By Andy BauckPhoto by Mike Blain
While the city council and mayor are securing HUD loans for downtown developers and doing all they can to ensure voter approval of funding for the Seattle Commons and a new baseball stadium, yesterday's big ticket ballot item, the Regional Transit Plan (RTP) has been all but forgotten. The ambitious, three county proposal was defeated last spring after a low key campaign, and is currently being revised by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) before it is presented to voters again.The $6.7 billion transportation plan would have authorized the RTA to complete a light rail system from Tacoma to Lynnwood by the year 2010, expand regional bus service, and operate a fast commuter rail line from Tacoma to Everett. While the plan won in Seattle and ran close in other parts of King County, it was defeated soundly in Snohomish and much of Pierce Counties. The funding package, based on a sales tax increase of .4 percent and a motor vehicle excise tax increase of .3 percent undoubtedly soured some voters to the proposal. Withdrawal of support by Ed Hansen, the mayor of Everett, doomed the outcome in Snohomish county.
In addition, the "Yes" campaign, spearheaded by Citizens for Sound Transit, failed to address key voter concerns. At the time of the vote, the publicly accepted figure was that that the project would cost each household in the region $120 per year, but charges by the opposition that this figure was only half of the cost to voters were not answered effectively. The opposition had another trump card with supporters' admission that even given its sizable budget, the plan would do little to reduce regional congestion. Finally, proponents of the RTP failed to put it in perspective by pointing out that $6.7 billion represents only 10 percent of estimated regional transportation spending over the next twenty years.
A second vote is likely to come next spring, either on March 26, the date of the presidential primary, or on a special ballot later in May. In the meantime, the agency overseeing the project is looking for ways to make the plan more palatable to voters. Efforts have been complicated by the halving of the RTA's budget during the past legislative session and the resignation of Tom Matoff, the RTA's director. Matoff had directed successful start-up transit systems in Portland, Sacramento, and San Diego.
A final decision from the RTA on what a revised plan will look like is not expected until late autumn, but there is some consensus that in order to pass, a new plan must have a significantly lower price tag and shorter phase I completion time. Because of the political nature of the RTA board, composed of representatives from the three counties and various municipalities, it is impossible to say what a revised plan will look like. However, according to Sheila Dezarn, Policy Analyst at the RTA, the next proposal is likely to include commuter rail and regional buses, but have less light rail. The cost will likely be reduced to approximately $3 billion and the time frame for the completion of the first phase will probably be 8-10 years.
Before and after the failed vote, the most frequently heard criticisms of the RTP were its high price tag and long implementation time. Wallingford resident Greg Hill points out that successful transit systems in other areas have started on a smaller scale and spread incrementally. Hill suggests a much more modest phase I plan including regional buses and a light rail link going south from Seattle down Rainier Avenue and terminating roughly at the Boeing access point. He also argues that any rail link to the Eastside should be coordinated with a future rebuild of the 520 bridge, rather than crossing Lake Washington via I-90 as in the original plan.
But to a certain degree, legislation authorizing the formation of the RTA mandates a large system. A law passed in 1992 requires that the RTA encompass at least two counties, must be a regional transit system (as opposed to a local system), and must involve high-capacity transit such as rail. Any system which is designed to meet the needs of such a large geographical area is sure be criticized for deficiencies in specific local areas, a problem the RTA must address if a second vote is to be favorable. Given the state's current political landscape, a second failure at the ballot box could well mean a loss of support from the state legislature and the indefinite postponement of a plan to address the region's growing transportation problems.
A favorite target of Hill and other advocates of a transit system built up from a smaller initial base is the costly tunnel from downtown to the U-district which would have burrowed deep under Capitol Hill. In the original plan, Capitol Hill, the neighborhood with the greatest population density in the region, would have been served by only one station. RTA officials maintain that only by creating a separated right-of-way can the speed and efficiency of the system be maintained, but Hill and others claim that limiting Capitol Hill to one station would not serve the area's residents. Hill suggests either adding more stations or expanding bus service while running trains down Eastlake and over the Ship Canal. According to Hill, "The city of Seattle is locked into connecting downtown to suburban sprawl" by making it as easy and fast as possible for commuters to get from the suburbs to downtown, while ignoring the needs of those who use transit for local trips.
Jim MacIsaac, another critic of the original proposal, doubts the efficacy of rail altogether. According to MacIsaac, "Buses are flexible, and can come closer to the advantages of the auto." In fact, few would disagree that express bus service from Seattle to Tacoma would be more efficient than the light rail link as proposed in the original plan. MacIsaac also points out that the commute model of suburban residents traveling into downtown is no longer as valid as it was 20 years ago. Although downtown Seattle will continue to be the region's largest employment center, more and more commute trips begin and end in the suburbs as the Eastside's population and job base continue to grow. Such suburban sprawl is difficult to serve by any transit system. Because there are very few high-density residential neighborhoods, and employment tends to be spread among scattered business parks rather than centralized, Eastside commuting patterns tend to be web-like and decentralized.
According to Preston Schiller, a longtime transportation activist living in Kirkland, "The city of Seattle is the biggest obstacle to meaningful transit improvements in the area." Citing the impending reopening of Pine Street and city plans to spend roughly $100 million on new parking in downtown Seattle, Schiller accuses Seattle's government of hypocrisy. "At the same time they are promoting an elaborate and expensive transit system, they are making it more convenient for people to drive their cars downtown." Because the turnout in Seattle heavily favored the RTP in the original vote, Schiller thinks that Seattle politicians will become more intransigent in their insistence upon a fully separated right-of-way. Like Hill, Schiller favors a system similar to Portland's where rail occupies space taken from existing roadways in some areas and uses a separated right-of-way in others.
Given the diversity of opinion, much work remains to be done to present voters with an acceptable plan. The Municipal League is currently working to bring together people of different viewpoints to discuss options to be presented to politicians. Considering the dire need for better transit, we can only hope that everyone involved does the homework necessary to develop a truly effective plan.
Research assistance for this article was provided by Tracy Reed
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Contents on this page were published in the August/September, 1995 edition of the Washington Free Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- WAfreepress@gmail.com
Copyright © 1995 WFP Collective, Inc.