Month: February 2008

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Is this the first tangible outcome of the Nickels regime?

Each year, an independent firm will audit Sound Transit’s environmental practices. To meet ISO requirements, an organization must put in place management tools that “identify and control the environmental impact of its activities, products or services, and to improve its environmental performance continually,” according to a prepared statement. The organization also must implement a systematic approach for setting environmental objectives and demonstrating they have been achieved.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Mike @ CIS appraises us of the status of some transit-related legislation making its way through the legislature this session. I’m glad to see “governance reform” has died for now (though I suspect its reanimated corpse to walk the halls of Olympia for several years to come).

Ther’s another bill that deserves a hearing and should be of great interest to transit advocates: SB 6580 (aka HB 2797). The bill would amend the state’s Growth Management Act to include climate change impact. I blogged about it at my other site a few weeks ago, and Josh Feit noted last week that despite making it out of committee, the bill could still die in the Rules Committee.

It’s hard to overstate how important a role zoning plays in transit viability, so I hope this one passes.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Putzing around on the internet in the wake of last night’s elections, I saw this, the statement that Al Wynn, a congressman from Maryland:

This domestic policy should include providing universal health coverage for everyone, creating domestic jobs and transit projects (i.e., Purple Line), as well as fighting global warming with a cap and trade program to limit emissions. [emph. added]

It’s interesting to see a congressman — federal, no less — be such a bold transit supporter like that. You don’t typically see that sort of thing here in Washington. Don’t get me wrong, Patty Murray’s been great for Sound Transit, but it’s certainly not the sort of thing you see pols bending over backwards to promise us come election time: “Vote for me and I’ll make sure light rail gets to Redmond!”

I do remember Greg Nickels running on a vague, “all transit all the time” platform where he simultaneously embraced the Monorail AND Sound Transit. But generally pols treat the transit agencies here like a hot potato. Sure, they serve on the ST board, and they formally supported last fall’s Prop. 1, but the typical face of the Prop. 1 campaign was the Washington Business Roundtable.

If this is indeed the case — and I’m not convinced, just putting it out here for discussion — I wonder how much it has to do with the initiative system. Because so much of our transit is approved by popular vote, it disconnects the pols from responsibility. And since their a** isn’t personally on the line, they’re less invested in the outcome. As a result, the debate drags on interminably and concrete never gets poured.

[The exception here might be the Seattle Streetcar, which pols were falling all over each other to take credit for. But that wasn’t up for a vote: the exception that proves the rule?]

And yet, at the same time, the legislators who put Prop. 1 together assumed — incorrectly it turns out — that voters think like they do: they assumed we’re willing to horse-trade: that I would, say, wheel and deal with my counterpart in Pierce County, supporting the Cross Base Highway in exchange for his/her support of my light rail. But voters don’t think like politicians. We’re more likely to just reject the whole thing if it gets too complicated.

I’m not exactly sure what to make of all this, it just sort of popped into my head as I was reading the results of tonight’s elections. What do you think?

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

Glad to see the Spokane Street viaduct is getting some serious love. The current offramp to 4th Ave S. is a messy affair, and the overall condition of the street below is pretty abysmal.

Of course, easing the connection between West Seattle and I-5 is welcome, too.

This post originally appeared on Orphan Road.

For a variety of reasons, I think the 6-lane option is best for a new 520 bridge, as I’ve said before.

But the simple fact is this: Sound Transit, the only agency that would build such a light rail line, has no interest in a 520 rail link. Heck, they still don’t have the funds or a mandate for an I-90 link (as Mike @ CIS notes). And the Husky Stadium station, as currently designed, would not be able to handle the incoming connection from 520. More expensive excavating would be required, perhaps directly underneath the Stadium or Arboretum. it would be a mess.

That said, I’m somewhat sympathetic to the idea, pushed by Eastside pols, that using the only two HOV lanes for light rail at a later date would be somewhat problematic. Running light rail to, say, Redmond, would mean that carpoolers heading to Kirkland would be stuck in general purpose traffic, and we’d be back to our current problem. But trying to predict the technology, demographics, or business climate 50 years out is a fool’s game. There’s no guarantee that we’ll still be using light rail then, or that Microsoft will even exist.

I’d be more interested in seeing money invested in good HOV connections from 520 to I-5 and I-405 so that buses can use the full HOV network to get around.