the Washington Environmental Council, the Washington Conservation Voters, WashPIRG, Transportation Choices Coalition, and - Washington's #1 anti-sprawl group, Futurewise - all of these respected environmental groups oppose Initiative 912.
If you're a progressive and an environmentalist (and I am!), you can rest assured that voting NO on Initiative 912 is the right thing to do.
Support a better investment in the future of Washington State's public infrastructure. Vote NO on Initiative 912.
