The 520 bridge replacement project is more than another transportation project.
It is an opportunity to build healthy places to live, work, and play that our region won’t see again for at least another half century.
It is an opportunity to be good stewards of the environment and to address climate change.
It is an opportunity for our many local communities to come together and act as a region.
It is an opportunity for us to determine what kind of city we want and the quality of life of our neighborhoods.
It is an opportunity for our state to offer a vision of transportation for the 21st Century and not just building roads like its 1959.
Finally it is again an opportunity to move our transportation system forward.
It will take leadership to bring together all the many points of view on how to best move forward on transportation. But we have done it before.
During my time as Chair of the House Transportation Committee, working with my Republican and Democratic counterparts in both the House and the Senate, we passed fourteen and half cents in gas taxes by bringing road and transit advocates from the east and west side together.
(I point out the fact that I worked to pass the largest financing package for roads in our state’s history only to preempt the pigeonholing of my perspective here as that of another Seattle Democrat transit advocate.)
It will take leadership from the environmental community to get transit right. Transportation remains the single largest contributor to global warming in Washington State – over half our greenhouse emissions come from vehicles. The 520 bridge project offers a real opportunity to build a transportation structure of the future that contributes to the solution.
Neither the legislation authorizing the new 520 bridge, nor any of the current designs, integrate transit into the design or planning of the project. Nor is there any financing mechanism for new transit in the corridor, particularly for high capacity transit. The name alone — “The 520 Bridge and HOV Replacement Project” – is proof that again we are building a road to move cars, and not a transportation corridor to move people and goods. The current plan amounts to placing existing buses onto new HOV lanes to share with cars. Glaringly, it lacks a streamlined connection for transit riders between the north/south transit corridor at new Sound Transit Station at Montlake and any future transit riders moving east/west from the new 520.
It will take leadership from the City to bring neighborhoods that currently disagree amongst themselves together. Far more people live and work near the 520 bridges then the Viaduct. The City should use the model it developed during the creation of urban villages to approach the project in a comprehensive manner. It should put the Departments of Planning, Neighborhoods, and Transportation on the ground and bring together neighborhoods that are currently divided, creating an all-neighborhoods comprehensive mitigation and transportation plan. It is impossible for the Seattle legislators to support a city position when one is lacking.
It will take leadership on the part of the county to bring urban and suburban interests together. The county with the new leadership of Dow Constantine from Seattle and Fred Jarrett from the east side of Lake Washington is uniquely positioned to bring both sides of the lake together and act as a region. The state should consider allowing the County to assume all coordination for planning and financing for a new 520 and I-90 corridor transportation authority.
It will take leadership in the Legislature to address the fact that the current financial plan is unattainable. During the negotiations to pass the nine-and-a-half-cent gas tax east of the lake, legislators insisted on moving $1.5 billion out of 520 and applying it to I-405. Now we have a shortfall. The solution is to toll I-90 in addition to 520, and committing toll revenues to the construction, maintenance and operations of the bridge and of transit.
If we fail to come together as a region on a project that is crucial to our economic future, I believe we will destroy the coalition that moved our transportation system forward and return again to the defeats we suffered in years past.
We have succeeded in the past and we can do it again. Let’s capitalize on the many unique opportunities we face. Let’s move our transportation system forward.
— Sen. Ed Murray
Nor is there any financing mechanism for new transit in the corridor, particularly for high capacity transit.
That’s simply not true. The County just allocated 1 cent of property tax for new SR520 bus service, yielding around $3m/year. ST2 also has some additional money allocated for SR520 BRT.
If by “high capacity transit” he means rail, that’s because ST has maxed out the taxing capacity the State has given it. If Sen. Murray wants to roll out an expanded taxing authority bill to rectify that in time to affect SR520, I’m sure the “environmental community” will be grateful.
Senator Murray, I just got through listening to all the transportation funding methods on the table at yesterday’s JTC meeting. There are lots of ways the state can provide funding authority to local government for high capacity transit.
I agree with Martin here – it’s up to you to help us get funding for new transit in the corridor, and I welcome it!
Thank you, Martin and Ben … we have some serious challenges ahead, but I am encouraged that both transit and environmental interests have begun to pay close attention (the devil is in the details right now, as we’ve been discussing). Urban and suburban interests are aligned as never before. We have enough financing to get started, get built what has been agreed to … but Sen. Murray is correct that the city and the neighborhoods around the bridge still have some work to do. But they’ll get to an agreement, and by that point, we’ll have the rest of the financing nailed. Costs are low right now, and we’ve got to keep this thing moving. Ben, a big thank you for listening to yesterday’s JTC meeting — H/T: Jessyn Farrell probably gave the best, most succinct, presentation in support of transit that I’ve seen in a long time.
Here’s some news that might help spur interest in transit.
@3
Huh???
The environmental community has been paying close attention to transit issues for at least 15 years.
Sounds terrific, as pie in the sky goes, until you get to the money question, which is always the rub. First you read through the advertising banners, followed by the plaintive cries for cooperation, then you come to the money part.
I have one simple criterion: Commuters pay.
No hitting up senior citizens with increased property taxes. No hitting up the poor with increased sales taxes. No hitting up senior citizens who drive their vehicles only 1,000 miles a year with vehicle excise taxes. Those taxes are so horribly unfair to people of slight means who get no benefit whatsoever from these transportation projects that they are, as far as I’m concerned, deal killers.
Tolls are okay. Gas taxes are fine, because they’re paid in proportion to how much you use the roads and pollute the air. Farebox receipts are okay, too, because then publicly subsidized transportation is being paid for by the people who use it and get economic benefit from it (most users are commuting to paying jobs).
Taking this out of the unemployment benefits, social security benefits, or pensions of those least able to pay is not okay.
So, it’s not just about how much it’s going to cost, but who you’re going to ask to pay and how much. I’ll wait and see how that shapes up before I make up my mind about any proposal.
Wow, I’m impressed. I thought Sen. Murray didn’t give a shit about anything other than his fanatical gay issues. How nice he actually sees something else for once.
re 7: For you-
Equal Civil rights = ‘fanatical gay issues’
You’re a silly goose!
@3….costs may be low now, but there wont be one bit of work done for at least 3-5 years…and I guarantee you that costs then will not be low – as we will into some huge inflation according to most experts.
What is going to happen is this: A rough design and tax strategy will get sold based upon today’s artificially low construction costs. Then, when its time to build, there will be huge cost overruns because the price of doing construction work will have gone up more than was expected.
You want to take advantage to today’s low costs, then you already better have a design nearing completion and contracts ready to go in the next few months.
@9
Hey, you posted something relevant! Good job, I knew you could do it.
@7 If you didn’t live under a rock, you’d have known this a long time ago, but better late than never.
@10….I’m full of surprises.. :)
How about we don’t bankrupt ourselves over the whole “global warming” thing until we actually get some real research done by real scientists. The last batch of jokers seems to have fucked us for a lot of money, ginned up phony results and dumped the original data in the bin.
@13…….thats sacrilege to the Church of Globull Worming..
Please define “real scientists”
@15….ones that don’t manipulate and destroy data when it doesn’t fit a predetermined conclusion or agenda…
just sayin…….
I think the steam from the bathhouse has softened your brain, Senator. We’re building and maintaining roads “to move cars” because that is what we
allmostly all own and prefer to commute in- and we like it. It is the best method for moving “people and goods” that now exists without limitations of freedom, despite having some in this community believing that implementing and maintaining expensive choo-choo trains to transfer people that refuse to use them is a better alternative. That’s simply retard logic.You live in a dream world, Senator. The AGW mythology you’re pimping in here ala environmental ‘scientist’ Al “the core of the earth is millions of degrees” Gore is simply falling on deaf ears as the truth actually comes out.
If you want to do something, try getting your fellow senator Lisa Brown to actually follow the will of the people instead of continuuing to do an end around our initiative (3 in total) regarding the 2/3’s legislative requirment for tax increases in the state.
translation of the words in bold: We don’t give a fuck about what the stupid peasants want, we’re in control and say what goes.
To which I retort, “you work for us, dope. Not the other way around. Start acting like it!”
@12 Not really. You’re as predictable as Seattle’s winter weather.
@13 I’m with you. I think you humans should continue what you’re doing until it’s too late. We rabbits want this planet all to ourselves.
@16 Although conclusions relating to global warming are the product of data collection and analysis by thousands of reputable scientists over many decades, you don’t need even one scientist to understand what’s going on. All you need is a pair of eyes.
http://archive.coasttocoastam......012905.jpg
But, as I said above, I have no problem with what you stupid humans are doing. The sooner your species is outta here, the better!
http://archive.coasttocoastam......012905.jpg
@ 20 ~ now you’re linking to the Art Bell website for proof of global warming?
What’s next, Roger? Links to Alex Jones, the illuminati and little green space men?
har,har,har,har,har,har,har,har
Little Ricky Dumbass @ 17: “I think the steam from the bathhouse has softened your brain, Senator.”
Little Ricky, you have displayed your ignorance, preconceptions, and biases in so many ways, so many times, on this blog. But, to spew this about Senator Murray, who gives a damn about this state, is a new low mark. You need to move to Oklahoma. Go. Now.
Our trolls are behind the times. The meme now is to admit global warming, but deny that releasing billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere changes anything.
It’s kind of like some Republican pervert (you know who you are) shitting on a baby and claiming that the baby would have shit on himself anyway, so he’s not to blame.
Ed Murray doesn’t give two shits about this state, he’s merely a politician with an agenda. I don’t like his politics nor his ambitions because it’s not realistic to think that Americans are ready to give up their POV’s- nor is there proof that AGW is real.
Maybe Ed should transport himself to the year 2110 and see if that has changed, otherwise, use some friggin’ common sense in passing legislation. Not some silly liberal fantasy land of pink Unicorns.
If building bridges to the eastside is “an opportunity to be good stewards of the environment and to address climate change” why not build a superhighway with two HOV lanes each way, a Lexus lane for Medina residents only(to get them to agree to the superhighway), and three general purpose lanes each way? Shouldn’t we want to avoid congestion, which is an inefficient use of carbon producing single passenger automobiles?
Because that would somehow be bad for the environment? How? Because Seattle legislators think people on the eastside will take transit more often if they have better choices?
Why the hell should I have to pay for a ultra expensive road so someone twenty miles from me can have choices when they made the choice to live in the burbs which were designed to be accessed by automobiles? Meanwhile, I drive on the moonscape of Seattle’s streets, while Seattle’s bus service gets cut so eastsiders can have more transportation “choices” which they do not use?
Are you freaking kidding me?
Annndddd!!!! Shouldn’t the users of this road PAY FOR IT!
Thanks for the “opportunity” “Mr. Kirby Vacuum salesman of the “environment”/politician dude”, I will pass!
Good day sir, good day!
Rabbit @ 6 says:
I say:
Bull shit. Bull fucking shit! The Motor Vehicle Excise Tax is a graduated, or “progressive” tax that affects the biggest, most expensive vehicles at point of sale and at licensing time. Spare me your concern for the poor senior citizens. When people are too old or their reflexes are too slow for them to drive any more, they will be damn glad to have transit options.
I’m a senior citizen, and I favor full restoration of the MVET to pre-695 levels. Post less and read more, Rabbit. You’re becoming tiresome.
I stayed away from this thread to see how long any decent commentary would last.
Started out pretty good but went downhill fast. How?
Surprise! With a degenerate right winger @ 7.
@8: HeadupAss Lucy:
I don’t remember typing those words you equated.
@11 Rodent:
That? Coming from you? A senile old shut-in? That’s richly ironic. :)
@27 YLB arschloch:
Sticks and stones…., but at least I pay taxes and am gainfully employed. You? (abundant silence….) Thought so! BTW, just curious; how many hours per day did that working wife of yours that you mooch off of limit you to? Poor thing. You may go now. :) (waves hand in dismissal.) Have a good day all.
28 – Wow I’m honored I garnered 5 lines. Over the rabbit and headless? I must doing something right. (not right wing of course.) Otherwise..
zzzZZZZZZZzzz…
Mr. Duke makes my point, there is no integrated financing mechanism for High Capacity Transit. Instead we rely on the county to toss some buses on an HOV lane and call it a day.
Rep. Eddy, it is time for you to realize that we are able to pass a gas tax in the legislature and at the ballot because Seattle democrats such as myself reached out to the eastside of the county and listened and voted for eastside projects even when your own members would not. We deserve to be treated the same. The negotiations on last years 520 bill excluded many key Seattle legislators. Your attitude risks the support of Seattle legislators and Seattle voters for future transportation revenue. We brought the both sides of the county together before, lets do it again!
re 28: “7. Mark1 spews:
Wow, I’m impressed. I thought Sen. Murray didn’t give a shit about anything other than his fanatical gay issues. How nice he actually sees something else for once.
01/06/2010 at 5:30 pm ”
Surely, you jest. And I stand by my statement that you are a silly goose.
re 28: “…(abundant silence….) Thought so!”
That probably happens alot when you try thinking.
It is interesting despite Chairing the House Transportation Committee (and before that the capital budget committee) and lead the effort for the largest transportation revenue in state history, including a commitment to roads across the state and the prime sponsor of the “clean cars bill”………is all comes back to the fact I am gay.
@33
I’d call that boorish, not interesting.
I didn’t even know that until our wingnut friend brought it up. I just didn’t want to let his BS go unchallenged.
I was reading a biographical intro. to John Locke’s Two Treatise on Government and it seems that he was a lifelong bachelor, although he was not without means. My guess is that he may have been gay. If so (and I really don’t see whether it could be proven or not, it would be a great talking point when discussing the philosohical foundations of this Republic and the nature of the people who constructed those political philosophies.
That and ten dollars will get you a cheap haircut.
re 35: I didn’t mean the John Locke on Lost. That’s another story.
@24
See the link @#4. There are 2 million few cars on the road at the beginning of 2010 then there were at the beginning of 2009.
Total miles driven is also going down.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06......html?_r=1
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/tvtpage.cfm
Cycling is up too!
http://www.psrc.org/assets/2121/t17jul09.pdf
@37
Oops, that 4M cars not 2M. The US auto fleet shrunk by 2%.
my Senator @33:
Ed, I’m sure you know that the trolls here are the ones who are actually “fanatical” about interfering with the social values of others. They know they’re losing their mean-spirited war.
If they had any interest whatsoever in helping to make Washington a better place, they’d know that you built your legislative reputation — long before there were enough votes in Olympia for moving toward equal rights — as a transportation wonk. But they’re more interested in throwing out less-than-sophomoric insults.
@ 37
Um, yeah. 3 words for ya.
Cash for clunkers.
I’ll give up my POV when they pull the steering wheel from my dead, cold fingers…
@41
From the study I linked to:
Cash for Clunkers was a trade in program and most folks traded in 1 car to pickup their new car.
The US auto fleet is projected to decline until around 2020.
I always am leery about projections when those doing the projections, in this case, Earth Policy Institute (hardly an objective source of the study) have an agenda to push. With any popular product made increasingly affordable to many, you’re going to run into a saturation problem. My last vehicle prior to buying a new one 3 months ago got me quite nicely through 11 years, so of course, there is bound to be a saturation point. No sane person goes out and buys a brand new vehicle every 3 or 4 years unless they are fairly affluent and have expendable cash resources.
Would I be surprised if there were a decline for a few years? No. Do I think the overall mindset amongst the current 209 million Americans with driver’s licenses has changed significatnly enough to implement Sen. Murray’s plan? No.
@43
The study was paid for, not done, by EPI and others have verified the results and all the data that was used is available. The study is solid. It’s not showing anything that is any different than what everyone else is showing.
Sen. Murray’s plan doesn’t rely on 209M people selling off their cars.
I’d tell you to check out the data at http://www.psrc.org/ but, all the perfectly valid data in the world wont change your mind. So, we’ll just ignore you.
Shouldn’t that be I? or are you hearing voices again?
The fact remains that Ed Murray’s out of touch with reality. Very few are giving up their personal freedom of movement to climb aboard some tin can filled with filthy sots, bums and criminals for their commute when they can simply climb into their POV and make their commute complete with running errands before and after and also during the lunch hour.
But, by all means, keep your heads in the sand and buck reality. What do I care? Just don’t ask me to pay for your bat shit crazy ideas.
Also, I noticed you didn’t bother addressing my “saturation” argument @ 43, but then, we both know why that is. You know it’s true.
This guy needs a challenge from a REAL Democrat. His “guest column” is a bunch of PR fluff, filled with inaccurate information and self-promoting drivel. He is so far out of touch with reality. Kudos to Rep. Eddy for her thoughtful comments and for standing up to the threats and bloviating from this guy. Anyone up for a run for State Senate in the 43rd? How about some woman power!
@45
Your saturation non-argument has been addressed in the (perfectly valid) study I linked to, in Puget Sound Regional Council Documents and elsewhere on the web. There’s no need for it to be addressed again.
As for the “we” in my post, take a look around you.
You’ve said that you’re a libertarian, how many of those are there in elected office in Washington State? In the Nation? The NRC is flat broke.
Seattle just elected The Mike’s! Spokane just put two environmental activists on its city council.
You:
The Puget Sound Regional Council:
4 million fewer cars on the road, billions fewer miles driven. Express busses and the Sounder Train between Tacoma and Seattle are packed every time I ride them.
So, yeah, we will just ignore you.
There are three legislators who have a problem with 520: Chopp, Murray and Pedersen, all from the 43rd. All the rest of the legislature (roughly 150) should have no problem moving forward.
There’s no division beyond Montlake. The state has already agreed to make the new bridge far. far better for the neighborhood, and the overall environment and transit (far better).
Montlake (and Murray) now seriously propose doing nothing but fixing a sinking bridge, which will do nothing for the environment or transit – or the neighborhood.
This is the Olympia version of a child stomping out of a room when it doesn’t get its way (for an additional $2 billion it wants from all the rest of us – for worse transit, and far worse for the environment.)
Best thing to do is simply ignore it. Get on with the project. People need the jobs.