By 1994 I was sure that rail transit would come to Puget Sound. The basis of my assurance was the professional quality of regional governance, which was increasingly including a rail solution to regional planning.
By regional governance, I do not mean a council or board. I am referring to the planners employed by the towns, cities, and counties of the region, and the increasing seriousness with which elected representatives viewed their jobs. I had grown up at a time when the Bellevue School District bought oil furnaces instead of electric heat pumps because Mr. Gilliland not only owned the oil distributor, but also sat on the school board. In those days the freeways and roads were quite literally built to the vacant lands the developers were waiting to build on.
The professional planning staffs collected and interpreted information for elected representatives that made it possible to see the region as a whole, and to plan better ways of meeting future needs. Representatives and their staffers took trips to Europe and Asia to study how other similar regions had built their transportation systems. The LINK light-rail system that has emerged represents, not just what could be done, but what needed to be done.
In contrast, Mike McGinn’s “run it up the flagpole” promise, that Seattleites would get a vote on a new transit line, is pretty much the opposite. Even McGinn is careful to hold this one at arms reach, carefully noting that any route or other *details* would be worked out by citizens and the staff for Sound Transit and KCMetro. McGinn’s role here is to offer a “pie in the sky” idea in the hopes of attracting voters who think they might get something for nothing. This is so American it really should have American flags on it.
The numbers, of course, do not support the glittering hope that was flashed before us of a West Seattle-Ballard line. The process will grind out a proposal that might come in on budget, and the public will probably be appalled at the cost and vote it down. The lesson McGinn supporters will draw from all this is that professional staffers form some sort of sinister cabal, dedicated to thwarting the popular will.
It’s too late, of course, to lament the departure of Nickels, who had made such progress in a new streetcar on First Avenue. The next four years will be a learning experience for Seattleites. Possibly the City Council and professional staffers will be able to supply the guidance that obviously will not be found in the office of the Mayor. We can only hope.
I see it more as McGinn anticipating that the only way to win over political support for such an option, after the collapse of the Seattle Monorail Project, will be to combine clear voter support for such an option with a plan created by the agencies/labor unions.
It’s hardly “pie in the sky” to suggest the need for a rapid rail line on the west side of the City; since it’s been in planning documents for well over 40 years.
And it’s simply not reality to suggest he could implement any new plan without a vote of the people.
His stance on the tunnel is actually similar. I’ve never heard him say he’s going to simply fight the county and state because he dislikes the bored tunnel proposal. He says he believes that Seattle voters do not support it, and he wants to give them the opportunity to have a say on the new proposal.
Light rail to Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard, Queen Anne, and Belltown was in the 2005 Sound Transit Long Range Plan. It was in the 1995 Sound Move Plan. It was in the forward thrust rail measures in the 1960s. It was in the subway/heavy rail plan in the 1920s. How long do you think we need to study it?
Sound Transit wants to build it, but has already pledged its taxing capacity for the next 30 or 40 years. The city has the ability to form a transportation benefit district plus the right to access its own taxing authority. If the voters approve, we can get this done in the next decade, That’s a path to progress, and the only way that something will actually happen in our lifetimes.
Well, apparently it needs to be studied until someone figures out how it can be afforded. Honestly, don’t you think Nickels would have supported a line to West Seattle if he thought he could have?
Of course it’s “not reality to suggest he could implement any new plan without a vote of the people”. I never even suggested it was. Where is this coming from?
But what you two seem to be doing is suggesting that the voters will simply have to approve any plan that emerges from the truncated process. I’m saying they don’t have to, probably won’t, and that the real progress will come when elected officials and professional staff have identified a corridor that is best served by rail, drawn up a plan, and submitted it to the voters for approval.
And don’t worry, all of this will happen within your lifetime. We won’t wait long to see who’s right.
I don’t believe Nickels would have supported a West Seattle line that took a traffic lane or two, which is what the Portland MAX Green Line does from Union Station to PSU.
For better or worse, while supporting new transit Nickels has also supported the car-centric status quo in his big projects (see Mercer).
Exactly- as much as Nickels wanted a line to West Seattle, he wouldn’t support a line the voters would turn down. Was he wrong? Well, I guess we shall see.
I don’t think you really understand the Mercer St project.
Perhaps I don’t understand. I think Nickels believes that voters would not support any large project (like light rail or Mercer) that doesn’t keep as many cars on the road. Count the number of times “traffic” is mentioned in Grace Crunican’s explanation of the Mercer projects:
http://crosscut.com/2009/09/21/transportation/19244/
I know the Mercer area fairly well from working at 815 Mercer (UW SLU). The I-5 ramps are extremely confusing, and probably worth fixing. Phase I is already rolling, anyway. But phase II (Mercer West) is $190m for a new, larger freeway overpass for Aurora/Mercer. The explanation is that there is no room for bicycles and pedestrians if we keep all the existing lanes for traffic. I may be wrong, but when it’s all done I fully expect to feel out of place on Mercer as a human, and no reduction in the number of single occupant vehicles that currently clog the road. All for the price of $190m.
The Mercer St problem is a long-standing problem dating from the opening of the on and off ramps to I-5. The state and city intended at that time to build a freeway across the area, but this idea was rejected by the citizens. From that point to the streetcar building, the city essentially took a ‘hands off” attitude towards the neighborhood. Aside from the surprisingly expensive traffic lights, the railroad probably actually spent more money on their remaining switching trackage there than the city did.
Thus, the $190m price tag also includes major rebuilds of sewer, water, electricity, and streets in the area.
I’ll admit to a mild sense of amazement that you don’t already feel out of place on Mercer as a human. I can hardly imagine a street in the city I would less like to walk or ride a bicycle on. It shouldn’t take more than a short walk around that neighborhood to be impressed at the broken and buckling sidewalks, the depth of the old foundation holes, and the number of rails twisting through the streets.
Naturally there is a great deal of concern in Queen Anne, Magnolia, and even Ballard about how much traffic can continue to use Mercer to access the freeway. Even in your own comment you seem to assume a ‘freeway’ will be built somewhere on this route, as though the need were obvious. And, naturally, Crunican is going to tout traffic figures in discussing the project. Every one knows traffic is heavy there, and most people would be pretty unhappy to think the SDOT wasn’t thinking of the numbers when they plan the road.
Having lived very close to the neighborhood and traveled through it regularly for 25 years, I think it’s amazing Nickels got as far as he did with a plan that essentially de-emphasizes the automobile and truck traffic. I’ve got a feeling that if Mallahan is elected, they may seize this opportunity to go back to the drawing board and make the road much more like a freeway.
I have found it’s usually a mistake to decide what some public figure thinks about something, and try to reason or investigate from that starting point.
Oh, and, my understanding after reading Crunican’s article was that $190 million for Phase 1, $100 m for Phase 2, total $290 million.
There seem to be two parts of this, reconnecting streets severed by Aurora,and extending Mercer as an urban arterial down to Elliot. Frankly, it all sounds stupid to me, but I’m guessing this is part of the price to be paid for taking down the Viaduct.
IMHO, “Phase 2″ would be the place to stop the thing. There just isn’t a good solution to moving lots of traffic between Aurora and Elliot.
My bad. Got the money figures backwards. And what happens west of Aurora I just don’t understand. Oh well.
Yeah, I definitely do already feel out of place–I should have said I expect to still feel out of place as a human after a few hundred million dollars are spent. I guess it depends on your perspective, but I’m not seeing any de-emphasis of traffic in the Mercer projects. The streets/electricity/water are in bad shape, but the bulk of the cash (city money!) in Mercer West seems to be for the new, bigger overpass.
The freeway I’m referring to is Aurora, and you’re right that it’s pretty much anyone’s guess what McGinn/Mallahan/WSDOT will do with it. Mercer West is just now in planning, as is the Bored Tunnel North Portal. Initial concepts have a lid over the tunnel mouth which would connect a few streets (John/Thomas/Harrison), but north of that SR-99 would remain a divided freeway until after the Aurora Bridge.
My point is exactly that “people would be pretty unhappy” with fewer cars, and that SDOT or whoever is listening to that. But… what if instead of number of vehicles SDOT was talking mobility of goods and people? When I see Mercer backed up, it’s mostly with solo drivers. The industrial users would like better mobility via fewer solo drivers. Buses like the 30 would like better mobility via fewer solo drivers. Heck, even the solo drivers would like fewer solo drivers!
Got to thinking about this last night. What most people don’t understand is that the cars tell the drivers where to go- not vice versa. If you start to think of the problem in those terms, you’ll have a better idea of the scale and nature of solutions that are needed.
When the state stuck the freeway ramps into the neighborhood, it created a problem that has become as hard to cure as 40-year old limp. This was made a lot worse by the 30 years in which the neighborhood was visibly decayed and marginal with many vacant buildings and vacant lots. And it certainly wasn’t helped by the very odd episode of Seattle “hipsters” joining with a car dealer to defeat the Seattle Commons proposal.
Any police officer or light-rail driver could tell you that the driver of the car could be looking directly at them as they drive into them. Sadly, cars have very poor vision.
The proposal that has emerged is a sort of ‘behavior mod’ for cars. They continue in their usual and accustomed, but now they have to act differently. It recasts the cityscape from “almost freeway through vacant lots” to “almost downtown through big buildings”. It changes the mindset of police, parking checkers, and onlookers, and makes it a lot harder for cars to act as rogue elements or form mobs.
Probably, in retrospect, after McGinn or Mallahan screw it up, it will be seen as having been a pretty good plan.