Fall 2003 - Interstate 5 - Lighten the Load

Fall 2003 - Interstate 5

Lighten the Load
by Laurie Ballew

Constance Miller steps onto her front porch and sees a block of vacant houses: windows patched with plywood, dry lawns, No Trespassing signs posted over doorbells. She sips her morning coffee to the hammer and bang of construction.

"We’ve been lied to. We were told we wouldn’t see it, wouldn’t hear it. Well, hell, now it’s in my front yard," said Miller, a Beacon Hill resident who lives across from a light rail station building site.

In 1996, voters in Pierce, King and Snohomish counties approved a 10-year regional transit plan that included light rail — an electrical train system that can operate at ground level, on elevated tracks or underground. Even though the project promises a more convenient commute for some, unexpected cost increases and unwanted neighborhood impacts have brought criticism from others.

On Oct. 23, 2003, the Federal Transit Administration issued the $500 million grant that Sound Transit, the agency working on the Link Light Rail project, had been waiting for to begin major construction.

The original plan for a 21-mile route from Seattle’s University District to Sea-Tac International Airport proved to be unattainable and the route was shortened to the 14-mile "Central Link" from downtown Seattle to Tukwila. The original price for this section was $1.7 billion and construction was supposed to be completed in 2006. But because of difficulties with property acquisition and construction complications, the current projection cost is $2.44 billion and completion is planned for 2009. Along with the shortening and cost overruns, the ST board itself has changed.

"(The Board) was totally revamped," said Lee Summerstein, a spokesperson for ST. "It now has a highly engaged activist board and is probably the most scrutinized agency in the state."

The result is a better agency and better project, Summerstein said.

"As with any public project," said Scott Rutherford, chair of the Civil and Environmental Engineering Department at the University of Washington, "there are a lot of winners, and they don’t win very much. … The people who benefit don’t benefit enough to be passionate about it. Then, there are a few losers, and they lose a lot."

While light rail will benefit commuters, it will not be a cure-all for the region’s traffic problems, said Richard Borkowski from People for Modern Transit. The most commonly voiced concern is that despite its expense, light rail will not relieve congestion.

Proponents of light rail, such as Borkowski, however, argue that congestion relief is not the goal of light rail.

Rather, the benefit of light rail is that it offers a reliable and affordable alternative to Interstate 5’s congestion. Borkowski gave the following comparison: "(It) is like putting a pipe in a river. Both the pipe and the river carry water, but the water in the pipe flows independently from the river, which is analogous to light rail operating on its separate right-of-way. The water in the pipe will always be free-flowing, while the water in the river is subject to log jams and other congestion.

"The purpose of the pipe is not to reduce the volume of the river any more than the purpose of light rail is to empty the freeway of cars," Borkowski said.

If the river could be emptied it would fill again, just as cars would fill I-5, he said.

The crux of transportation projects is the inevitable disruption on some communities. Colleen Brown voted for the rail in 1996, happy something was finally being done about the region’s transportation problems — the fourth worst in the country, according to ST. Two years later, in an elevator, a coworker informed Brown that her house was on the proposed rail route.

Since then, Brown has been an active member of Save Our Valley, a group that wants the rail routed through a tunnel instead of running on street level through the Rainier Valley neighborhood. A tunnel would be safer, Brown said. Also, displacement of houses and businesses, along with other disruptive impacts on the community, would be minimal.

Rainier Valley, where Brown has lived for 23 years, is the most ethnically diverse neighborhood in Seattle, according to ST. Cambodian, Nigerian, African-American, Egyptian, white-American and Irish families all live on Brown’s street. Also, the majority of Rainier Valley’s population is low-income and public transit-dependent, according to ST.

Because land is relatively inexpensive in Rainier Valley, Brown said it was most cost-efficient for ST not to tunnel, but to build street level.

"We were a sacrificial lamb," Brown said. "[ST] was balancing their budget on the backs of people too busy and too poor to oppose them."

Businesses along Martin Luther King Way will be condemned to make room for the rail and stations. At a recent community meeting where 300 businesses were represented, Brown said ST only had 25 relocation spots to offer.

"[ST] looks like they don’t care," business owner Du Luong said. "They told me they were looking for property. They said they’d offer me a loan, but they haven’t followed through. And they still want me to move."

To mitigate the effects of light rail, ST has created the $50 million Rainier Valley Community Development Fund. Through the fund, businesses might be eligible to receive aid to relocate. According to ST, the money will also be used to increase transit ridership, develop transit-oriented communities and promote economic enhancement.

Transportation projects do cause displacement. Hundreds of farmlands and homes were plowed through to construct I-5, which is now one of the most heavily used freeways in the country, Rutherford said.

Alan Bernahl, a West Seattle resident for 27 years, has seen traffic progressively worsen.

"I don’t know that (light rail) is 100 percent the right thing to do, but I do believe we have to do something," Bernahl said.
One population that will benefit from light rail is the University of Washington campus. Rutherford said UW wants to increase its enrollment by 8,000 students every ten years. Because of limited parking, however, the only way to expand is via efficient public transit. ST and UW officials are planning the best way to connect the rail to the university.

Residents such as Bernahl, who lives near a proposed route, will also benefit. He is eager to reduce his commute. Even if light rail serves primarily those who live six to eight blocks away, it would be worth it, he said. It currently takes him 25 to 30 minutes to get downtown. With light rail, the trip would be 10 to 12 minutes, and he would not have to worry about parking.

If the ridership for Link Light Rail corresponds to the recent counts for another of ST’s projects, the Sounder commuter train, then ST will probably meet or exceed its projection of serving 24,500 people by 2020.

Offering service between Tacoma and Seattle, the Sounder operates only on weekdays during peak travel times. The train whistles by his workplace each evening and Borkowski says the Sounder is always full, and ridership has surpassed ST’s expected numbers.

Because of increased expenses, the initial segment of Link Light Rail will be different from what voters approved in 1996.

Yet, it will still have the potential to help commuters weary of Seattle’s traffic.

Unfortunately, public projects often go hand-in-hand with stepping on someone’s toes.

For 23 years, Janet Ko’s family has owned the South China Restaurant near Rainier Valley. Miller, who lives down the road, said South China has been a neighborhood place to meet for dinner and a beer for years.

"You know, what can you do?" Ko said. "We can’t sit here and cry over it. We’ve got to just hurry and set up another place."

Meanwhile, Miller will continue to drink her morning coffee and watch her street transform.

"It’s very disruptive, but that’s the nature of progress, I guess," she said.