The Everett Herald chimes in today, backing proposed transportation reform in Olympia. One angle of the opposition to such reform is peculiar, on to which the Herald latches:
It appears to be based on the faulty assumption that creating a new governance structure now, even if it's a big improvement, will doom a roads-and-transit ballot measure in November by admitting to voters that the current system is broken.Stop worrying. They already know.
Voters haven't been asleep for the past couple of decades. They've noticed that despite some progress, particularly in mass transit, the planning and execution of large-scale transportation solutions has fallen far short of the need. They also know that when things go wrong, leaders point the finger of blame at anyone but themselves.
The argument that everything is ok enough not to seriously consider such reform is mind-boggling. Yet, that's the position of opponents. Including some leaders of the current status quo, transit zealots, and liberal bloggers. Much of the opposition comes from the mistaken belief, oft-expressed by Josh Feit at the Stranger, that voters secretly only want transit, not roads too.
That may be in the case in many Seattle circles, but not in the suburbs likely needed for even a stand-alone Sound Transit public vote to pass, let alone a more massive measure with RTID. Bluntly, any such vote on transportation projects this year looks like a dead man walking, especially after the embarrassing display put on by assorted public officials in dealing with the Viaduct. The Herald rightly says:
If November's joint vote in Snohomish, King and Pierce counties is to succeed, voters will have to be convinced that they'll get their money's worth. Merging the planning and funding of regional transit and highways - functions currently under the separate wings of Sound Transit, the Puget Sound Regional Council, the Regional Transportation Invesment [sic] District and the state Department of Transportion [sic] (whew!) - under a single, accountable commission would be a step toward winning voter trust.
A number of Sound Politics readers take a dim view of a new government agency, an understandable position to some degree. Yet, the region's system of transportation decision-making is so badly flawed - despite some current protestations to the contrary - something needs to be done. The proposed solution to make one agency accountable for local transportation, to be governed by elected officials voted into office solely to deal with said agency seems infinitely better than no change at all.
There is no way in the world that "mass transit" would have gotten any of us to our homes and apartments -- now, or ever!
People have to realize that when they say they want "mass transit" what they are really saying, I think, is they want, better and more free flowing car traffic...meaning better (not more) roads.
Seattle (according to recent Seattle PI podcast) actually has more roadway than average for a big city. But the way it's designed, and managed account for the problems besides some big and obvious difficulties.
Some are so obvious it defies description. Example: When there's a Sonics game or other Key Arena event, all of I-5 backs up! Ridiculous! And yet, when there is no game or event, it seems to flow very quickly just after the brunt of rush hour -- 6:45 and after.
So, it's not "mass transit" that's the solution -- it's more intelligent city leaders and planners.
Posted by: John Bailo on March 29, 2007 09:39 AMThe question I have is whether light rail is solving anything. The question is whether light rail is even viable 50 years down the pike. I'll pony up now for kids and grandkids future if it is viable.
Second caveat, convince me that the folks are not going to goldplate the designs like they did at SeaTac and then tell me they didn't go over budget because they didn't accept the bids. My question to the ST staffer was why was it overdesigned if they can go back to the drawing boards and redesign to reduce costs by 33%.
Posted by: swatter on March 29, 2007 04:54 PMTo use the life ring analogy, let's say we want to get close to shore. Someone offers us a long rock and says "grab this, it will float." Well, would you take it? Or would you wait for a life ring?
This analogy may seem stretched. Yet, 520 and the viaduct do have the potential to be life and death, at least much more so than expansion of 405, or light rail, or just about anything else on the ballot.
So, I guess the question is whether the ballot is a life ring, or a stone column.
It will be very interesting to see how the numbers play out on the ST2 portion. However, to be very clear, this is not just debt for our children, it appears to be debt for our grandkids too. It appears ST will issue debt at year 20, with a 20 year life, which means my 5 year old will be 45 before the debt is paid off. Pretty sobering.
The finances are hard to grasp, but then again, subprime mortgages have been hard to grasp, and I bet a lot of people wish they'd looked a lot more closely at what could happen.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on March 29, 2007 10:13 PMI question whether light rail is the answer and I question where ST is the group to install it, even with this new government organization.
Incidentally, this new organization will supposedly be like the EU. It will consist of member nations, er bureaucracies, with their own agendas and operating relatively autonomous. Except, theoretically, this one will have more power? Ability to overturn local decisions?
Posted by: swatter on March 30, 2007 08:30 AM