While I was working at the City of Spokane, they brought sewer and water to the West Plains in anticipation of such an eventuality. Finally, the County Commissioners are at least saying they’re not going to do something stupid (again) when it comes to zoning and land use issues that affect such industry. And, to be sure, it looks like they’re making a solid effort to back up the rhetoric.

As the various groups add up all the “pluses” for why Boeing ought to seriously consider the West Plains area for their next assembly plant, how cool would it be to say, “…and our light rail provides service all the way to Coeur d’Alene!”

Yeah, that would be very cool. It would also require—let’s see—a light rail system. But, that would have required vision on the part of the regional leaders. Oh, well…

As you may have surmised, STA is embracing a concept they call High Performance Transit, touting it as ”…relevant to both near term challenges and long term opportunities while working towards connecting people with places throughout the Spokane region. A defining element of this vision is the High Performance Transit (HPT) Network.”

In large part, InlandRail agrees with what STA is purportedly attempting, which among other things appears to be proposing a comprehensive and unbiased look at the region’s future transit needs in order to determine an appropriate modal mix to meet those needs. Sounds pretty good.

Well, as great as it feels and sounds, all may not necessarily be wonderful here in River City.  As you may have already guessed, I (Dick Raymond) have written an editorial on this subject that spells out some of my thoughts and concerns regarding STA’s statements and claims. You are encouraged to check out the editorial on our website. 

What’s your opinion? Do you think STA has managed to move beyond their former selves as to be trusted? I hope so. Or, is it more of their legendary status quo-esque sleight of hand? I hope not.

Following is a quote from the editorial:

Too often, however, diverse projects are treated as separate and unrelated rather than what they are—components of one regionwide system.

That system has to operate smoothly. Otherwise, not only do we all suffer inconveniences, our commerce suffers, too, as does our general quality of life. The economy stagnates. Jobs disappear.

Transportation touches everyone, and it matters to everyone.

And another:

Addressing transportation needs should concentrate on more than forestalling such negatives as congestion and busted tie rods. It should be about building a transportation network that creates positives that give Spokane an edge over other cities.

By integrating streets and highways, transit and cycling, rail and air, Spokane and the region that surrounds it have a timely opportunity to define themselves as a connected region. Admittedly, it’s a complex undertaking, which is why citizen engagement at this early stage is urgent.

This sentiment is echoed throughout the InlandRail website. In a recent update to their website, InlandRail highlighted the SRTC workshop to which the S-R editorial alluded, and pointed readers to the Visioning Project consultant’s website where the public can get involved.

InlandRail strongly encourages public involvement. The visioning process that SRTC has undertaken is extremely important to the region, and begs for an unbiased, cooperative effort among all local jurisdictions and agencies—there’s too much at stake to do anything but.

Two of the Plan’s eight strategies rightfully list the desirable role transit-oriented development (TOD) will play with respect to promoting clean mobility (Strategy #3) and also enabling optimal land use (Strategy #4), citing reasons discussed at length on the InlandRail website.

Without elaboration here—no need; check out the voluminous documentation available on InlandRail’s website—it is well to note the importance the Action Plan places on TOD’s positive roles. Consequently, it is also well to understand the need to closely and critically compare Avista/STA’s active promotion of electric bus rapid transit with the electric light rail transit model promoted by InlandRail (at least for the east-west corridor), and those modes’ demonstrated historic roles (or lack thereof) in fostering both near- and long-term, healthy, real and sustainable TOD. 

In the final scheme of things, any comparison of the long-term viabilities of BRT and LRT must include and ultimately boil down to their respective economic impacts. In a recent Spokesman-Review guest editorial, InlandRail’s board president, KC Traver put it well:

“Now STA is proposing a major investment in a cheaper version of transit that mimics light rail. It’s called bus rapid transit. In their report, Marketek and Applied Economics also concluded, ‘…while Bus Rapid Transit can be as effective in relieving congestion as light rail, there is little evidence that it supports or stimulates the same level of transit oriented development.’

So if we deferred light rail, which is an economic engine, because we don’t have a congestion problem, why would we invest in bus rapid transit, whose strength is congestion relief but isn’t an economic stimulus?”

Indeed! KC has hit the nail on the head.

My frustration is that no media folks have yet seen fit to do an in-depth analysis of just what has transpired with respect to the light rail story.  Additionally, there’s getting to be more misinformation disseminated about the whole regional transit issue, fueled most recently by the AVISTA and STA team-up pushing for electrified bus rapid transit.

So, what’s the answer? What does InlandRail have to do to bring this to the forefront? My hope is that we’ll eventually capture the attention of some agency, person or organization possessing both perceived and actual clout to get on board and go public with their support of light rail. My guess and hope is that as soon as that happens, all sorts of repressed support will magically appear. Our goal is to get to the point where we can obtain the authorization (and money) to do all the planning necessary to run light rail from the east Spokane City limits all the way out to Spokane International Airport, which planning would include suitable preliminary design plans and a precise cost estimate that would provide ample accurate information necessary to then take the project to a hopefully informed vote of the people.

To put it succinctly, the “bad actors” are now off the STA Board, and their replacements seem to be informed listeners without agendas. My hope is that this new STA Board will in fact be characterized by a renewed, informed, visionary, open and transparent dialogue regarding regional light rail, devoid of personal agendas. Let’s see if STA at least gives the new Board a chance to “weigh in” before doing anything rash,  or worse — stupid.

With respect to FTA, their new policy is to now include economic development and environmental benefits when evaluating projects. Read that as admitting, “sustainability and livability matter.”  This monumental about-face is HUGE! They removed their blinders and now admit that “getting there” will be only part of the equation when it comes to evaluating proposed transit projects for financial assistance under their New Starts and Small Starts programs. Their action unequivocally validates the Light Rail Steering Committee’s (and InlandRail’s) contention that transit projects must be evaluated holistically when considering and comparing the merits of competing proposals. 

Let’s see if these new developments give the regional light rail effort any momentum.

There has been some discussion at the board level about the editorial page. Specifically, some think that some of the articles might be a little “pointed”. Our philosophy has and continues to be to call it like it is.

The history of the whole light rail effort is rife with controversy and just plain old-time political maneuvering. Surely, some of the stuff that has happened is simply ugly. If someone does something kind of stupid, then we think you deserve to know just what was done, how it affects the  regional transportation vision and our ability to effect some type of rail-based regional transportation backbone solution sooner than later, and why we consider the action(s) to be stupid, moronic, self-serving or even worse — deceitful and harmful. And, we think it is helpful for those who wish to know, to be able to have access to the behind-the-scenes stuff that has resulted in light rail being temporarily stalled — down, but definitely not out! And, when we feel it would be appropriate and productive, we will name names.

So, how do YOU feel about the look and feel of the editorial page? Too “edgy”? Too “wishy-washy”? Too (you fill in the blank)? Let us know.

This blog was created using the open-source application, “WordPress”. Check it out  at   http://www.wordpress.org.  By using WordPress, we were able to host our blog fully on our own InlandRail server, and not rely on any third-party infrastructure or other hosting agreements. This allows us much better control over the look, feel and security of the blog. So, comment away — let’s see how this thing works out.