Blog

Proposals in the Washington legislature could finally give the Puget Sound area the kind of government that has long helped Portland and Vancouver meet regional transportation needs.

The legislation, based on recommendations late last year by a study group, would create a new board with authority to prioritize, plan and finance transportation projects in four counties. Best of all, the proposals would make someone accountable for transportation plans in an area where six agencies currently overlap.

Streamlining transportation planning shouldn’t interrupt the series of projects currently in the pipeline, such as the package of roads and extending light rail that will be on the ballot in November. It’s worth noting that there is a lot of transportation work being done in the area — despite criticism from the right. Unfortunately it’s not bearing results fast enough because there’s little coordination with development patterns.

The proposal doesn’t mean that a new regional government body should force projects on neighborhoods. Accountability is a key gripe with the system in Vancouver, where proposals for a planning agency covering a larger area are criticized for overlooking local concerns. A regional approach also definitely doesn’t mean Seattle should be forced to accept a new elevated freeway, editorials in the Seattle Times to the contrary.

The devil is in the details, of course. The version passed in the Senate would create an 8-member board (with 8 elected) and begin operation this year, raising questions about how existing projects would continue. A House version would study how to implement a regional transportation body this year. While neither is perfect, a compromise could be a step in the right direction.

The fact is the Seattle area needs far more transportation projects than it can pay for with taxes, tolls or congestion pricing. In order to keep the region functioning, someone needs to set priorities to develop a more efficient system.

Seattle and state leaders said they heard the voters’ refusal to replace the viaduct freeway with a tunnel or new elevated freeway. So why did they okay a $175 million project that would enable either?

The question is important for anyone who cares about the vitality of Seattle, which is critical to Cascadia’s economy. As debate around the recent election showed, people far outside the city have strong opinions about the waterfront because it is one of the region’s centerpieces.

Unfortunately plans call for immediate fixes to parts of the existing viaduct that will make it harder to be creative with the space in the future. Plans call for fixing the Battery Street tunnel and the overpass that connects to the existing viaduct. This is a step in the wrong direction. Any investment along the corridor should be to alleviate congestion — to move people and freight — not simply stabilize the status quo.

The state should instead begin designs to lower the roadway through the Battery Street tunnel and on Aurora Ave. — steps to help accommodate transit to the waterfront and reconnect streets near the Seattle Center. Along with new streets and interchanges south of downtown, these changes would lay the foundation for a better waterfront.

In an election Tuesday on how to replace Seattle’s viaduct freeway, city voters decisively said no to both a new elevated freeway and a costly tunnel.

The tally is a relief, yet the impact is far from clear. Here are a few quick observations:

— There’s no agreement on what it means. On KIRO radio, the leader of the campaign for a new elevated freeway said “the election was rigged.” Bizarrely, he said the 70 percent of voters who rejected the tunnel actually wanted a rebuild and pledged to fight anything but a new viaduct. Voters were against both choices but still want something to be done.

— Several key politicians lost. Gov. Chris Gregoire insisted on holding the election but then tried to force a bigger elevated freeway, damaging her standing in Seattle. House Speaker Frank Chopp is out of step for fiercely pushing the plan, though voters in his district overwhelmingly opposed it. And Mayor Greg Nickels’ pet tunnel was rejected soundly. Except for Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, who helped lead opposition to both, members of the city council look weak for not taking a stand.

— Voters are rightly upset. The election cost roughly $1 million yet generated no clear result. Citizens correctly expect representatives to take a stand and know they can express their approval or disgust with their representatives’ decisions when they’re up for election. Voters should remember who forced this wasteful vote on them.

— Compromise may finally be possible. Maybe all the political players are so wounded that they can check their egos in order to develop a new solution that costs less and concentrates on moving people and freight instead of vehicles.

I’m afraid the outcome will be more gridlock. Imagine a small earthquake shifting the existing viaduct a few inches and a state engineer declaring the highway unsafe. Then the highway would be closed and Seattle would have to cope without either the improved transit or street system that we could have begun developing by now.

The defeat of both a new viaduct freeway and a costly tunnel along Seattle’s waterfront was celebrated at at least two parties downtown on Tuesday night. Here’s the scene at the second, as captured by The Stranger’s camera:

Darcy Burner, who narrowly lost a Democratic bid for Congress from Washington’s 8th district, appears to be running again. It’s not clear why she thinks she’ll win this time.

Burner filed preliminary paperwork for a bid on Friday and sounded like a full-blown candidate Sunday night on David Goldstein’s show on KIRO radio. She repeated the themes from her last campaign: the country’s going in the wrong direction, President Bush is a failure, Rep. Dave Reichert is a rubber-stamp who’s out of touch with the voters in the suburban Seattle district.

There are plenty of reasons to vote for change, yet I haven’t heard any convincing reasons to vote for Burner. It’s possible that a wave of support for new national policies could carry the election in November 2008. More likely 8th district voters, who have consistently sent Republicans to Congress, will need a reason to toss out a two-term incumbent. There’s at least one movement afoot to find a candidate who might provide that gravitas.