Today, the land where the highway would be constructed is mostly farmland or grassy. This just magnifies the type of highway construction this is: New Highway, new facility, new corridor. Below is what part of the corridor looks like today:
In times like today when the City of Tacoma and also our state has committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions and vehicle miles traveled, the last thing that we need is a new highway. This new highway would promote more driving which can be both good in bad. Good in that travel times are reduced and distant places become more connected. However, it is also bad since cars today cause about 50% of the air pollution in our state, but also promote sprawl which promotes auto-dependency and a number of other negative consequences.
However, if nobody thought this was a good idea, it wouldn't be here in the first place. The project's biggest boosters, the Port of Tacoma and the Tacoma-Pierce Chamber recently touted a number of benefits over at the RAMP blog. In their post, they incorrectly claim that the highway itself will generate $10.1 billion and 79,000 jobs by 2025. If this were actually true, then it is a strong argument, but in fact the report (pdf) where these numbers come from states that these benefits come from the growth in the containerized cargo industry, not the highway itself. In all due respect, the report does note that having competitive cargo transit times is important in reigning in the containerized cargo business. However, it is a pity that something as awful as this highway project is being proposed as a remedy - surely there must be a better way.
The presence of the plan and momentum for this highway project underscores just how much importance is being placed on personal vehicle travel despite the numerous perennially unfunded transportation projects that still exist. This includes Pierce Transit's budget shortfall, extending Tacoma Link and finding sustainable funding for Tacoma's Mobility Master Plan, not to mention fixing up the local streets throughout our cities. It reminds me all over of this great comparison made a few months ago by Eric de Place over at Sightline:
This is basically the very same thing over again in Tacoma. Tacoma's mobility master plan is estimated to cost $38.5 million for the entire build-out, Pierce Transit's funding gap is $68 million and even extending Seattle's LINK Light Rail from South Federal Way to Tacoma Dome is estimated at $1.6 billion(pdf). Yet somehow this $2 billion new highway is a higher priority?
Actually, this highway isn't a huge priority just yet. The City of Tacoma is about update their Legislative Policy Manual(pdf) with a whole new paragraph supporting this highway project. The update of the Legislative Policy Manual is in a pending city council agenda for September 28th(pdf) as resolution #12697. The new paragraph would read as follows:
Completion of SR-167 from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma has been identified by the Legislature as a "mega project." The City believes that completion of this project should be a top priority. ...In summary, I believe that it is time for a shift in the way things are done in that our City and State should focus more on local roads, public transit and non-motorized transportation before new highways if ever focusing on new highways. This new highway would do more harm than good perpetuating intolerable levels of pollution and auto-dependency for the South Sound. Alternatively, there are a whole number of better ways to spend money transportation money if any is to be spent at all.
However, the momentum for this new highway project is strong and in all likelihood will prevail unless our community bitterly protests the project to the extent of knocking it out of our highway-crazy regional plans. We will keep you updated on this highway project, but urge you to badger your Tacoma City Council Member, State Legislator and even Congressperson in the meantime. If we do nothing, this might happen:
I agree with the points of this article, however i think that we do need to complete this project, plus improve I-5 through fort lewis. A better way of managing SOV miles and congestion in general would probally be to use Congestion Based pricing, making all of our freeways in the region toll roads. The general public would probally like to see the money re-invested in highway projects, which you could do, and emphaisze transit in the process with new transit stations and P&R improvements attached to highway projects that would be funded with the revenue generated through tolling. Also, i think that if we more regulated truck transport to off peak times it would help keep things moving better overall as well.
ReplyDeleteI'm still not convinced this is entirely the worst idea ever. That being said, I can't say I agree with it being prioritized the way it is.
ReplyDeleteI can certainly agree there are better ways to achieve the results (aside from suburban sprawl) that this project will produce. Likely more cost effective too.
Like the graph. Hmmm, lets see, 2 billion to destroy farm land in Pierce County, another 2 billion to dig a tunnel under Seattle. Yep, after all that, we should be all out of money.
ReplyDeleteWasn't this project on the list for the Roads and Transit ballot that was soundly defeated at the polls a few years ago? Given the choice, I certainly would rather spend my WSDOT tax dollars towards sustainable transpo infrastructure.
SR 167 was a Roads and Transit project. It was defeated mainly because environmentalists couldn't hold their nose when it came to the carbon emissions from the plan. What's changed?
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roads_and_Transit#Roads_3
Pierce County's share of Central Link to SeaTac and the airport is $2 billion. Why are we spending money on roads when it should be on transit?!
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2003986898_elexprop1tacoma01m.html
What Tacoma constituency is seriously served by this? The Mobility Master Plan explicitly defines our transportation priorities to be as follows: 1) pedestrians 2) bicycles 3) public transit 4) commercial vehicles and trucks 5) car sharing 6) vanpools / carpools 7) single occupancy vehicles. The City Council just passed the Mobility Master Plan outlining these goals. Do the Council realize that they're in essence, talking out of both sides of their mouth?
“If Americans themselves were crafting the transportation bill, we would see a doubling of the share for public transportation; an ironclad system of accountability for restoring existing roads and bridges before simply building more of them; and a strong commitment to making all our streets safe enough for kids to bicycle to school or so seniors can walk to nearby restaurants or the drug store.”
-Geoff Anderson, President of Smart Growth America
http://t4america.org/resources/2010survey/
If we totally ignore the obvious environmental concerns, and just look at the economics. I would bet that by having Light Rail from T-Dome to Seatac, that it would do a ton more for the economic viability and development of under utilized land in the South Sound region than if we extend R167.
ReplyDeleteIts not so much the tacoma consituancy thats served by it, but the businesses at the port of tacoma, that for the forseeable future will rely on both road and rail transportation. As i recall, earlier drafts of the plan advertised a 6 lane roadway, with HOV lanes in both directions, plus extending the HOV lane to Auburn to complete the system on 167, indeed it will tie into the I-5 HOV lanes although it will end at the puyallup river for the a while before ultimatly ending at 38th street. It will help traffic there some. If the plan is anything less than it really needs a second thought as that 2 bn could be better spend on HOV lanes on i-5 south of 38th, and improvements around JBLM where the traffic congestion has became very severe impacting commuter traffic and cargo transporation through the fort, and adding signficant time spent travelling from dupont to lakewood. And theres no money (thus far) that i know of to address these shortcommings when the army is talking about adding up to 6500 more men, and 8500 members of their family to the region (as i recall the numbers anyway).
ReplyDeleteOh, and i forgot to mention that until fuel prices perminatly level out at their peak points of the last few years and the walmart model of importing everything from china fails (due to the sheer cost of motorized and ship transport for cheap goods) there is some economic benefit to this road (getting trucks off I-5)
ReplyDelete