SDOT games system?

A little bird recently sang me a song about the process for applying to the Seattle Bridging The Gap transportation and parks fund.

The initial step is for citizens to write down their ideas for projects on official Project Identification Forms, which will be sent to the Seattle Department of Transportation for exploration -- screening. In other words, it sets up a bottom-up process in which the citizens tell the agency what they want.

SDOT may have other ideas. It seems that residents of Greenwood recently met with SDOT staff to discuss how to fill out the Forms. Instead, the staffers presented the residents with SDOT's own wish list of projects, and suggested that those be entered on the Project Identification Forms.

No doubt some people agreed, while others wrote up their own ideas. But SDOT coordinates screening of the projects and final recommendations -- whose projects will SDOT be more likely to choose?


New today:
Decisions on levy campaign leftovers were political

"Bridging the Gap" levy election cash under scrutiny

When Vic Odermat wrote a $1,000 check to the "Bridging the Gap" campaign last fall, he did so to support a property-tax levy for Seattle streets and bridges.

The owner of Brown Bear Car Wash never imagined $4,000 from the campaign fund would go to the Irish Heritage Club and possibly pay for a trip to Ireland for Mayor Greg Nickels' wife.

"Oh my goodness," Odermat said, when he learned that $31,557 in surplus campaign money was doled out after the Nov. 7 election to some nonprofit groups and campaign workers.
. . .
[Deputy Mayor Tim] Ceis said decisions on spending the surplus were made by the mayor's "political brain trust," which includes Ceis and Nickels' aides Viet Shelton, Regina LaBelle and Michael Mann. The mayor was told of the payments, Ceis said, but was "not very involved" in the decisions.

Ceis said he never thought about turning the surplus over to the city to help with street projects at the heart of the levy's mission. Source

Wouldn't it have been nice if the money had gone to citizen groups that want to plan pedestrian safety projects? Currently they are required to seek grants to hire consultants to do the work.

Cancel Bush's insurance policy

Dennis Kucinich has filed articles of impeachment (H.Res. 333) on Dick Cheney -- so where are the co-sponsors? By the end of this week I expect to see every freaking House Democrat from a safe district signing onto the effort. Jim McDermott, you first.

Bi-Uh-Oh-Diesel

From the BBC:

Ethanol cars may not be healthier
Ethanol vehicles may have worse effects on human health than conventional petrol, US scientists have warned.

A computer model set up to simulate air quality in 2020 found that in some areas ozone levels would increase if all cars were run on bioethanol.

Deaths from respiratory problems and asthma attacks would increase with such levels, the researchers reported in Environmental Science and Technology.

The EU has agreed that biofuels should be used in 10% of transport by 2020.

Mark Jacobson, an atmospheric scientist at Stanford University in California, used a computer model which took into account factors such as temperatures, sunlight, clouds and rain to simulate air quality in 2020 for two different scenarios.

In one simulation all vehicles were fuelled by petrol and in the other all vehicles were fuelled by E85 - a mix of 85% ethanol and 15% petrol.

If all cars were run on E85, he found that in some parts of the US there were significant increases in ozone - a pollutant with harmful effects on the human respiratory system - compared with petrol cars.

In the study, the increase in smog translated to an extra 200 deaths per year in the whole of the US, with 120 occurring in Los Angeles alone.

Increases in ozone in some areas of the US would be offset by decreases in other areas but overall there would be 770 additional visits to accident and emergency and 990 additional hospitalisations for asthma and other respiratory problems, the results showed.

Although ethanol was found to reduce levels of two atmospheric carcinogens, levels of others increased so associated cancers would be the same as with pollution caused by petrol fumes, the study showed.

Damage

"We found that using E85 will cause at least as much health damage as gasoline, which already causes about 10,000 premature deaths annually from ozone and particulate matter," said Jacobson.

"The question is, if we're not getting any health benefits, then why continue to promote ethanol and other biofuels."

He added: "By comparison, converting all vehicles to battery-electric, where the electricity is from wind energy would eliminate 10,000 air pollution deaths per year and 98% of carbon emissions from vehicles."

In principle, biofuels - ethanol and diesel, made from crops including corn, sugarcane and rapeseed - are a way of reducing greenhouse gas emissions compared to conventional transport fuels.

Although they produce carbon dioxide, growing the plants absorbs a comparable amount of the gas from the atmosphere.

A government report said that biofuels could reduce emissions by 50-60% compared to fossil fuels.

Stuart Shales, senior lecturer in environmental biotechnology at the University of the West England, said there were companies in the UK producing biofuel but that the UK was lagging behind other countries.

He added that it would not be feasible for all cars to run on ethanol because too much land would be needed to grow the crops.

"What people are looking at are second generation fuels which will be produced from whole biomass, like wood, which can be broken down to fermentable sugars."

"This is the first time I've seen any research about ozone.

"The question I would ask is, has there been any respiratory problems in Brazil where ethanol has been used since the early 1970s."

Upshot -- building, using and innovating mass transit, and nonmotorized transport, are not diminished in importance.

Wednesday Wiseline Speakeasy

David Bowie: Heroes (Live)

Dining at the Seattle Aquarium

Octopus eats shark?!

The kid is not his son, either

Hey Mark Green and Air America -- legendary Anglo-American talk show host Michael Jackson appears to need a regular gig. I'm just sayin'.

Political Landscape, Part Two: Elections by numbers

Remember Poli Sci one-oh-something at the UW -- "Urban Politics"? In my day it looked back at history from an Eighties standpoint. The syllabus marched through time, from machine politics up to the Good Government era. There's no Democratic or Republican way to pick up the trash, was one soundbite.

Of course, from our vantage point in 2007 we can see what a quaint notion that was: the Resmuglican way would be to farm it out to a crony contractor for several times the cost of a public utilities agency.

An idea that I accepted without question was the idea of at-large city council seats being superior to district elections. It seemed so logical--why have just one member working for you, when you could have many? If one says No, you can go to others.

A fine idea, in theory. However it has been apparent for quite some time now that Seattle -- with ostensibly an at-large Council -- in fact does have districts. Not districts with identifiable geographic boundaries and balanced populations, but economic districts determined by the socioeconomics of Who You Know.

Just to illustrate, at one time, in the late Eighties to early Nineties, Seattle had two districts: #1 was Mount Baker, and #2 was everywhere else. At the time, the Mayor, most of the Council, a goodly number of municipal technocrats (yes, I still admire Galbraith), and private sector movers & shakers all lived in Mount Baker. As a result, policies coming out of the old City Hall, as well as what you read, saw and heard about it in the local media, all tended to reflect the views of the residents of the ridge by Rainier Valley. My thesis is that while the geographic distribution of political power was poor, participation by economic elites was broad.

Fine, I'm using some hyperbole, and the situation is less pronounced today; for example, Greg Nickels lives in West Seattle and Nick Licata is in Greenwood. But the reality remains that Paul Allen is in effect his own council district; real estate developers are a district; the UW Regents are a district; in a sense, everyone serving on the board of a major nonprofit or intergovernmental agency is a district.

What power does the everyday citizen have against all that? Just using the new Bridging the Gap process as an example (Political Landscape, Part One, 4/10), how will our needs be weighed against those of Allen's South Lake Union community (the Streetcar project took funds away from planned bike and pedestrian facilities)? Plus, bureaucratic inertia counts for a lot, and SDOT, which is screening Bridging the Gap requests ("Seattle Department of Transportation will then explore your ideas" - Dept. of Neighborhoods letter, 3/30) has enough for all the agencies in the whole wide world. The relationship of the public to SDOT has been one of supplicant to benign despot, and that isn't going to change overnight.

The time has arrived for clear, direct political accountability in Seattle government, and that means electing the City Council by districts. Divide Seattle into nine City Council Districts, but have three members elected per district in order to improve the constituents per member ratio. And cut the salary to $55,000, it'll keep them humble.

Then borrow a page from Parliament-style government and go to a Strong Council format. Give Councilmembers portfolios over City departments such as SDOT; while experts would still conduct normal operations, the Council would set strategic policies and goals. This would necessitate weakening the Mayor somewhat -- but that would be a refreshing change.

In the meantime, we'll still need to watch SDOT every minute with regard to Bridging the Gap, because the agency is going to be "exploring" (i.e. screening) the list of projects to be approved by the Mayor and Council.

Political Landscape, Part One: Falling into the gap

Last fall as Seattle voters considered how they should vote on the Proposition 1 "Bridging The Gap" transportation ballot measure (Wiseline Institute - 1, 2), the attitude I heard among The Folk was -- I'm going to vote Yes because we need it, but why are we having a special levy for basic facilities?

I too adopted that rationale, and so vote Yes we did, to the tune of 53.4%.

The thing is, what I don't recall from the Pro campaign was an explanation of how it would be implemented: How would needs -- especially for pedestrian and bicycle facilities -- be identified? Prioritized? Selected? Projects planned?

A partial answer arrived yesterday in the mail, in a big envelope from the Department of Neighborhoods. "Money and resources are available for groups and individuals to get involved in improving their neighborhoods," the cover letter begins. Involvement is great, but how about money for actual improvements? But I kid. Then farther down:

Funds Available from Bridging the Gap Levy! (Larger Transportation Projects)... Using the attached blue form, community members are being asked to identify specific transportation problems or concerns. Seattle Department of Transportation will then explore your ideas, and using a review committee of neighborhood volunteers, will make project funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council.

It appears therefore that while there is one fund, which Neighborhoods is calling "the NSF/CRF [neighborhood street fund and cumulative reserve fund] and Bridging the Gap Fund," the selection process is different from the old Neighborhood Matching/Small & Simple process. This is good. Sidewalk construction and repair never belonged in the Small & Simple process, a competitive one that essentially played neighborhoods against each other. Your project is worthy, it says to some, and to others Yours is not worthy. Fine for community artwork, not fine for projects that are about making unsafe streets safe places to walk.

Small & Simple treats basic pedestrian infrastructure as a luxury, that neighbors must agree to, and then pay a significant amount (on top of taxes) to build public sidewalks in the public right of way.

Clearly, Neighborhoods is not an engineering shop, so that it will hand-off project requests to SDOT is good. It is also bad.

In certain parts of Seattle, if you want your neighborhood to be safe for walking, you're on your own. You have to apply for grants even to plan sidewalks, because you have to hire a consultant -- that's right, City engineers don't lift a finger because your needs aren't in their budget. Then when you have a plan, you still must scrape together funding, hope you get into an SDOT budget for a future fiscal year and then, maybe, part of your neighborhood will get sidewalks.

Note that if you just want to be able to drive your car quickly around town, by way of whatever short cut strikes your fancy, SDOT is right there to serve you with planning services performed by a staff of necktie-wearing specialists, all paid for out of the department budget. And if the affected neighborhoods happen to find out about it, one of the necktie wearers will show up at their community meetings to tell them how silly they are to be concerned.

A hopeful part of the new process is that the Mayor and City Council will have the final word on projects. This takes the decision out of the hands of the SDOT bureaucracy and makes it a political process, meaning it might be more responsive to ordinary citizens. What we want is for the City's engineering specialists to, at long last, take pedestrian and bicycle needs seriously. Will the added political dimension accomplish this?

We'll pick up here next time.


Also today: Greg Nickels is out standing in his field (Newsweek).

Out on the Island

Here's the type of concern that reflects some of what I wrote about yesterday (There goes the old neighborhood, 4/5)--

Although Sound Transit officials might have outnumbered Mercer Island residents at Wednesday night's meeting about an Eastside light-rail proposal, the small group was vocal about discontent with the accessibility and effectiveness of a proposed boarding station.
. . .
"Once you put all your money into light rail, how do you get the people to the light rail?" asked Tom Donahue Sr., 69. "I want transit that moves people, not transit that makes people's hearts race just because it's a train."

Lucia Pirzio-Biroli, a second-generation Mercer Island resident, supports Sound Transit's efforts... But she echoed Donahue's accessibility concerns.

"Mercer Island is developing a dense downtown area and it [light rail] will serve it well," said Pirzio-Biroli. "My concern is that there is transit from the rest of the island and that the light rail doesn't just serve downtown. I think that's got to be part of the plan." Source

Hey Luddites, are these citizens "anti-rail" for asking these questions? Are they "transit bashers"? "Road warriors"? Tell me what is factually wrong about their understanding of service under the traditional rail concept.

There goes the old neighborhood

There are probably going to be howls about this from some doctrinaire, neo-Luddite quarters, but I'll go ahead and make the following statement.

I like trains.

I loved traveling on them when I was little (it was the late 60s, was that Amtrak?), and I was disappointed around 1970 when Seattle said No Thank You to the Forward Thrust rail system that eventually went to Atlanta. A few years ago I rode intercity trains in Europe, and I wouldn't have wanted to see the Continent any other way.

I also (here come the howls) don't object to the existence of Seattle's Central Link light rail. I have a problem with the cost, parts of the route, and a number of accompanying consequences. But it will function, and I certainly welcome the service it will provide to those who live and work near the stations. I predict it will have no trouble meeting its 45-50,000 per day rider projection -- in the first year it will probably beat that.

That said, I really feel badly for people like Jessie Jones:

Light rail is meant to bring redevelopment and prosperity to Seattle's Rainier Valley, but three years of construction has nearly ruined a small hair salon along the route.

Visions of Beauty has lost more than half its customers, predominantly African-American, since Sound Transit work crews arrived on Martin Luther King Jr. Way South (MLK) in 2004, according to owner Jessie Jones. She has cut hair there for 22 years.

Closed lanes and torn-up pavement have made her clients think twice about trying to get there. For a business already reeling from a decline in the neighborhood's black population, construction is making the challenge even tougher.

The shop used to open five days a week. Now, Jones cuts hair two days and works a second job. If the mortgage wasn't already paid off, Jones said, the salon would have folded.
. . .
To survive, she said she must "upscale" her salon, in an effort to entice new customers, including whites and Asians. She may repaint the brick-colored interior in bright white and maroon, replace the lighting and advertise more.
. . .
[Jones' son, Andrew Love] ...aspires to run the salon, remove some clutter in back and appreciate the follicular diversity coming his way.

"For us, it's just a matter to keep with it, to keep the lights on," he said. "I think things will get better, after light rail is finished." Source

Then there's Steve and Debbi Mullen:

At first, neighbors weren't so sure they wanted a Grocery Outlet store in their Madrona neighborhood. It smacked of cheap; they thought they wanted something more upscale.

Steve and Debbi Mullen, the husband-wife owners of the Madrona Grocery Outlet store, understood -- and were undaunted. While they invested in their local communities, supplying food for PTA barbecues, planning neighborhood celebrations, and donating money for Little Leagues, they kept educating increasing numbers of customers.

Then they took on another store -- in Rainier Valley -- that had seen sagging sales because of nearby light rail construction.

As the Mullens hoped, the locals began to embrace the concept of saving money on groceries and hundreds of other items not because they're of inferior quality, but because they are simply manufacturer overstocks.
. . .
"The store was doing really well under the previous owner -- customers were very loyal -- but then light rail construction started. It really hurt," Steve Mullen said, citing a 20 percent to 30 percent drop in sales.

When the previous owner decided to sell and retire, the Mullens were determined to turn the store around -- and hope to turn a profit when light rail is finished. The Mount Baker station is about 75 feet from the Rainier Grocery Outlet's front door.
. . .
"We're operating this store at zero profit to improve conditions. ... I didn't want this store to close," Steve Mullen said. "We had a store up the street that was doing very well, and the Rainier Valley store had strong customer loyalty and great potential. Once light rail is done, we think the area will revitalize really quickly." Source

This consequence -- the impact on existing neighborhoods -- is the biggest problem I have with light rail. Not so much the disruption of construction, assuming things return to normal afterward, as Andrew Love and the Mullens hope. But odds are they won't return to normal, because one of the selling points of light rail has always been the Transit Oriented Development (TOD) that comes along with it. Fine. I like the little urban villages, their little shops and cafés -- although I am long past tired of the repetitive, cookie-cutter deployment of corrugated metal + shingles (and sometimes brick) "Northwest Style" townhouse & condo clusters that are springing up everywhere like little bitter cress (shot-weed).

This would be a good time to mention that I have a special fondness for the North Beacon-Garlic Gulch-Mt. Baker area, because I grew up there.

I don't think merchants in the Valley were fully apprised of the complete implications of TOD. It means higher densities and therefore the potential of more customers, yes. But it also means higher land values, higher property taxes, and higher rents. For many retail businesses, already fragile, and those operating on narrow margins -- such as grocers -- TOD really should be TOR: Transit Oriented Redevelopment.

In some cases it means Better For Business, But We Didn't Mean Yours. Sound Transit has offered assistance to imperiled businesses to cope with disruption from construction -- but what about after that? Will the City step in with innovative zoning that could keep small-business rents affordable? Will design review be given teeth?

Certain howling Luddite stalkers are going to accuse me of "transit bashing." Is what I'm writing anti-rail (and why would rail care)? It would be, if I were advocating not completing Link, or stopping the construction and tearing it out. Jeez, that would be stupid. True, before the final-final decision was made to start the Link project I advocated for my preferred TRANSIT mode, automated peoplemovers, as well as pointing out the economic consequences. But that was the public decisionmaking process; that was neighborhood democracy. Seattle is going to have light rail, let's use it if we can, and enjoy it if we can (of course, the matters still remain of what we're going to do about congestion, and transit for areas outside the Link corridor -- people who are paying for Link but not getting a benefit).

So howl away, Luddites. I maintain that we must have realistic, civic-minded thinking. I'm looking beyond the mere acquisition of a sleek new train, and at long-term economic effects on real people.

Game 2

Tonight's Mariner game was again encouraging. The team displayed smart baserunning, and the ability to get hits down the stretch. The one weak link: Jarrod Washburn.

I've had this philosophy that of the five pitchers in your starting rotation, the guys in the 1 - 3 spots ought to be able to deliver their first times out. If your staff can't start the season at least 3-2, there's a problem.

The Ms are 2-0 so far, but not because of Washburn. He threw 104 pitches in a little over five innings before he was pulled, leaving with a 4-2 lead. But two of his four runs were unearned -- basically, he left with a 2-2 tie. Not good for a #2 starter.

Julio Mateo -- come on: 1 inning, 3 hits, 2 runs??? Almost Ayalaesque.

Fly away

I'm cautiously optimistic about the Mariners (as I am every year) after the way they went to town on the A's yesterday. Ichiro transitioned smoothly to center field; 12 Ks for Felix; Sexson stepped up the way he needs to. Plus, it was only the second-ever Opening Day shutout M's win, the other being Game 1 of 1995 -- and look what happened that year.

A good way to start the season.

One down note: this year's crop of Mariner TV spots are terrible! Time to put Copacino+Fujikado on the hot seat.

Different pages

Here's a good one from yesterday's "Getting There" column in the Post Intelligencer:

Question: Richard Eadie wants to know if the bus tunnel in downtown Seattle is on track to reopen in September.

Answer: Sound Transit spokesman Geof Patrick says work to reconfigure the tunnel to carry both buses and a light rail line is on schedule. The train tracks already have been installed, and crews are working on other things such as lighting.

Metro Deputy General Manager Jim Jacobson said the bus agency and the city plan to keep the traffic plan for the tunnel closure in effect for at least a year... the city and Metro want to continue evaluating them, given that work on the viaduct -- regardless of which option is chosen -- is expected to snarl downtown traffic.
Source

But there was this April 1 post by Roger Pence in the Balanced Transportation for Seattle group:

As rail traffic increases in the downtown transit tunnel, bus traffic will decrease. The buses will go upstairs. As we have seen over the last 18 months, that should not have a negative effect on surface traffic
Source

Last I heard, Pence is a Sound Transit community outreach staffer. Left hand, meet right hand. Why exactly is Sound Transit resisting the regional transportation commission bill? Maybe ST and Metro (and Pence and Patrick) ought to share notes; a lot of unpleasantness, as well as SB-5803, could be avoided.