The Seattle-based online environmental magazine Grist is running a short series on why the debate over how to replace the viaduct freeway is a national issue. My post on their blog mentioned there’s a disconnect between two Seattle ideas: building a new highway (even in a tunnel) and trying to curb emissions linked to climate change.
Here’s the jist from another post on the blog:
In some sense this is a local decision, of course. But in an age of climate change, such decisions are never purely local. Every transportation choice made by a big U.S. city will either lock in or avoid hundreds of thousands of tons of GHG emissions over the coming decades. What governs the choice?
A package of reforms could make Vancouver’s transportation planning even more regional.
Under a new plan, the elected 12-member board of directors of TransLink — which already leads planning for the metro area — would be replaced by a three-tiered system of appointed and elected leaders. The area governed by the agency would expand, reaching from Pemberton to Hope.
The proposal apes ideas under consideration for the Seattle area,where at least six agencies control transportation. Sound Transit, the most visible, has an 18-member board made of 17 elected officials from the region and the state transportation secretary. None is directly accountable for transportation issues across the entire region.
The revamped Vancouver agency would have greater power to direct development around transit infrastructure and hopefully more efficiently manage the growing population. Critics question the accountability and funding mechanisms. But the key lesson is that politically fractious metropolitan areas need a regional government that can make regional decisions.
Seatle Mayor Greg Nickels called for curbing climate change and adding affordable housing during his State of the City speech this week. But his policies are only small steps in that direction.
Nickels wants a six-lane tunnel to replace the viaduct, which would maintain vehicle capacity without adding transit or incentivizing fewer car trips in the city. Meanwhile his administration has so far shied away from challenging Seattle’s restrictive zoning, which sets aside more than two-thirds of land for single-family homes. Limiting supply drives up costs so that workers have to live far from their jobs.
To be sure, Nickels has made some progress by promoting a package of bus improvements, building the beginning of a streetcar system and encouraging dense development downtown. The problem is that those moves aren’t bold enough to bring the benefits that would convince naysayers. Frustration with the city will grow without a fundamental commitment to transit and more efficient development.
Bill Gates told the U.S. Senate Wednesday that restrictions on the number of skilled foreign workers allowed into the country on H1-B visas are hindering innovation. The cap should be raised from 65,000 a year to maybe 300,000, he argued.
Such a move would keep wages down and some skilled workers here unemployed, the largest union representing tech workers responded. WashTech makes the same case every time someone proposes steps to expand the skilled workforce, either through better education or immigration reforms. Brier Dudley links to the union and has more on the issue on his blog.
At least one person with authority over the proposed land swap involving an Eastside rail corridor is opposing it. King County Councilman Larry Phillips says the deal would shortchange county taxpayers for Boeing Field.
Preserving the rail corridor that Burlington Northern Santa Fe wants to abandon is imperative. The corridor is a regional transportation connection that crosses two counties and eight cities, and is of statewide and federal significance. A study undertaken by the Puget Sound Regional Council envisions the ultimate configuration of the corridor as a recreational trail alongside a high-capacity transit corridor.
I wholeheartedly support co-location of rail and a trail in this corridor, yet the current proposal leaves that vision uncertain and unfunded. What asset will King County need to give away to pay for rail transit in the corridor? Harborview Hospital? Marymoor Park?
My personal preference is to vote “no” on both options because neither does the job. Yet returning a blank ballot is a way for voters to express their disgust with the political process that got us to these poor choices. Blank ballots still get counted though defaced ones are discarded.
It’s worth then sending an email to the city council, mayor, governor and House Speaker Frank Chopp demanding a real solution — not a quick fix that will scar the city for generations. How about a combination of improved transit and surface streets to accommodate people and freight at lower overall cost?
One key to making these transportation dreams come true is political will in British Columbia. Before any talk of things like Vancouver and Seattle jointly hosting World Cups, fans of regional integration will need to pry funding from B.C.’s Liberal-party government — which has shown so little interest in investing in public facilities like trains. In multiple reports last week the B.C. transportation ministry spokesman explained that the latest deal is simply to add a single track in Delta, B.C. Clearly it’s only a start.
Yet that’s the true significance of the second-train plans, which will make travel more convenient for Vancouver residents. Hopefully this small project will build public support for the investment and the government will follow.
Cascadia’s cities have made housing unaffordable downtown over the years by cleaning up areas of old buildings. Unless they create incentives to boost the supply of housing, they will destroy the mix of people that makes being in cities desirable.
Substitute any city for “Portland” in this passage and it still works:
Portland’s vaunted livability attracts people with money. But let’s not end up like San Francisco, where dot-com money took over the city, driving the middle class to the suburbs and the poor to the streets.
The Oregonian article addresses laws to maintain affordability. Even more important is investing in transportation to relieve the costly burden of car ownership (insurance, gas, payments and parking) and make privately funded dense housing more attractive. Then allowing taller units near transit and requiring smarter development will increase supply and eventually cut the price of housing.
Lawmakers in Oregon appear close to doing their jobs. The people’s representatives hashed out a tax package Wednesday designed to fund long-term investment in the state — and they didn’t simply refer the issue back to voters.
Even the lobbyist for the Oregon Business Association was impressed:
“To me it’s a historic moment,” he said. “We finally set partisan politics aside long enough to look at the good of the state.”
But wait. On Thursday — days before the tax plan is formally approved — Republicans and an outside anti-tax group launched ads attacking Democrats for the proposal.
Seattle residents should vote “no” and “no” on the mail-in ballot about how to replace the waterfront viaduct. Here’s why:
If money were no object, a tunnel might make sense. But the “surface-tunnel hybrid alternative” falls far short of the ideal. This alternative would require considerable additional funding, yet shortchanges critical street improvements (such as around Aurora Ave. and to the Battery Street tunnel). A vote for this alternative won’t encourage elected officials to pursue a smarter tunnel. It will muddy the debate.
The “elevated structure alternative” is totally unacceptable if the goal is creating an urban core that will continue to drive the economy of Cascadia, as Vancouver and Portland do. There are ways to move people and freight through downtown without building another viaduct. Preserving views from the freeway is also no reason to build another one. Seattle has prevented massive elevated freeways along Lake Union, along the northern waterfront through Interbay and through the Arboretum because the damage they would have caused far outweighed the benefit.
A combination of improved surface streets and transit would be a better choice than either on the ballot. Dedicated bus lanes could be set up quickly, dramatically boosting capacity and convenience to West Seattle, Burien, Ballard and North Seattle. Freight and through traffic could be met with improvements to streets and I-5. Simply adding capacity is not enough because the volume will always rise to match it. The region instead needs a full array of alternatives to move people and freight. No one prefers gridlock and, if done correctly, there’s no reason this alternative should have that result.
This election is offensive becasue it is reportedly costing $1 million yet the result is a pair of poor choices and results that aren’t binding anyway. It’s still critical to vote — to demand a better option.
