Ben Schiendelman writes for Seattle Transit Blog and actively participates in Seattle transportation politics.
Last July, a volunteer from Streets For All Seattle, a coalition working on the cityâs transportation infrastructure investments, asked the Greenlake Community Council (GLCC) to support their goal of making walking, bicycling, and transit the easiest ways to get around Seattle. It was part of the group's vision to raise $30 million in new, dedicated annual revenue for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit infrastructure. The GLCC voted 25-5 in favor of endorsing these goals.
So why is the chair of the GLCC, Michael Cornell, now spreading the myth that thereâs a "war on cars" and attempting to advance an agenda that contradicts the organization he was elected to represent?
Of course, like nearly every other Seattle neighborhood, Greenlakeâs neighborhood plan contains the goals of âsignificantly improving public transitâ and âmaking walking and biking safer and easier.â These goals were developed like all of Seattleâs neighborhood plansâthrough a lot of meetingsâand they reflect the values of our neighborhoods and our city. Cornell attended the meetings and witnessed firsthand the overwhelming support this vision of Seattle. And one would assume that heâs familiar with Greenlakeâs neighborhood plan.
Yet, at a GLCC meeting this Januaryâand Iâm paraphrasing hereâthe Community Council Chair introduced Tom Rasmussen, Chair of the Seattle City Councilâs Transportation Committee as, âthe man involved in the war on cars. â But I'm not paraphrasing when he's quoted saying at the meeting that âbicyclists are militant and looking to cause a conflict whenever they can.â
Then, earlier this month, Cornell began organizing an effort to recall Mayor Mike McGinn in response to the mayor's transportation policy, calling it a âwar waged on people who drive cars.â
Sorry, thereâs no war going on in Seattle.
Thereâs a war going on in Misrata, Kabul, and Baghdad. But in Seattle, weâre busy waving people through four-way stops when we drive up at the same time, riding our bikes, taking the bus, andâfor better or for worseâgoing to meetings.
The Mayorâs transportation policy is hardly outlandish and shouldn't be controversial. It's attempting to implement the very same vision expressed in Greenlakeâs neighborhood plan, nearly every other neighborhood plan in Seattle, and the Cityâs Comprehensive Plan.
And itâs more than folks in Greenlake who share a vision of Seattle where walking, biking, and transit are the easiest ways to get around.
A recent poll of Seattle voters found thatâwhen asked if they support spending more transportation funds on investments in transit, bicycling, and walkingâ57 percent said yes, only 28 percent said no and the rest werenât sure. When asked if, given limited funds in the cityâs current transportation budget, they would support greater investment in transit, bicycling, and walking if it meant fewer dollars were available for auto-oriented projects, 49 percent said yes, 34 percent said no, and 16 percent werenât sure. And, when asked if they supported changes in the configuration of Seattleâs streets that make mass transit, walking and bicycling safer and easier (think Stone Way, Elliott Way, Nickerson St, and Fauntleroy Way), 62 percent said yes, 25 percent said no, and 13 percent werenât sure.
Thatâs not a war on carsâthatâs simply a city that supports all of the basic modes of transportation that we use to get around.
Nobody is trying to take away anyoneâs car. Thereâs only a city attempting to build a transportation system that reflects what the majority of Seattle residents want.
But the media is complicit in stirring up hysteria and trying to create a story where none exists by giving a platform to people like Cornell, pushing a fake "war on cars" agenda radically inconsistent with the values of the majority of Seattle voters.