September 2009

In 1972 I became an owner of a Lake Union houseboat. At the time, the city and many of the landlords who owned the docks were determined to get rid of the houseboats. There were no wealthy houseboat owners or expensive houseboats then- you couldn’t build a new one, and who would invest in a house when the dockowner wanted to get rid of you and there was nowhere to go?

Over the next ten years we learned many of the unpleasant tricks cities and people can play, and in the process the Floating Homes Association established our rights to live on Lake Union and Portage Bay.

This comes to mind as it is increasing apparent that Seattle is scripted to lose the electric trolley buses, and neither candidate for Mayor has any intention of building more streetcars. But it’s hard to find any concern about this at Seattle Transit Blog, or any more than the ritual handwringing about the loss of the George Benson Streetcar. In fact, there is a Pollyanna quality to the beliefs that $930 million is available and will be used to implement the surface improvements Nickels was working on.

Here’s a newsflash- there is no $930 million, and when McGinn or Mallahan move to get some of that for surface improvements, there will be no Central Line- unless you make them do it!

By the mid-70s the FHA represented 400 houseboats, almost all of whom donated handsomely for legal costs and other expenses of defending ourselves. Do you see 400 people organized to defend transit in Seattle today?

It wouldn’t take 400, because, like the houseboats, the basic idea is sound. But they would need to have clear ideas about what needed to be done,and where you can’t compromise.

On the Seattle Transit Blog you frequently see discussions and advocacy for more diesel bus service, and many, if not most, would agree that you can’t put a streetcar on a street that already carries too many cars. Even the day-dreaming seldom takes a pleasant turn- I’ve never seen a post about converting the existing electric bus routes to streetcars, and using the buses to electrify new routes.

Sometimes this can work out for the best. Apparently in a few years the trolley buses will be worn out, and the routes could be converted to streetcars without creating an electric bus surplus. Serendipity, of a sort.

But just waiting for nice things to happen, at its very best, puts you behind the curve in a new era of rising construction costs- or, alternately, if the current fall of costs persists, it will be in the context of a worldwide depression. That worked well for public improvements in the 30s, when the US was the world’s strongest economy and the world’s leading oil exporter. Now- not so much.

If people in Seattle want real transit, they’ll have to take the game to a new level. The people of Seattle overhauled and redirected their city government in the 70s, and that needs to happen again. Don’t look for Mallahan or McGinn to furnish leadership here.

Recently in a comment thread I was lectured about being narrow-minded and not realizing that public investments were meant to improve society, even if (for example) an investment by KC-Metro didn’t actually improve the finances of the transit agency itself.

This immediately reminded me of the death of the great train stations. When they became de facto homeless shelters in the 50s and 60s, travelers, railroads and civic leaders concurred in thinking they should be closed and torn down, rather than prolong the agony.

You could also flip this around, and think Metro could upgrade the rider experience by providing somewhere else for their less desirable riders to hang out.

And this comes up all the time. It’s good for transit to create TOD- but not so good, apparently, for the agency to buy land in anticipation of future demand and profitable resale. Parking for transit riders is good- or is it? Who pays for synchronized traffic lights- the agency, or the city? Cui bono?

Right now, blue-pencil agency staff are recommending the replacement of the electric trolley buses by diesel hybrids, in order to achieve short-term savings- but at what cost, as oil becomes more expensive and less obtainable?

I personally take the broadest possible view of improving society by public investment- but believe that view can only rationally be maintained by asking the hardest and most skeptical questions when vague promises are made.