Nov. 7, 2007 at 8:17pm

Sound Transit Proposition No. 1 Post Mortem

Many Tacomans like myself voted for Sound Transit Proposition No. 1 because they believed it would have reduced traffic congestion and would have provided a rail from Tacoma up to Sea-Tac. 

I still believe the rail connection would have benefitted Tacoma even though it would have not been for 20 years.

However, the more I read about transportation, the more it appears that the road portion of Proposition No. 1 may have done more harm than good:

The mechanism at work behind induced traffic is elegantly explained by an aphorism gaining popularity amoung traffic engineers:"trying to cure traffic congestion by adding more capacity is like like trying to cure obesity by loosening your belt."  Increased  traffic capacity makes longer commutes less burdensom, and as a result, people are willing to live farther from their workplace.  An increasing numbers of peope make similar decisions, the longer the distance commute grows as crowded as the inner city, commuters clamor for additional lanes, and the cycle repeats itself.

Suburban Nation : The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream.  Page 89-90. 

Funding

Another problem with Proposition No. 1 was that it subsidized suburban living.  Even if living further out in the county was a not objectionable on a public policy basis, the people seeking to live 20 miles out of town should have to pay for the roadways to get there. 

Thus, any road expansion plan should be financed through a user tax via a gas tax.  Unfortunately, proposition 1 would have increased the sales tax forcing Washington residents to subsidize suburban sprawl through the simply act buying groceries or any other consumer item. 

Consequently, the users of the new roads would be encouraged to live ever farther from areas of work as their actions would have been subsidized and made easier.

At the very least, the state should be neutral on the issue of suburban living and not subsidize it.  Due to environmental concerns, there is a much stronger argument for local governments to work to reduce sprawl, no encourage through subsidy.




Any new roads should be paid for by the people who choose to use them.  This can be done by funding all road construction projects by a gas tax which raises money proportional to the use of the roads.

Should Tacoma and Pierce County participate in another transportation package?  If so, what should we build and how should we pay for it?

If Tacoma has any additional money, would it be more wise to place the funds in a street car system and fix up our infrastructure here?