Constantine & Phillips: House transportation budget reneges on voter-approved light rail plan
UPDATE:
King County Councilmember Dow Constantine has released the following statement:
Constantine: House transportation budget should keep promise to light-rail voters
State lawmakers must deliver I-90 Bridge funding or risk delaying rail extension to Eastside
“As I stated in this morning’s Seattle Times, the legislature needs to revisit its decision to not include the promised $29 million in funding to help Sound Transit build light rail across the I-90 Bridge. The state Senate and House of Representatives’ versions of the transportation budget—which will be the subject of an important committee vote today—both omit this key funding.
“Voters in the three-county Sound Transit service area overwhelmingly approved funding in November for a light rail line between Seattle and the Eastside, in part based on the state’s funding pledge.
“Delays in the construction of bridge modifications could increase project costs and block the light rail line from being completed on time.
“The state needs to keep its promises to voters in the Puget Sound region and deliver this key funding immediately.
“As I told the Seattle Times: ‘Taxpayers own this structure, and the same taxpayers voted for light rail.’”
King County Councilmember Larry Phillips has released the following statement:
State threatens to delay light rail, withhold funding for key transit projects
“The Washington State House of Representatives transportation budget is out of touch with the priorities of regional voters who five months ago overwhelmingly supported building light rail between Seattle, Bellevue and Redmond.
“While the people of this region are eager to move forward with building light rail and leave behind the endless debating and delays of the past, legislators continue to throw up roadblocks that thwart the will of voters and delay light rail.
“It is unacceptable that the House budget includes a proviso that prevents the state from signing the East Link light rail environmental impact statement or negotiating with Sound Transit over use of the I-90 center roadway for light rail. This proviso must be removed, and light rail must be allowed to move forward without delays that drive up costs and keep commuters stuck in traffic.
“The House transportation budget also fails to keep the state’s commitment to fund its share of two-way HOV lanes on I-90, which are necessary to move forward with light rail. Further, the House’s transportation budget skips over Regional Mobility Grant funding for Sound Transit, even though Sound Transit had three of the five highest-rated projects in the state.
“It’s time for state legislators to wake up to the will of the people and make a real commitment to transit funding.”
Print This Article
Posted by Admin on Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Filed under Headlines · Tagged with Sound Transit, State, Transportation
Print This Article
Related Stories:
|
|
|
|
|
Though I like light rail transit in principle, it isn’t coming to Kirkland, and I don’t even think it will get to Bellevue as soon as they have planned. Tomorrow, our sales tax goes up another 0.5%, and we don’t even have a Sound Transit express bus to downtown Seattle for all of our contributions. According to the Final Report of the 520 Tolling Implementation Committee, users of I-90 don’t want to pay tolls to help pay for a new 520. However, to quote from that report: “Support [for tolling I-90] increases among I-90 users if toll revenue is used for I-90 improvements.” So perhaps this will swing some of the negative opinions.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
There are a lot of public projects that are manipulated in order to get the necessary votes and more importantly, funding. Seattle and King County did not want to fund the RTA alone even though they would receive the greatest benefit, or the stadiums, or the new sewer treatment plant in Bothell, or Seattle’s failure to separate sewer drainage from the storm water that pollutes the Sound. Now Seattle has a train but we on the eastside do not.
To even come close to funding the RTA and other projects, benefits were promised to Snohomish County, Pierce County, and the eastside cities. They lied. Now we are paying for overruns that do not benefit the citizens of Kirkland.
Kirkland is considering annexing the PAA. It wants more power at regional meetings. While it is true that if the PAA were annexed, Kirkland would have more clout. Therein lies the problem. We are sending elected officials to regional meetings that do not put Kirkland first. You can be assured that Councilmembers Sternoff, McBride, and Burleigh will promise what ever it takes to annex the PAA.
I contend our participation in regional affairs has resulted in us giving up more than what we have received. Until we change who we send to regional meetings, annexation would make it worse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0