Andy Boyer

Last week, when I received my weekly Nick Licata newsletter inviting me to attend a city council meeting in which he would attempt to derail the Mercer Project, I nearly jumped out of my seat in glee.  The enemy I have never met, mere months after successfully evicting the Sonics from Seattle's consciousness, now wanted to scuttle a project on a road I drive almost every day.  

It went straight into my calendar, and I cleared my entire slate before and after.  What would I wear?  How early should I get there?  Would there people to hang out with afterwards?  I was looking forward to this as if Reckless Kelly was coming to town.

I made it to City Hall in plenty of time to enjoy the fine array of cheese and crackers expertly chosen by someone in the QFC Deli.  The room was much nicer than I expected, kind of a smaller version of the Benaroya Hall Lobby, but with about 20-25 circular tables.  I looked for a table where  the smell of pituly would be the most faint, and took a seat.

There were handouts and displays, and I read them carefully, since after all, I wanted to make sure I evaluated this with an open mind before rushing home to blast the honorable Councilman.  The argument for the night's meeting came down to this.  Nick Licata wanted to take money that had already been passed by the City Council for the Mercer Project (which eliminates the so-called "Mercer Weave" off of I-5) and move that money to build some sidewalks.  Each group presented handouts supporting their cause.  One of the most damaging tables showed that with the new Mercer Project, traffic time eastbound on Mercer would actually INCREASE by 8 minutes.  I thought to myself, "Wow, that's pretty damaging.  I'm sure the Seattle DOT has a good piece of evidence to refute that."

Then I noticed, that data came FROM the Seattle DOT.  That was known data.  Their actual plan was to spend $200 Million total, $43 Million from this budget, to INCREASE traffic times on the one road that connects North Downtown to I-5.

I found myself in the horrifying position that Nick Licata could be right.  In an 8-1 vote for this project, he was the 1. And here it was, clear as day.  Spending money to increase traffic time.

Then Licata got up and explained where that $43 Million SHOULD go instead.  Sidewalks in North Seattle.  In neighborhoods I would never visit.  Insane.  As evidence, he showed pictures of school kids waiting for the bus on a street without a sidewalk.  $43 Million would fix a few of these sidewalks.   My initial thought was that for $10,000 we could log on to Google Maps, hire an intern from the UW Civil Planning Department to figure out a better place for the bus to stop, and still have $42.99 Million bucks to play with. 

The head of the SDOT got to speak next, and she gave an impassioned plea about how silly it was to do the weave.  Yet incredibly, she did not address the issue of it taking more time to drive eastbound.  Everyone seemed concerned with "Connecting neighborhoods."

Then all the civic groups got to speak.  This was painful.  It was like the entire Nick Licata campaign committee had assumed new identities and brought up pre-written speeches.  People like the Vice-Treasurer of the Transportation Committee of Magnolia Senior Citizen Brigade, the head of the North Aurora Avenue Small Business Association, and something called Feet first, who apparently think we should all ride or walk to work.  They all had the same thing to say: "Money spent on increasing traffic = Bad.  Money for sidewalks in my neighborhood = Good."

The only people who seemed to support the Mercer Project were the people who lived in South Lake Union who liked the park and road beautification (and incidentally wouldn't actually ever have to drive on Mercer for more than a block) and the Seattle City Council, 3 of whom got up to explain why it was a good idea to slow down traffic down the corridor, since at some point we were going to have to shut down 99 and we couldn't have both projects going on at the same time.   I can't even come up with an analogy for this.  The only one who made even a slightly convincing argument looked mysteriously like Bill Bavasi, and if he had said he wanted to spend the $43 million on a 4 year contract for a couple of light posts that were really really bright last year, I would have sworn it was him.

So what is the end result?  Nick Licata might be right - The Mercer Project certainly seems foolish.  But what's even more foolish is that this thing has been voted on like 3 or 4 times, and keeps passing, yet never gets going.  The Sidewalk project is just the latest diversion that shows how the Seattle Political Process can go astray.  The equivalent of a spoiled brat not getting to go to McDonald's and refusing get in the car so the family could get  to dinner at Pizza Hut.   It sounds like discussions will continue, and no progress will be made on anything.

It's one of the few times I've been in a room and everyone has been wrong.   Spending money to slow down traffic is like me spending money to buy a car that will break down more.  Spending that money on sidewalks is like me buying 43 pairs of shoes.  I'm no city planner, and apparently no one on the Mercer Project is either, but maybe they could work on a proposal that actually helped traffic flow and beautified the neighborhood.  Surely this is not the only city in the world that has had to figure out how to increase the number of lanes in and out of downtown. (And btw, why doesn't anyone ask why they didn't build sidewalks on those roads up north in the first place?)

I left the meeting dumbfounded, amused, sad, and completely understanding how the U.S. Congress could make such wacky decisions, given that City Councils can do no better on a much smaller scale.  If you think you like to argue politics, and the way the world should work, I urge you to attend one of these meetings in the future to see how the wheels of motion get ground to a halt.