November 6th marked election day in Washington State.  One of the biggest items on the ballot was Proposition 1: REGIONAL ROADS AND TRANSIT SYSTEM, which was soundly defeated in the polls with 55.47% voting no.  This was the largest transportation bill ever proposed to King County voters and those within the districts affected by the proposed changes.

Looking at the list of proposed improvements, a good chunk of them are necessary improvements to the existing transportation infrastructure in King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties.  So why vote it down?

1. The measure was, quite simply, too big, and this is the fault of the state.  Voters had no ability to vote yes on individual portions of the proposal and had to either accept or reject the entire package.  This is explained in the King County Voters Pamphlet, which exposes the text of the measure itself.  That text includes the following statement:”WHEREAS, in 2007, the State Legislature, enacted Substitute House Bill 1396, which requires Sound Transit and RTID to submit their proposed transportation plans in a single ballot question in order to provide voters with an easier and more efficient method of expressing their will, and which included findings that transportation improvements proposed by Sound Transit and RTID form integral parts of, and are naturally and necessarily related to, a single regional transportation system . . .”

   The state legislature effectively doomed the measure by requiring this.

2. We don’t need to keep throwing money at fixing and expanding an infrastructure that is in bad need of rethinking.  It is not sustainable to add yet more capacity to the system, which will not encourage the use of alternatives like light rail, bus lines, bikes, and carpooling.  Increasing population density and making the existing city cores more walkable and livable in general will help create an environment where we don’t need to drive as much (if at all).  The goal here should not be continuation of the status quo; it should be a complete reversal and rethinking of it.
3. We need to start thinking about how to best preserve the spaces we have, which is not assisted by further sprawl and massive projects to revamp infrastructure.  The Alaskan Way Viaduct in Seattle is a perfect example.  This is a major highway into and out of Seattle, granted, but there are other ways to direct traffic through the city.  When the bus tunnel closed for maintenance several years ago, everybody assumed that it was the end of the world and traffic would grind to a halt.  This never materialized.  We adjusted.  We would adjust to not having access to the Viaduct and being rewarded with a more welcoming waterfront.

I push for the idea of sustainability because I recognize my impact on the world.  I recognize the need to maintain the infrastructure that exists already, but I do not recognize the need to expand upon it unless such expansions support new transportation options rather than simply inviting more cars to join our already-clogged highway system.  I recognize the need for transit, but I also recognize that the more single-occupancy cars we add to our roads, the faster the infrastructure deteriorates and the sooner we need solutions that make sense.  That solution is not a gigantic package where voters have no choice in what they can and cannot accept.  We need a la carte voting on these measures so that voters can properly speak their minds.  If this ever happens, I will support mass transit in favor of less sustainable transportation expansions.