Official 'No on 1125' Campaign Logo
Major transportation policy decisions always seem to find their way to the hallowed and terrible realm of the voter’s ballot, both revered for its adherence to democratic virtues and hated for its subjection to faulty populism. Whatever the political climate, decisions like these are thus contingent on how the masses think and feel, which makes campaigning utterly important to how our transportation system ultimately turns out.
This past November, there were two measures subject to voter “will”– Proposition 1, which asked Seattle voters to approve a $60 car-tab fee which would have funded capital improvements for transit, pedestrians, and bicyclists as well as provided a bit of money for streetcar planning, and Initiative 1125, which asked statewide voters how they felt about various restrictions on tolling along with the Easter egg clause to essentially ban light rail from expanding to the Eastside.
Voters said no to Proposition 1. The reasons were many and varied: “We can’t afford another $60 in car-tab fees!” “This fee is too regressive!” “I don’t like Mayor McGinn!” Whatever the real reason behind the rejection, much of the talk and press seemed centered on one thing– the nature of the car-tab fee. Though it was the only kind of taxing authority given to Seattle by the State Legislature, many argued against its regressive nature or simply against it entirely, summing up a relatively anti-tax climate that even Seattleites are prone to huddle under sometimes.
There’s no doubt that Proposition 1 would have benefited sustainable transportation greatly. Its investments in capital projects, like sidewalks, bicycle facilities, and transit corridor improvements would have both increased safety and reduced bus travel times. But because these benefits were shrouded by the cold hard fact of what amounted to a tax for many, people only cared about how much money they would have to fork over rather than how much they would benefit from the funded improvements.
Some have argued that Proposition 1 would have passed had the car-tab fee been $80. Though seemingly counter-intuitive, the logic follows that a $80 fee would have funded a much more ambitious, more tangible, and more apparent signature project, like the streetcar connector linking the South Lake Union and First Hill lines. This, in effect, would have made the benefits more “worth it.” Regardless, there’s no way of knowing for sure if voters would have passed an $80 measure, and no ‘what-ifs’ can change the outcome at hand.
Initiative 1125 had just about the opposite problem: voters saw the costs associated with the measure with little benefit to go with it. Yet anti-tax populism for I-1125 swung the other way– a ‘yes’ vote was essentially sold as a mandate against tolls and for accountability and transparency in the State government. Whether voters liked tolls or not, the outcome of the race was to be purely determined on how apparent the costs of the initiative would have been.
Thanks to a robust ‘no’ campaign, I-1125 failed at the polls as voters began to realize just how much the measure could cost both the public and private sector. The ambiguity behind the initiative language was equally unhelpful for Tim Eyman and produced the opposite problem as Proposition 1– because no one could figure out the magnitude of costs, many felt that the best solution would be to vote against the risk.
As is with any election cycle, the outcome of these two races was heavily contingent on just how much ambiguity could be deciphered on either side. Unfortunately, such is the case with participatory democracy, as many voters are often led to vote from a secondhand opinion, whether through an editorial, endorsement, etc. rather than firsthand research. But for those of us who could understand the costs and benefits well, the choices were clear.
Because transportation is about making long-term decisions to fulfill long-term needs, advocates of strong cities and robust transportation should never allow political ambiguity to shroud these goals. In making the case for Proposition 1 and against I-1125, this approach was integral to suppressing the dominance of short-term interests. In effect, the choices for voters had to be equally clear, as long as they understood the long-term implications of both costs and benefits.
