Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, May 18, 2009

Mr. Carlyle Goes to Olympia

Posted by on Mon, May 18, 2009 at 9:07 AM

I had a chance to sit down with rookie Seattle Rep. Reuven Carlyle (D-36) a couple of days ago and get his assessment of his first session in Olympia. (Carlyle, whom the Stranger endorsed, defeated latte tax promoter John Burbank in 2008).

Carlyle, an youthful 43-year-old with gray hair and a somewhat hyperactive manner, told me this year's legislative session had "an unbelievable intensity to it" thanks to the $8 billion state budget deficit. "We took the federal stimulus money and backfilled the budget, but that’s onetime money," Carlyle says. "There is just a cold, hard reality that we don’t have enough money to pay for everything. In two years, if the economy doesn’t pick up it’s going to be a big problem."

Nonetheless, Carlyle said, he was proud of several accomplishments, including a new $20 fee on real estate transactions that will raise $26 million a year for programs that combat homelessness; a $1 million appropriation for energy efficiency at McClure Middle School on top of Queen Anne, where he lives ("Hey, I'm not above a little good, old-fashioned pork"); increasing the number of children who are eligible for foster care; and passing the controversial education reform bill, supported by House Republicans and opposed by the Washington Education Association, that defines the "core 24" credits Washington State public high-school students must get to graduate as the foundation of "basic education," the state's "paramount priority" under Washington's constitution.

"The state constitution says education is the paramount responsibility of the state. But there’s no definition of basic education, so the legislature can do this shuck and jive move about how education gets funded," Carlyle said. "This bill formally defines basic education." When I noted that the Washington Education Association considered the new standards an "unfunded mandate," Carlyle said, "That's not a good argument." Although he agrees that Washington State schools are underfunded, "probably by about $2 to $3 billion" a year, Carlyle argues that the state won't be able to convince voters to increase education funding until it has concrete standards. "The public is not going to take a $2 to $3 billion increase in taxes without some sense of outcomes." Asked when the state might be able to come in and backfill that shortfall in education funding, Carlyle said, it could be several years. "Over the next four to five years, as economic growth happens, we need to begin to migrate toward a reemphasis on education," he said.

Carlyle also defended another controversial vote, this one opposing an expansion of the state's unemployment insurance program (which ultimately failed). He said he opposed expending unemployment benefits because the proposal didn't include an exemption for small businesses, which provide 90 percent of jobs in his district. "I ran the numbers, I called around, and I looked at the impact on small businesses and I found it was very substantial--thousands of dollars a year," Carlyle said. "To slap down a small business as if they’re laying off someone because they’re just in a bad mood, when they’re, in fact, going under—for $8 a week more [for laid-off workers]—is just not acceptable."

When Carlyle and I talked, it was just one day after Gov. Christine Gregoire held a ceremony to sign legislation approving the deep-bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct. Carlyle, it turns out, turned out to support the deep-bore tunnel despite an amendment putting Seattle property owners on the hook for any cost overruns. Carlyle said that according to legal experts he's talked to, " it’s a very open legal question if [the amendment is] enforceable." He added: "The actual amendment is very poorly written. You could argue, for example, that the people of Gig Harbor should have to pay for overruns because they would benefit by increased international traffic to the Port. ... We will not be hung out to dry," he predicted.

I then asked Carlyle a question I thought was way down the rabbit hole—what did he think of the city's decision to delay a planned bike lane on Nickerson Ave. NW, purportedly because of concerns about the traffic impact of the viaduct replacement? To my surprise, Carlyle said he had been the architect of that decision. "I asked the city to put a hold on the bike lane on Nickerson," Carlyle said. "To do that bike path now, before they did an analysis of the impact on traffic from Nickerson to Alaskan Way—at the same time as they’re asking the public and trucks to use Nickerson as an arterial—makes no sense." In a letter to Carlyle and Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson (D-36), Mayor Greg Nickels committed to provide for "the efficient movement of traffic" along Nickerson—effectively scuttling the bike lane unless the city can ensure it won't slow down car and truck traffic along that arterial.

Carlyle also defended his vote to increase tuition at state universities, on the grounds that failing to increase tuition would have resulted in "massive cuts to higher education." Carlyle said he favors a "high tuition, high aid approach" to funding higher education—higher tuition for students who can afford it, but more grants for students who can't, along the lines of Obama's Pell Grant increases.

Asked about his disappointments during the session, Carlyle mentioned three: a failure to fix Metro's suburb-centric funding formula (which provides just 20 percent of new bus service to Seattle), the death of the environmental community's agenda (which, in Carlyle's word, got "crushed") and the general resistance to change in Olympia. "The addiction of Olympia to bureaucracy and the resistance to any kind of systems change is mind-boggling," Carlyle says. "What we need in Washington State is a Nixon-goes-to-China approach to government. ... We don’t have a sense of courageous honesty. That’s where I get frustrated."

 

Comments (12) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Carlyle had me going there until the Nickerson thing. I'm hoping he can show cyclists and pedestrians that he cares about their safety (and for mobility in general) in the next year-and-a-half before he loses my vote next time...
Posted by too bad on May 18, 2009 at 9:27 AM
giffy 2
@1 I for one am glad he is putting the interests of 97% of commuters ahead of those of the other 3%.

I am for bike lanes, though I sure as hell won't ever use them, but not when they will cause problems on a major roadway right when it is needed the most.
Posted by giffy on May 18, 2009 at 9:37 AM
rtm 3
Courageous honesty is supporting a multi-billion dollar tunnel because you don't think the state can make the overruns stick on us? That is the very definition of business as usual duplicity.
Posted by rtm on May 18, 2009 at 10:16 AM
Will in Seattle 4
To bad all the corporate tax exemptions are still there.

Sorry, color me cynical.
Posted by Will in Seattle http://www.facebook.com/WillSeattle on May 18, 2009 at 11:21 AM
5
Isn't there a parallel bike path with NO CARS on it right on the ship canal....

Posted by PC on May 18, 2009 at 11:35 AM
6
@2: With that kind of planning for transportation issues (i.e., nobody bikes now, so why invest in it???) we will never be able to change how folks get around to modes that are more equitable, affordable, healthy, and environmentally friendly. Believe it or not, transportation patterns can change and if we choose to, we can plan to better diversify our transportation network so that bicycles and walking aren't part of the entire equation.

Also, the Nickerson project was more about pedestrian safety than bicycle safety. There's a university and a four-lane roadway isn't amenable to people crossing the street safely. Much of the Nickerson project was meant to make safer street crossings.

@5: No, the Ship Canal Trail currently dead ends. Regardless, bike paths that are isolated along the Ship Canal aren't going to help people that actually need to use Nickerson, or associated side streets. Just as cars need an effective and interconnected grid to get around, so do bicycles. When complete the Ship Canal Trail will be a nice resource, but it won't work for everyone.
Posted by too bad on May 18, 2009 at 11:53 AM
giffy 7
@6 I am fine with investments in bike infrastructure. Its not my thing, but I can see the use. However when it comes down to it reducing capacity on a roadway that may serve a major highway is not the best way to do that. From what I gather they are going to give it some more study in light of the viaduct decision and will still do some of the improvements once they figure out the impact.

Not to mention that pissing off the majority that drives is not the best way to get support for bike infrastructure. Its the same reason that massholes set back efforts to improve bicycle access.

But to be honest I don't ever really see more then maybe 10-15% using bikes in any regular sort of way. What we really need is a street car network linked up with an expanded light and heavy rail system augmented with buses.
Posted by giffy on May 18, 2009 at 12:07 PM
8
@7: We're on the same page. I'll only bring up one issue with you: modelling shows the rechannelization on Nickerson could possibly improve capacity because it will dedicate a turnlane so that there's not so much chaos with middle lane left turns. It seems counterintuitive, but it's been proven to work on a number of streets (here comes the haters on the 50th st rechannelization!), and it's made them better for pedestrians and bikes.

10-15% is a lot of bikes and a lot less people in cars (which would make your drive a lot more congestion free). The beauty of improving bicycle infrastructure is that you get a lot for your money. Portland has increased its share of bikes to over 10% with an investment of about $150 million. That's a lot of bank for what equates to less than one mile of Sound Transit light rail (or about two SLUTs). The point is that since governments are tight on cash, bicycling is a great investment to make to help ease the strain on our tired transportation system with minimal cost to taxpayers.

Point is that oftentimes we're really focused on rail and bus solutions (both are great), but a really great alternative (bicycling and walking) is sitting there under our nose at a fraction of the cost.
Posted by too bad on May 18, 2009 at 12:32 PM
9
The notion that "rechannelization" (ie - removing lanes) from streets enhances capacity is utter bullshit. The reconfiguation of NE 50th has been an unmitigated disaster for traffic, particularly eastbound.

Rather than reducing capacity by creating a dedicated turn lane, the City ought to be increasing it by using left turn arrows at intersections (which, incidentally, would also be a lot safer for bicyclists).

Despite the City's best efforts, bicycling has remained flat at 2.5% of work trips since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1994.

Posted by Mr. X on May 18, 2009 at 1:57 PM
10
The notion that there's a university therefore you should not have a four lane road is lame. That's like saying in any city there should only be two lane roadways because there's people walking there. Eliminating the lanes to create a center turn lane seems dumb; what "chaos" is there, people running into left turners? I've never seen it. The point is not whether there shouldn't be more money in bike investments in general. There should. Like -- completing that trail. The point is whether this specific change is good or not. For me, having cyclists be 1-2 blocks away on a compelted car free path is more pro bike than channeling cyclists into Nickerson where they will find traffic, car doors opening, ped crossings, cars turning left and right, driveways coming onto roadway, roadway glass and grit and potholes, etc. the overall point is to actually address pro and con effects of every change -- taking lanes away from cars does affect mobility, too -- not just be knee jerky by contending any opposition to a specific decision comes from an anti bike stance.
Posted by PC on May 18, 2009 at 2:05 PM
Chk_It 11
I am sooo confused; how does a new tunnel which ends at the SAME place the as the old broad street tunnel impact a street with no reasonable connection? And if we are leaving the Viaduct in place (barring any immediate collapse) why would traffic flow be any different in the next two years as it is today? Does the new tunnel include some sort of sky bridge exit from the Aurora Bridge, or equally mind boggling crossover/under exit from 99 North before the bridge?
Posted by Chk_It on May 18, 2009 at 3:26 PM
SchmuckyTheCat 12
If he wants to make Unemployment Insurance an easier burden on small businesses, he should force the big businesses to pony up a fair share.

Big Agriculture and High Tech both have massive addictions to temporary labor. When they don't need that labor, UI kicks in. If an ag worker, or high tech dash trash don't work for 100 days a year as an expected part of their salary cycle, then the state UI is contributing 10-12% of their annual salary.

Do agriculture and high tech pay higher premiums into the state pool?
Posted by SchmuckyTheCat on May 18, 2009 at 4:03 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy