Successful leadership requires both vision and execution, and judging from the bold, light rail expansion proposal he announced Wednesday, mayoral wannabe Mike McGinn appears to be getting the first part down pat. As for the second part… well, that’s the question, isn’t it?
You can read the instant analysis from the transit geeks at Publicola, Seattle Transit Blog and elsewhere, though to be honest, there isn’t all that much in the way of detailed analysis because the announcement itself is pretty thin on details. But that’s okay, because rather than etching a light rail plan in stone, McGinn appears to really just be saying, “hey… we’ve been studying these neighborhood extensions since 1920… now let’s get our shit together and build it!” Though, not exactly in those words.
McGinn’s proposal calls for developing a plan within his first two years as mayor to connect high density neighborhoods — Wallingford, Fremont, Ballard, Queen Anne, Belltown and West Seattle — to our existing regional light rail system using compatible technology. The plan and all taxes to fund it would be put before Seattle voters, and construction and operations would likely be handled by Sound Transit.
And as we all know from previous transit debates and controversies, there’s nothing new about the idea of these neighborhood extensions. Indeed, much of it has already been extensively studied by Sound Transit as part of its long range planning process.
Sound Transit Long Range Plan
You’ll notice the West Seattle to Ballard route is not included in this 2005 map, because ST had basically backed off the Monorail’s bailiwick, but they’ve studied that route too. Somewhere in the archives you’ll find plenty of estimates, however preliminary, of both ridership and cost, along a number of possible routes. In fact, the only truly novel idea in McGinn’s proposal is the suggestion that we might actually build it, and sometime in the first half of this century.
So can we?
Given the political will and the money, of course we can. And that’s where part two of the leadership equation comes in.
McGinn suggests that we “use existing city and/or Transportation Benefit District taxing authority” to finance the project (voters permitting, of course), but as Ben at STB points out, that doesn’t raise very much money. Or perhaps McGinn is thinking of the MVET authority previously granted the Monorail? Maybe, but the problem is, we don’t appear to have the authority to use that authority in the way that McGinn proposes, so Seattle would first have to receive permission from the legislature to tax itself to build the neighborhood extensions it wants. That’s a little political reality McGinn should keep in mind should he butt heads with Olympia over the deep bore tunnel he so feverishly opposes… a political reality complicated by the fact that the powers that be covet what little unused taxing capacity remains within Seattle as a means of funding highway improvements throughout the rest of the region. That’s largely why they opposed putting ST Phase II on the ballot.
Even then, it’s not clear that the MVET alone would provide enough revenue to build out the full neighborhood system in any sort of a timely fashion — say, fifteen years versus fifty — especially if multiple costly water crossings are included. Annual revenues determine how much you can bond, and the amount you can bond determines how fast you can build… and that, after all, was the final nail in the Monorail’s coffin: a 30-percent shortfall between the revenues needed to properly bond the project and the revenues actually being collected. So how does McGinn get from here to there?
As Ben points out, one approach would be to build a lower cost system more along the lines of Portland’s MAX and ST’s Rainier Valley alignment, mostly at grade, with little in the way of fancy stations. Such a system would be cheaper and faster to build, much of it running along existing city right-of-way, but it would also be slower and provide less maximum capacity than the grade-separated route along much of the Central Link. Topography won’t allow this approach in some places, but one can certainly imagine an at-grade alignment down Elliot AVE and and 15th AVE W, for example.
But another comparison to Portland also needs to be made, in that, unlike the doomed Monorail, MAX’s various lines have been built with as much as 83% federal funding, along with a steady stream of dollars from the state, whereas the Seattle Monorail was budgeted to receive virtually zilch in state and federal money. You can pretty much rule out state funding from a legislature that has determined that fucking Seattle is always an effective election-year strategy, but it’s hard to imagine such an ambitious build-out being achieved without a substantial infusion of federal funds.
In reality, it’s hard to see McGinn realizing his vision without some combination of all of the above. He’s going to have to cajole the legislature into giving Seattle additional authority, convince Seattle voters to tax themselves while tamping down expectations in terms of the type of system and/or time of delivery, and effectively work the state’s congressional delegation into doing their all to squeeze a substantial contribution out of the federal budget. Meanwhile, he’ll have to do all that in the face of a Seattle Times editorial board hostile to both rail and taxation, and a city council that may actually attempt to finally reassert itself against a novice mayor. And all that’s assuming that Sound Transit is willing and able to take on the project. That makes for a lot of ifs.
And, oh yeah… he first has to defeat Joe Mallahan in November.
Is McGinn up to the leadership challenge? I dunno. That’s the conundrum voters are going to have figure out for themselves.
Frank Chopp could use his position to make sure that Seattle got money. But that would require him to actually do that.
It’s got to happen someday…might as well be now, when materials and land acqisition are cheaper and folks need the work..
Well, I don’t know how to do it either, but it must be done. Seattle simply cannot survive as a livable city without a massive investment in rail lines linking the city together. The political will and money was found to build two stadiums over the objections of Seattle voters, and Seattle voters voted to dramatically raise the cost of registering their cars to pay for the monorail. So it seems to me that the will exists among the citizens if not in the corridors of city hall. Surely Murray, Cantwell, McDermott, et al can get some federal funds if they put their mind to it.
I like Mike.
Such a system would be cheaper and faster to build, much of it running along existing city right-of-way, but it would also be slower and provide less maximum capacity than the grade-separated route along much of the Central Link.
Goldy, we all know now “maximum capacity” when it comes to light rail isn’t a big deal. Central Link isn’t drawing one-twentieth the ridership it could – and it never will. There simply isn’t the density, and as we’ve seen along MLK there won’t be new construction popping up to create that density.
The “light rail lite” proposal that McGinn proposes relies mostly on federal grants, and a tax on employers such as TriMet uses. There’s no need for more sales taxes – we pay too much of those already!
This is somewhat refreshing–there’s a long-standing tradition on our local projects to plan massive capital projects during boom times, then start actually trying to implement them when everyone’s broke and tax revenue disappears. McGinn seems to be at least trying to get ahead of the game by talking about something like this now, in hopes of actually building it when the money and the demonstrable need are there.
Of course, it might also help to fill Tim Eyman with sodium silicate and rev him up to 5,000 RPM until he seizes…(A little Friday-morning Ann Coulter “humor”.)
You suckers seem to think that money is printed out of thin air. Federal funding, state funding, “taxing authority”, is still TAXPAYER money. Where the fuck is it going to come from? Seattle will soon look like San Francisco. No middle class, just a pyramid tip of wealthy folks and the rest of them are all on social services. Get real!
$50 per day parking tax sounds about right.
That’s perfectly useful street right of way. It doesn’t belong to Martin Selig. It belongs to the citizens who paid for it. We need that pavement infrastructure for more important things than for storing your fucking suburban assault vehicle. If the next time Fred Jarrett and his pals want to attend an Alki Foundation fund raiser he has to ride the bus, you can bet your ass they’ll come around.
[Deleted — see HA Comment Policy]
Where the fuck is it going to come from?
Erm, we’re talking about voter approved taxes, asshat – if the voters approve them, who are the politicians to deny the people what they demand? Got problems with democracy? Sheesh . . . .
How typical.
Mr. John425 deftly capsulizes the lack of vision and iniative that characterises the Republican right.
According to him there is no benefit to capital improvement in the infrastructure of our region. No benefit by providing jobs, no benefit to employers by providing convenient access to the workplace, no benefit to over the road commerce by easing highway congestion…
Nope, just a real waste.
The government wouldn’t have to print anywhere near as much money (not to mention borrowing it from China) if Wall Street wasn’t so efficient at making it disappear.
Given that McGinn starts by throwing a big bomb at all the cagers, how can we expect him to get anything done?
Correct. We must accept a future as dictated to us by the auto oriented authorities in Olympia. How dare we try to get what we want, shifting from an auto tunnel for billions to a transit solution for this corridor.
McGinn is to be condemned for not knowing We Must Obey. True leadership and progressivism is found is Obedient Surrender and Submission to What Our LEaders Have Worked Out. We must especially Smile As We Submit. “Yes I want more autos, Sir!” “Please How Can We Pay for Your Bored Tunnel Overruns Sir?” “Oh Sir, How Can We in Seattle Delay More Transit for 20 or 30 Years or Until You Give Permission, Sir?”
That would be the right approach.
Auto oriented authorities in Olympia? Try anyone who wants to drive north south in Seattle sometime.
Cars are here to stay. Eventually they will go to some form of electric, but we will have private automobiles right to the very end even if the earth heats up 15 degrees and they all still burn oil. That’s a reality, non-cagers shouldn’t forget it.
Personally, I’d rather put all the two ton machines in a hole with two entrances so downtown remains somewhat tolerable. As for the cost overruns, put it on my tab and send me a bill. I’m a spend-monkey, not a Republican surrender-monkey and I won’t stand by while you help them drown the baby in the bathtub.
At least he has forward thinking ideas unlike his opponent, who doesn’t even vote.
Go McGinn!!
Yes there are a lot of challenges and it will take a skilled mayor to do what desperately needs to get done. Our choices are to elect someone who will try to do it but may fail or to go with someone who won’t even try.
“There simply isn’t the density.”
Within the city itself? There’s plenty of density. Seattle, like Portland, developed around streetcars. It’s outside the city that’s the problem.
Can a voter revolt succeed in Seattle, as it did in Portland in 1985? It’s hard to say. BTW, does anyone know what Mallahan wants to buy the Office of Mayor for?
Hmmm. I wonder if there might not be support for high-speed rail from Seattle to Olympia. Somehow, I suspect that might tickle the legislature’s fancy.
I vote regularly, nearly every one of the last two dozen elections or so.
I’d still be a lousy mayor.
Yeah, Mallahan sure isn’t inspirational, but he’s not a bomb thrower either. Just because he’s come up as a corporate animal doesn’t mean he’s some kind of a robber baron.
I think #15 has it about right. You’ve got a choice between a true progressive with a lot of good ideas and a do nothing place holder.
You’re over thinking things Goldy, with Nickels gone and a shot at doing a ton of cool stuff it’s time to get on the McGinn bandwagon.
@13 for the next half-century at least, I’m afraid you’re right. People will still cling to their private cars even when they’ve been reduced to, as Joe Bageant puts it, “a tiny little sled you strap to your butt with a rubber band”. At least people are starting to lose their affection for big trucks. Cyn will probably protest this, but since in the last year the “big three” automakers all went in the shitter because their business plan depended on selling the fool things, it’s pretty hard to refute that that party’s about over. (Even Toyota got in a bit of trouble hanging their fortunes on sales of the Tundra.)
As individuals, we may be brilliant, but collectively we’re stupid as hell. We drove from Santa Monica to Big Bear Lake a week and a half ago, and at 3:00 in the afternoon “the 110” was like 40 miles of the 520 bridge at the height of the rush hour. Hundreds of thousands of people crawling along the “open road” at 5-10 MPH, mostly one to a car, from their downtown jobs to their smoggy slice of suburban paradise in Ontario, San Bernadino and points nearby. Meanwhile, half-empty commuter trains were whizzing by in the median at 70. Go figure.
@ 19:
Is it the mark of a “true progressive with a lot of good ideas” to create a north-south bottleneck through downtown Seattle, at Colman Dock, and in front of the Port terminals? That’s what the “surface option” that McGinn favors would get us.
Maybe that’s what some of you lot call “progressive” and a “good idea,” driving shipping jobs to Tacoma so that “green” developers can turn our seaport terminals into condos for the rich.
Mallahan is no better, but at least he isn’t promising his cultlike supporters the moon, which he can’t deliver.
#19 should read:
@21
1. Even the righties over at Sound Politics like the surface street option.
http://soundpolitics.com/archives/008049.html
2. When the DOT took a look at the surface street option they fudged their numbers.
http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.c.....Report.pdf
3. This is about a lot more than just the viaduct replacement.
Yeah, it’s about having some kind of respect for political process, rather than being a bomb thrower. That McGinn has aligned himself with the anti-tax crowd only further reveals his intransigence.
You’re deluding yourself if you think McGinn has a shot at doing “a ton of cool stuff”, when he has no respect for an already existing consensus.
@21
No, I’d like to see sea ports stay sea ports. I’d like to see better planning going on and better planing helps retain industrial areas. Tacoma IS ALREADY poaching lines from the port of Seattle.
And Seattle is poaching jobs from Tacoma. Frank Russell is moving up from Tacoma. Jobs will get poached regardless of what happens with the viaduct/
One last thought on the viaduct replacement.
I think the finial answer is that we don’t know if the tunnel will work, we don’t know if the surface streets option will work and we have a very limited ability to see into the future. We do know that there’s a lot of anecdotal evidence that the surface streets option will work. We do know that DOT fudged the numbers when they studied the surface streets option. So, why not at least look at the surface streets option using real numbers? Surface streets is also the cheapest option, relies on off the shelf technology and is comprised mostly of stuff “we’re gonna need to do anyway.” So why not start with that?
Let’s see, Mallahan is endorsed by LABOR and McGinn isn’t. Once again, Goldy proves his disdain for Labor Unions!
SPOG isn’t labor. They are a crime syndicate.
“Just because he’s come up as a corporate animal doesn’t mean he’s some kind of a robber baron.”
He used to be senior management at a cell phone company. He used to manage customer service at a cell phone company.
You were saying?
@ 26:
The “surface option” won’t be able to handle the present traffic, let alone the projected increases.
But you know what WILL work, and we KNOW it will work? The Viaduct. Retrofit the Viaduct and the traffic will continue to roll.
Of course, there are some who DON’T WANT the traffic to roll. That’s your Green Taliban. They support McGinn, like you do. McGinn himself doesn’t worry me half as much as some of his followers do. If he becomes mayor, he’ll have to deal. When he does, they’ll call him a sellout.
There’s as much “anecdotal evidence” that the “surface option” will NOT work as there is that it will.
McGinn did mention possibly mvet and sales tax in the SeattlePI.com story.
Doa, the retailers will kill a raise in sales tax (kind of regressive anyway), and the mvet would have to be approved by a legislature he is planning to fight with over the tunnel.
Can’t we just have more bus service? Does this always have to involve fixed assets?
what do you think the mvet and sales tax increase would require?
Taxing authority.
Here, I know, I will fight the state on an expensive tunnel and then ask for taxing authority for light rail.
The state will be drilling a great big hole before they give McGinn mvet authority.
They would sooner give that to King County for expanded bus service.
The story is recycled, so I recycled my answers.
Western side rail is a good idea, HE is not in a position to make that happen since he is planning to fight the legislature on the tunnel.
Ummm rujax, you actually brought it today…
But you miss a big point. When the I-5 corridor was created, the Seattle peeps gave the builders a small lane width. Then some brainbuster decided to build the WA State Convention Center over the Interstate. Also, some brainbuster decided to take the I-90 west bound lanes and shrink them down from two and a feeder lane from the ball parks and reduce them into a single lane. If enough right-of-way was given in the beginning, there would be better flow today.
Now regarding the car flow-naze propositions. Are we looking at building something for show? How do we know if you build it they will come? You can look at John Murtha’s great new airport. Sure rujax there will be additional temporary jobs at inflated prices. But at what final cost? Hey will an environmental study be done?
@25
I’ve met McGinn, I know a ton of people that have worked with him- constructively! Far more bombs are being thrown at him than he’s throwing. The guy has built coalitions in the past and will work his ass off.
You’ve got a choice between nothing and maybe something, is it really too much to ask that you think about voting for the maybe something. Mallahan would be a place holder mayor.
McGinn the Magic Mayoral Candidate has opposed public transit funding in the past.
He and the Sierra Club continue to muck things up by demanding their toadies refuse to compromise with cars, and won’t even allow park & rides to be built.
Anyone believing this incompetent is giving anyone anything but continued headaches in their commute are utter fools… which means I am hardly surprised by this post.
@31
A retrofitted viaduct has even less chance of happening than the surface option. First of all WSDOT is dead set against a retrofit (even more so than surface). Second the retrofit costs about the same as a new elevated highway. Finally anyone who hates the damn ugly freeway cutting downtown off from the waterfront isn’t going to like the idea.
Of course what this probably means is the damn thing falls down before any replacement (tunnel, surface, or elevated) is built or it is retrofitted.
@32
Actually there is MVET and sales taxing authority in the form of a transportation benefit district available to the city of Seattle. There are also LIDs and general property tax levies. The latter one is the only one likely to have the kind of revenue needed ($200 million/year or more) to build a significant amount of rail though.
Still, assuming the voters approve such a thing it would be possible to build a West side rail line without asking the legislature to approve anything.
@34
Taking more ROW for I-5 at the time it was built would have been rather expensive, even with the eminent domain abuse that was common during the late 50’s and early 60’s. Remember unlike areas outside the city I-5 wasn’t exactly built through cow pastures in Seattle. All that built-up land isn’t cheap.
As for the convention center, the state itself decided to build it there. But even without the convention center widening I-5 through Seattle would be so expensive as to not be feasible.
Local government can impose up to $100 mvet, right now I pay .03 for RTA and that can go as high as .08. that is not nearly enough for a western light rail line McGinn is proposing, and sales tax is tipping over 10.
The 2.5% was for monorail construction, as described.
So, getting it done for $100 a car is not going to get as much of a line as McGinn has proposed.
The gov vetoed an increase in MVET a couple months ago.
@40
I’m no tax law expert, but it may be possible to find a way to tap into the 2.5% MVET authority the monorail had. As far as I know the law authorizing the tax is still on the books.
In addition to MVET there may be some ability to tap B&O taxes as well. There are also LID taxes (one method the city was looking at to fund streetcars).
There is one other potential tax source I don’t really see mentioned in any of the discussions of city-funded transit of any form which is a bond measure backed by a general property tax. This has the advantage that no additional tax authority from the legislature would be needed and it can raise a rather substantial amount of money.