Seattle Press on Line - Reader Defends Sound Transit

My Two Cents

Reader Defends Sound Transit

By Jack Whisner

Jul 27, 2000 -- I write in response to your June 14 column entitled "City Council Should Get Out of Monorail's Way." I will respond to several points in the order they appear in your column.

What do Seattleites want more?

* The 1996 (a high turnout presidential election year) RTA ballot measure attracted a 70 percent majority in Seattle and included taxation to fund its programs.

* In 1997, Initiative 41 attracted a 53 percent majority and included no funding.

Yes the Sound Transit (ST) process is a bit clumsy. But after decades of study and process, they have selected the best route between Northgate and South McClellan Street. Yes, construction of the Link tunnel will be expensive and disruptive. But it will also be the very best part of the ST program. When completed, the Seattle portion of Link light rail transit (LRT) will add significantly to our livability. It will connect the four major pedestrian centers of Seattle (the University District, Capitol Hill, First Hill, and downtown) with frequent, fast and reliable transit service. It will provide a spine for the entire transit network and an alternative to ever increasing traffic congestion. To a large extent, the ST process is clumsy because its political district is too large and includes too many areas where high capacity transit is irrelevant. It skews their decision-making.

The goal of high capacity transit is not to ease traffic congestion. It is to provide a reliable alternative to sitting in the congestion. Yes, many current bus riders will be attracted to Link. In addition, new riders will be attracted by its improved service, speed, frequency, reliability and market penetration. Instead of attacking the ST Link LRT program, we should urge the federal, state and county governments and local billionaires to help ST reach Northgate with Link.

Even in Link temporarily terminates in the University District, it will not worsen traffic or parking: the urban center is already congested and parked out.

In the Rainier Valley, two key factors you omit:

* MLK Jr. Way South is dangerous now due to auto traffic. The major source of noise and danger before or after Link will be automobile traffic, not LRT;

* The Rainier Valley will benefit from the improved transit service. The left out equity consideration is the neighborhoods of the subarea which pay for Link but will not have direct service (e.g. West Seattle, Ballard, Shoreline and Lake Forest Park).

If there is gridlock in downtown Seattle it is despite transit not because of it. Downtown streets and curb spaces are full of cars, not buses. The largest ratio of empty seats is in cars, not buses. If downtown is congested, the solution is more transit, not less.

In fact, Initiative 41 does not use the word "monorail." It calls for an elevated, electric, automatic and rubber-tired transit system. It could be a Vancouver SkyTrain on rubber tires. With monorail technology, it is hard to provide service frequency, as switching is difficult. High capacity transit needs both grade separation (elevated or tunneled) AND service frequency.

I am confident that the City will study the concept sufficiently. Perhaps it could be folded into the Intermediate Capacity Transit study. For any significant transit improvement, help is needed from the state legislature. The city needs improved funding authority to better maintain its transportation infrastructure and fill its sidewalk deficit, as well as raise money for transit, or whatever mode: ETC, electric trolley buses, streetcar or buses.

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!

No comments yet!