|
Soundings
Where We Go From Here
August 4, 2005
As long as I can remember, I have been a supporter of mass transit - anything that would get motorists out of their cars. Given my checkered history, first as a community activist and then as a reporter and columnist, you can see why.
Today, I'm still dealing with half a million, but now they're constituents. They call, they write, they email, they speak at hearings, they buttonhole me on the street. Sometimes they compliment, sometimes they complain. Frequently they offer suggestions.
Along with like-minded activists, I worked to reduce the size of I-90, originally conceived as a 14-lane behemoth that would have desecrated Mount Baker, Madrona and Leschi neighborhoods.
The freeway fights of the 1960s and 1970s weren't for the faint of heart. I still recall the evening when we packed the Seattle City Council chambers in protest. Along with the Black Panthers, we demonstrated against a bloated I-90.
"Pave Central Seattle neighborhoods and we'll burn your city," yelled the Black Panthers. We stood shoulder-to-shoulder and cried: "Burn, baby, burn!"
It became clear that Seattle and the Puget Sound region desperately needed transportation options other than churning out more freeway lanes, lanes that were choked with traffic as soon as they opened.
Solutions beckoned. In the 1960s, there were plans for a privately-funded monorail extension that would connect Downtown Seattle with Sea-Tac Airport. That soon evaporated.
Then in the 70s, voters had a chance to approve a Portland-style light rail system. Not once but twice the measure was voted down. The federal funds that would have been available at a 90 percent federal/ 10 percent local match went to Atlanta.
Other major U. S. cities developed rapid transit - Portland, San Diego, Denver, to name a few - offered alternatives to single occupancy vehicles. In Seattle, we were left with a waterfront streetcar and a Bus Tunnel with promises of rail transit, by and by.
Small wonder that when regional solutions seemed to be stumbling, Seattle voters embraced the idea of a monorail. The idea of a locally-supported system designed to alleviate our problems captivated our psyches. Many shared the vision of elegant monorail columns rising above the traffic to whoosh us to our destinations.
Seattle's electorate backed the dream three times and, voting a fourth time, rejected an initiative to recall the project last year.
During my 2003 campaign for office, I pledged to follow the Green Line Project to a reasonable conclusion. Along with fellow councilmembers, I worked more than six months to vet and pass a transit-way agreement and a set of design guidelines that called for neighborhood specific design. In addition, we hired nationally-regarded financial experts to review the current proposal. I was cautiously optimistic that we could still break ground on our newest transit solution by year's end.
However, we waited more than nine months for the first glimpse at the contract. We were told that we'd be looking at a healthy contract negotiation and an advantageous financial proposal. But, as the details emerged, it became clear this was not the plan Seattle voters thought they were approving. The overall costs would be five times what voters supported and the proposed design would not meet the goals of the city's design guidelines.
It has become apparent that the Green Line Project is one of those dreams that got lost. In recent days, I have become convinced that it may be time to cut our losses.
That we need transit today is as evident as ever before. On the upside, we have Sound Transit Central Link construction under way and we are moving forward on the first link in a modern streetcar system that will connect South Lake Union to Westlake Center's transit hub. Eventually, the system can and should stretch to include the University District, the waterfront and First Hill.
Is it possible to extend either of these systems to serve the Green Line Project transit corridor? Perhaps. Before that question can be fully answered, we need to resolve the fate of the monorail.
While I believe an eleventh hour rescue is possible, the Seattle Monorail Board needs to construct a viable proposal within an abbreviated time frame, even considering a rebidding process. And, voters will need to weigh in on any changes.
If SMP board members conclude the project cannot be built, they owe it to the voters to propose a responsible exit strategy. In any event, it is clear that we all must redouble our efforts to focus on buildable transportation choices for Seattleites.
Seattle City Councilmember Jean Godden is a former columnist for the Seattle Times and now chairs the Council's Energy and Environmental Policy Committee. You can learn more by going to http://www.seattle.gov/council/ratereview.htm. |
