Pros And Cons Of Light Rail: The Future Of Transportation

Government has indeed failed its citizens in multiple cities across our nation as well as abroad. The occurrences of bus and rail service frequencies while raising passenger fares, is far too often. This can be attributed to the really low ridership about 20 years ago. With the low ridership, transit across the US was operating with sizeable deficit in 1997. At this time, $19 billion was spent while only $10.6 billion in revenues was acquired. It has been shown by Prickell and Lee that government attests to special interests and not commuters (Winston, 2000). Federal monies went predominantly to transportation employees and transportation equipment suppliers (75%) and the remaining quarter to actually improve systems and obtain affordability

for passengers. Policymakers have a problem that grossly underestimated project costs creating terrible delays and overruns. Some deregulation of transit and providing incentives would allow transit operators to make the necessary revenue while providing effective services. The competition between the operators would be heightened too. Seattle needs to consider alternative options to ensure the general public that projects will be carried out in a timely and safe fashion. In turn, they have not done their part to do so because of their own interests.
Another concern for many people is the increase cost of living attributed to the large levy. The Seattle Metropolitan is already a pricey place to reside and with the rise of property taxes, it is going to become even more so. The levy will affect every citizen, but the lower income and working class individuals and families in addition to the elderly population, will be the hardest hit groups. Hence, the widening of the aerial socioeconomic gap. Renters are also faced with the inevitable. The city claims those property taxes would be approximately $145 extra a year on a $450,000 home. However, Bob Pishue has said that the median home value (according to Zillow) in Seattle is $508,000 and this median would equate to $315 in additional property taxes. Ironically, Mayor Murray expressed that Seattle is in “the worst housing affordability crises in decades.” This exhibits that city government seemingly has a misunderstanding with regards to the socioeconomic inequities their plan causes or worsens. Similarly to the previous ‘Bridging the Gap’ levy, many will face the difficult repercussions from a deal that will conclusively rip them off.
Public transportation has a responsibility to provide its citizens with reliable methods to commute and simultaneously addressing social and economic inequities. According to the United Nations and World Bank, socially sustainable transportation must allow persons “access to markets, employment, education, and basic services.” Moreover, such transportation must reach levels of social and economic progress for all. The Chicago Plan was one of the more notable plans that addressed all three components of sustainability. However, most do not acknowledge the social attribute. ‘Move Seattle’ unfortunately committed the same misstep. Since it caters to mostly middle and upper income people, it would create further stratification. Many North American cities including Baltimore, Boston, Montréal, and San Diego collaborated their respective transportation plans that would have created access for all and improve overall quality of life. These plans did not reach their intended goals because leaders did not specify their calls to action to ensure consistency and measures of progress. Seattle needs to revise their plan to entail social justice for all community members while balancing other factors and integrity of the area.
Furthermore, ‘Move Seattle’ is not inclusive and left out many considerations. Major Seattle neighborhoods including Greenlake, Lake City, Wallingford, and West Seattle would pay into the levy and not a single sizeable project is on the agenda to address transit, pedestrian, or cyclist issues. The responses of only 8,000 individuals solicited by the city were simple and unrelated to actual projects due to the ambiguous nature in which questions were asked. For example, the Rainier Avenue project was added to the list because of a horrific accident that occurred. Yet, when recommendations for the Aurora Avenue Bridge were turned down by the city and state respectively, frequent and terrible incidents have not changed the minds of most of the city council. In September, the Aurora Bridge had a massive accident that was fatal and involved a Ride the Ducks Boat (tourist vehicle) and charter bus. Only then did the city take serious notice of the problems and consider future changes.
A way to expand the traditional methods of gathering responses, Seattle should have strongly recognized the great number whom utilize the internet. There was no campaign to reach the potential intellect of those residing in the city. Known too as “collective intelligence,” crowdsourcing was proven to be an effective method of reaching members of the community in Salt Lake City, Utah in cooperation with the US Federal Transit Administration. The Next Stop Design program used crowdsourcing to gather opinions and ideas from a vast array of people for a new bus station in Salt Lake City. Once they gathered registrations, designs were submitted and voted on. The most popular three were selected finalists. There was a problem with fraudulent votes associated with fraudulent accounts, but this was a correctable problem to help legitimize the results. The winner was primarily recognized online and there were no cash prizes or any other prizes. City leaders should also consider the roots of their participation program that helped the city and people alike to create a dialogue between parties. This process should have been used to engage valued participation from the public to gain new ideas.
Interestingly, Mayor Murray’s plan is not representative of Mother Nature. Another important part of any plan, the ecology of a place requires a thorough examination for productive and healthy results. The Greater Seattle area is built out and not with adequate respects to nature. Known for its progressive atmosphere, Seattle has considerably built infrastructure catering to private vehicle owners. This goes against one of the ten practices to emphasize alternative transportation. It reiterates the need for integral modes with sustainable development. During the process, modern technology is also incredibly important for development itself. This was due in part to voters reject measures in 1968 and 1970 to construct a fully functional subway system - $900 million (now $5 billion) offered from the federal government to fund the construction. That money went to Atlanta in which developed the MARTA system.
Detroit had a story unfold for them back in the 1960s and 1970s. They faced issues with huge federal funding, but lack of important values were to its demise. Only now are they getting a second chance to reestablish a regional transit system with federal funding. In 2009, they brought a new plan to the table that made citizens excited for a new wave, but the super total of $10.5 billion was not so appetizing. With several attempts for the city of Detroit, Wayne County, and neighboring Oakland County, the federal rescinded their offers to fund a new system in 2011 citing concerns about the lack organization and leadership in regards to a newly create a regional transit authority and financial commitments. Seattle must change their ways in order achieve any federal funding they may receive. This will help ease a heavily tax-burdened area expand their transit.
Light rail is planning expansion.

However, the plans are not cohesive and may not give the Puget Sound the return on their huge investment. Both Houston and Washington D.C. have a few ideas that Seattle could benefit from. In Seattle, most of the Sounder trains are on a separate infrastructure than roads. With the looming expansion though, the Eastside will be getting light rail in addition the south end on some roads. Houston implemented their relatively small, but efficient light rail system in 2002 after 30 years of debates and votes. The system provides unique lights to allow light rail to meander through city centre without causing major disruptions to their routes and traffic congestion. With the NP component of light rail in play, commute times have dropped for almost every route. It is the most involved light rail system in the US. Light rail is the best stimulant for transit-oriented development. It integrates the suburbs and other surrounding communities with the urban core the best. It provides a much cleaner alternative which increases public health. Most effectively built rail systems can generate up to 400% more ridership. The initial might be steep, but the ‘Move Seattle’ campaign should focus on light rail as much as buses. The nation’s capital is now bargaining with developers to contribute toward the building of new transit centres. It will take more than just upfront costs, but monies to maintain the system. Metro has faced serious technical issues which prohibits efficiency and ultimately contributed to their first ever system wide refund not so long ago. It will always cost money, but the city should not allow developers to accommodate more cars because of their high density

buildings.
The city and its respective departments, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, and Cascade Bicycle Club are in favor of the levy. It promotes growth, greenspaces, encouraging bicycling, and helps Seattle progress with their existing transit. Others organizations including the League of Women Voters Seattle – King County, The Seattle Times, and Seattle Post-Intelligencer are against the levy because of the aforementioned reasons.
The Emerald City has a huge opportunity to stand up against government officials and contractors. Seattleites need a better deal, this is not the one. A revised ‘Move Seattle’ will have a great chance to make the area more livable because of better mass transit. It not simple and contains many facets that affect different groups of people and need to be thoroughly considered. I believe a progressive such as Seattle should bring a whole new level of sustainability to the US. Transportation is important and would like to see responsible decision making on the behalf the city and its people.