Make like a Missourian and compromise
A lot's been said about Proposition 1, but apparently it's not enough, as the Crosscut "prediction" poll says it will fail.
I hope these Crosscut readers are looking into defective crystal balls. Seattle's inability to get with the transportation program is a source of embarrassment for me, as my family and friends back in Missouri (a red state, no less) are poking fun. They, and not Seattle, after all, have light rail, and I'm not talking about some cute little trolley with a politically incorrect (but unforgettable) acronym. Neither am I talking about an aged relic from the World's Fair. St. Louis has an honest-to-goodness light rail system comprised of 37 stations and stretching 46 miles. It crosses the mighty Mississippi River, spanning two states (Missouri and Illinois, for the geographically challenged). It links, at its westward end, St. Louis' Lambert Field airport with, at its eastward end, Scott Air Force Base. You can fly into Scott, take the train across the river, and fly out at Lambert, never once stepping into a car.
MetroLink is certainly a flawed system, as it does not yet have a north-south line to complement the impressive east-west line. However, as someone who used to make the grueling commute from Southern Illinois into downtown St. Louis every day for years, I'm quite impressed at how it's grown, and I applaud the east-west prioritization. When they broke ground on MetroLink in 1990, I was interning in Washington, D.C., where I lived an entire summer without a car and got around just fine on the D.C. Metro.
Say what you want about Prop 1's failures, but it's something. Does it represent a compromise? Surely. It's no heavenly vision of carbon-footprint-reducing transit options, but neither is the plan governing the MetroLink agency's bi-state transportation work, despite its impressive light rail line. You can send the whole thing back to the drawing board, which seems to be what Seattleites do best, or you can take a cue from Missouri and compromise.
Topics:
2007 Election,
Eastside,
Politics / Policy,
Seattle,
Sound Transit,
Suburbia,
Tacoma,
Transportation,
Washington
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism by becoming a member of Crosscut.com today!
Comments:
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 7:41 a.m. inappropriate
Seattle voters have a noun disorder when it comes to transportation: The argument that we should vote for Prop. 1 because a) it's got light rail and b) it's embarrassing that other cities have light rail or other mass transit systems and we don't, ergo c) vote for the sucker--is not a good argument. Just because a plan has the noun "light rail"--or "monorail"--attached to it doesn't mean it's a workable plan that could deliver meaningful service to most neighborhoods. Imagine New York if the subway ran only north-south through Manhattan, and trains ran every half hour. It'd be non-functional. Since we lack the kind of big federal funds which could put in place a truly comprehensive new mass-transit infrastructure, I have to agree with Ron Sims that more (and I hope better, less polluting) buses may be our best way to go at present.
I would love to vote for a mass transit system--light rail, less-polluting buses, Monorail, anything plausible. I know what it's like to be in a city with a good mass-transit system. But Seattle and King County seem to have a problem developing plans that would work, apparently because their decision-making processes are mired in politics. And funding is a problem--with very little federal support, it's hard to get a system designed that is big enough to be meaningful and usable.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 7:59 a.m. inappropriate
I'm From Missouri Too -- and It's the Show Me State, not the Compromise State: Missouri Compromise? Ironically, the Missouri Compromise helped prolong slavery in the US, not solve the problem. More apt to Seattle's transportation issues is Missouri's actual nickname -- the Show Me State, home (once upon a time) of skeptics.
The St. Louis train system isn't a good example for Seattle for so many reasons. Design: the St. Louis system uses modest, fairly small trains running mostly on freeway right-of-way -- the first leg went right up the middle of I-70. So, land and construction costs were much cheaper than the expensive routes chosen here in Seattle. Here, our planners actually are going to tunnel all the way under Capitol hill with 1 stop -- really, only one stop -- between downtown and UW stadium. Political: The St. Louis system was planned and built by a dedicated regional transportation authority, unlike our approach of relying on our hodge-podge of local municipal governments to come up with a big compromise. (Believe me, St. Louis has a hodge podge of municipalities, but they just didn't rely on it to plan expensive transportation projects) So the project wasn't the result of near so much political logrolling as our Prop 1 (for example, they didn't do a Sphinx like roads/trains hybrid.
Even so, the St. Louis train doesn't help traffic or urban sprawl there very much at all. If you think Seattle has sprawl, someday look at St. Louis -- population has moved ever westward so the actual city of St. Louis, once 800,000 plus, is now less than 400,000. Suburbs go for 50 miles or more out into what was pretty countryside during my childhood.
The Washington DC train comparison is even more far fetched. It was built in the 1970's with huge subsidies from the federal government on a scale that just is not available today. It has several subway lines traversing the city in multiple directions. If we tried to build a comparable system using local taxes for finance, it would cost many time over the $500 plus per year that Prop 1 is going to cost a fairly average family for the next 20 years or so if you listen to supporters, or indefinitely if you listen to more skeptical people.
Neither the DC Metro nor St. Louis train was a hybrid project that required simultaneous approval of massive road improvements, and neither tapped into sales takes to build transportation projects. Here in environmentally conscious Seattle, our plan ironically would increase greenhouse gases due to the facilitation of more auto traffic. Here in progressive Seattle, Prop 1 would use a regressive sales taxes to finance road improvements.
Finally, in both St. Louis and Washington, once the project got underway, the agencies responsible actually built the project that was promised. When I voted for Sound Transit a decade ago, I was clearly promised the funding would provide a train from Northgate to South Center or nearby. Oops! Not quite how it turned out, was it? The huge funding for that project only was enough to build from downtown southward. (True, there is partial funding left over for the poorly planned extension to UW stadium I mention above, but that still requires a federal contribution as I understand it, or perhaps some Prop 1 money if Prop 1 passes). Now, the taxing authority for Prop 1 is on paper provides an open-ended levy that could grow to over $100 billion. Proponents assure us it surely won't be that costly.
Being a Missourian myself, I say, show me.
Posted Tue, Nov 6, 9:02 a.m. inappropriate
prop 1: The Missouri "compromise" was just a joke (maybe not a very good one) meant to convey my lack of enthusiasm for aspects of Prop. 1 (the damage to trees and wetlands, the cynical push for more roads). I lived in Missouri for 12 years and know its motto. I used to write for a student rag called The Show-Me State News.
There are plans to expand MetroLink north and south, but you see how long this kind of thing takes. Seattle's already so far behind. What I learned from Missouri politics is that compromise is a way to act. Prop. 1 isn't perfect, but it contains provisions that would improve the quality of commute for many, and I'm not talking about the roads.