Call it your odd combination of the day, but I support a bill sponsored by liberal State Senator Ed Murray to reform our regional transportation "system" as it is currently structured. That position has one local liberal blogger upset, and another stewing over possible GOP trickery. While Goldy is at least somewhat thoughtful in his musings, and candid about his need to examine the subject further, he joins Dear Andrew over at NPI in misreading the issue.

Andrew's post in response to my original criticism of his commentary is particularly peculiar. His first post on the issue railed against "anti-transit ideologues" at Discovery Institute pushing the governance reform idea. Yet, that angle suddenly disappeared in his response once I pointed out a former Senior Fellow at Discovery's Cascadia Center responsible for much of the ground work on this issue was Dave Earling (my father), former Chairman of Sound Transit. Goldy too expresses skepticism about Discovery's involvement. Perhaps I should also mention Discovery's work on this issue is funded by a group not known to be a bastion of right-wing nutjobs, the Gates Foundation. Those facts really don't convey the anti-Sound Transit animus Goldy and Andrew in particular have foisted on the bill.

Indeed, Andrew seems intent in his latest post to prove Sound Transit's merits to all-comers. That's nice. Loyal readers at this site know this author is generally supportive of mass transit (while also being pro-roads), including Sound Transit...most of the time. Yet, Andrew's statement saying, "don't mess with success" defies logic. Yes, Sound Transit is much improved from the light rail snafu of years back. Yes, some aspects of implementation have been successful and indeed, popular. But if that "success" isn't worth messing with, why is there a massive backlog of pressing transportation needs in the region?

If mass transit alone can solve our transportation problems, why is the RTID (roads) portion of the pending RTID/Sound Transit joint-ballot so large? Might it be Andrew's position that "we see no value in building brand new highways and spending huge sums of money to widen existing ones" is simply insufficient? Transit advocates need to realize anything short of a balanced package of roads and transit is a non-starter in this region.

Thus, one of Goldy's complaints about Murray's bill is particularly odd. He laments the eight elected members of the Regional Transportation Commission would "promote political horse trading between urban, suburban and exurban areas." Why is policy compromise between competing political interests in a divided region a bad thing?

Both liberal bloggers also decry the election of Commissioners as nefarious scheme to sneak Republicans onto a non-partisan body. That theory doesn't pass the smell test either. Eight elected commissioners from King, Pierce, Snohomish, and perhaps Kitsap Counties would undoubtedly have a pro-transit tilt. As Andrew himself has publicized with the results of I-776 within the Sound Transit boundaries (scroll down to the map), key suburban constituencies also favor transit options. Thus, a Commission so elected is hardly a pro-roads cabal waiting to be formed.

Despite the merits of the issue, the bill in question is by no means perfect. Goldy and Andrew have a point that it makes little sense to require unanimous consent of the Commissioners to send future transportation plans to the voters. At the same time, it was clear long before the Viaduct brouhaha and pending fight over 520 that our "system" of transportation decision-making in the region isn't working. A serious effort to fix that, including by having directly accountable officials elected solely to work on transportation would be a good thing.

****

Footnote: The whole fear of having Republicans elected to the Commission as Goldy and Andrew indicate is particularly troubling. Having served on a non-partisan commission, I can attest people of all political stripes get elected to such positions. In my service on the Snohomish County Charter Review Commission I worked with known Republicans and known Democrats. As a Commission we worked well together, despite the party labels we knew existed, even though they didn't show up on the ballot. Indeed, on almost every issue we dealt with there was nary a vote cast that could be considered "partisan." People were elected to do a job and they did it. It is offensive to presume other motives, especially when the campaigns for such positions - especially for a Regional Transportation Commission should it come to fruition - are conducted with full public scrutiny available.