Gov. Gregoire Wants to Railroad New 520, But Without Rail

The Coalition for a Sustainable 520--with representatives of the Sierra Club and Cascade Bicycle Club, House Speaker Frank Chopp, Sen. Ed Murray, Rep. Jamie Pedersen, Councilmembers Mike O’Brien and Nick Licata, Mayor Mike McGinn--met this morning [Seattle Channel video] on a populist impulse that is not immediately clear, given that they told Publicola there's little hope of their gathering being heeded in Olympia.

Their primary request is that two of the six lanes be reserved for transit, preferably light rail. In the A+ design for 520's replacement, two lanes are reserved as HOV. Montlake doesn't want more cars, and in fact the group has a poll (who doesn't, though, really?) showing 69 percent of Seattle supports light rail on 520. (Seattle Transit Blog has a roundup of who wants what.)

They already have evidence of pushback, though, in a response from Gov. Chris Gregoire, says the Seattlepi.com. Her letter back to the City Council [pdf], who meekly asked for time to make design adjustments, brooks no hesitation:

Changing the configuration now would require a new environmental process. The office of the Attorney General tells us that revisiting these decisions from several years ago would set the project back at least 18 to 24 months. Our commitment to ensuring public safety does not allow that kind of delay.

That's at least a 13-year-long commitment to acting with all due urgency at some point in the future. When the governor says she's acting on behalf of public safety, you can take her at her word. That's why the Viaduct will be torn down in 2012. (What? 2016? Four more years!)

Gov. Gregoire is joined by car lobbyist Rep. Judy Clibborn in insisting that an environmental review of a change good for the environment would take too long, though in Clibborn's account it could take two years or more, there is no money for rail, and delay will cost money and jobs.

I get a little fatigued with the blatant inconsistency--on one hand, changing the usage of two lanes on 520 would demand a two-year EIS. On the other, the state is being sued over its one-size-fits-all handling of the EIS process for the Viaduct. (WSDOT will spend between $4 to $6 million selecting a tunnel-builder before the environmental review of all replacement options is complete--the supplemental DEIS for the deep-bore design is due sometime this month, and the final would appear in spring of 2011.)

And, bottom line, making a bad decision at the end of thirteen years is just adding a huge delay to a bad decision. It would be heartening if instead of trying to paper over or steamroll significant opposition, our governor would instead turn her attention to solutions that attract majority support, and redesign government processes for optimal speed, rather than use them as an excuse for blundering ahead.