Seattle Traffic is on temporary hiatus until the new year. Between work, personal life, and the increasingly interesting happenings in the local real estate scene, I unfortunately do not have the time to post to this blog like I originally intended to.
After December, work should settle down and home improvement projects will be complete, and I hope to return to posting here. I apologize for the lapse.
The Seattle P-I Virtual Editorial Board highlighted an excellent comment to an editorial about the $1.6 billion tax package. A reader going by the handle "Face Reality" made the following insightful observations:
Seattle has no coherent "tax plan": Or finance, revenue, fiscal or spending plans for that matter. It hasn't for over 20 years. A succession of irresponsible Councils and Mayors (that we insist on re-electing) seeking short term gratification has seen to that.You should really go read the entire comment.
...
Instead of a measured, predictable tax package for very specific, prioritized needs we get an endless, open ended "all at once" debacle and xmas tree wish list that still includes money for needless things like Paul Allen SLU beautification.
Reckless tax and fiscal policies make this city that much more unaffordable for all but those who can blithely pay for our "new urban" paradise while unwittingly contributing to the very sprawl they decry: When everyone else is driven to more affordable areas outside Seattle – along with many of the businesses that employ them.
There is a direct correlation between taxes, sprawl and affordability. So many people here are in denial about that reality - you can't simply tax, grow or densify your way to affordability and a quality city. The concepts are mutually exclusive if badly applied - as in Seattle.
Poorly applied and rapid ramp ups in taxes raise housing prices and mortgage qualifications, stagnant business growth and cause decline in real revenues as the increased taxes are eaten up by more service demands that density creates. If this continues, a city inevitably declines as demographics and businesses leave for cheaper pastures, ie, the 'burbs.
The real bill will come due in just a few years, when the inevitable economic downturn combined with higher taxes that narrow the base and discourage businesses will bring both an actual DECLINE in tax revenues across the board and a grinding halt in City business and population growth.
With the usual Hobson's choice of cutting services vs raising taxes even higher, setting up the potential for the classic revenue "death spiral".
An experience well documented in just about every other American city the last 30 years – including memory challenged Seattle, once again the caboose on the train of national experience.
Smugness, arrogance, delusional growth projections, pseudo - environmentalism and the attitude "its different this time" are no defense against the lessons of history.
Would building a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct cost insane amounts of money? Yes. But wait, according to a new "study," the super-amazing fantastic tunnel of love would return that all of that expense (and more!) back to the city . Just like magic!
Replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel instead of a new elevated highway is well worth the extra cost, according to a study released Wednesday by a Seattle business group.So there you have it. Now we know that a tunnel would be worth the insane cost, because a study funded by the tunnel-loving Downtown Seattle Association says so.
Tunnel opponents quickly criticized the Downtown Seattle Association study, and some were not even willing to concede that the current viaduct needs replacing. A state Transportation Department official warned that the project would soon stall without a decision on which option to pursue.
A tunnel along the downtown Seattle waterfront would cost $3 billion to $3.6 billion — at least $1 billion more than a new viaduct there, according to state estimates. But it would increase area property values by $450 million, stimulate $1 billion to $2 billion in development on "severely underbuilt" land and spur an extra $162 million to $325 million a year in tourism, according to the study, which economist Glenn Pascall presented at the Bell Harbor International Conference Center.
The association, which supports a tunnel, hired Pascall to review the effect of building one. Pointing to benefits that resulted from tearing down the Embarcadero Freeway in San Francisco and even from the construction of the notorious Big Dig in Boston, he said a tunnel would "create a magnet event."
...
In response, the No Tunnel Alliance noted that the study used the low end of the state's estimated cost difference between a tunnel and a viaduct and said it did not account for cost overruns and delays that some have said would be more likely with a tunnel. The group also questioned the study's conclusions regarding increases in property values and tourism, said a lack of tunnel exits downtown would increase congestion and harm businesses and worried about delays from city efforts to find the extra money for the tunnel.
I was quite surprised to read the following article in the Seattle P-I about the City Council-proposed tax package. The tone of the article doesn't really "fit" with the general mentality in Seattle—a city that has never met a tax it didn't like.
Seattle politicians can't show you a price tag for the massive transportation measure they're pitching on the fall ballot.Hey, if the residents of Seattle want to saddle themselves with this kind of unending overbearing tax burden (on top of the RTID, Sound Transit, and the plethora of other tax programs that have their hands in the pot), I suppose they'll get what they deserve. I still haven't been convinced that all of these additional taxes are even necessary. Isn't basic transportation infrastructure upkeep supposed to be one of the primary functions of government? Shouldn't they be spending general funds on roads, and putting things like arts promotion "affordable housing," and the Mayor's chauffeur up for public votes?
But this much is clear: The unprecedented proposal could boost by as much as 34 percent how much the city collects from property owners — nearly six times what current law allows.
And it might be permanent — a first in Seattle for this type of tax increase.
...
City officials predict that over the lifetime of the 20-year package, the typical homeowner would see a tax-rate increase of 38 cents for every $1,000 of property value. For a $400,000 house, that would be more than $150 annually.
But that's only an estimate.
"It's an unprecedented levy in its size and duration," said City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck. "It's seriously lacking in public accountability and taxpayer accountability."
...
Activists, special interests and politicians often ask citizens to agree to temporary increases to pay for specific initiatives, such as affordable housing, school improvements and park construction.
This proposed levy has two noteworthy distinctions:Most levy increases expire in about five to seven years, although voters sometimes approve extensions. After the measure expires, the city's tax base reverts to its previous level.
- It could last forever.
In this proposal, after six years of increases of as much as 5 percent a year, the levy would not roll back. It would continue to grow 1 percent per year for 14 years. The City Council has approved a resolution stating that it wants to return to lower levels after 20 years, essentially to today's level plus the annual 1 percent increase allowed by state law, compounded over 20 years.
But future councils are not bound by that resolution.
"That was obviously appealing to many of my colleagues and the mayor — not to me, though," said Steinbrueck, who unsuccessfully tried to get his peers to set an expiration date to the tax increase. "Aside from the commitment to an oversight group handpicked by the mayor and council you don't have the same kind of broad public accountability that comes with a six- or eight-year levy, where the public has an opportunity to evaluate the promises and the results over a reasonable period of time."
The Seattle City Council yesterday passed a (perhaps unwittingly) clever two-pronged plan to tackle road improvement projects throughout the city.
The Seattle City Council approved a $1.6 billion transportation funding package Monday to pay for repairs to the city's bridges and roads.The most obvious and stated purpose of this plan is that it will raise a very large pile of cash that for the city to spend (allegedly) on roads. The less apparent key to the plan is hinted at in the article: drive people away from downtown, so the roads take less abuse. That may not be an intentional effect of the plan, but it's certainly a real one, given the quotes in the above article. It's even possible that the negative effects on businesses is an intentional aspect of this plan. Maybe it is a clever part of how the plan is designed to work. Either that or the Mayor and the city council are oblivious to the likely effects of their actions. You choose.
Councilmembers approved a 10 percent commercial parking tax and business transportation tax that totals $18.25 million a year. Voters will decide whether to add higher property taxes to that mix in the November election.
The package is part of Mayor Greg Nickels' "Bridging the Gap" plan. He says the transportation budget has declined from $37.5 million in 1995 to $13.1 million in 2006. The city's $500 million maintenance backlog has continued to grow as a result, and it needs money to repair aging roads and bridges.
"Unfortunately, this backlog could not be addressed before tremendous holes were shot in the budget with the loss of state funding and the Eyman initiatives," said City Councilman Richard Conlin at the meeting Tuesday.
Councilmembers voted to pay for those repairs Monday through a business transportation tax that places a $25 per year tax on each full time employee. They also passed a 10 percent commercial parking tax. The funds would pay for major projects like a new rail overpass on South Lander Street and the widening of the Spokane Street Viaduct but business owner Heather Fitzpatrick says it would cut into her bottom line.
...
Seattle Chamber of Commerce President Steve Leahy says Fitzpatrick isn't alone. He says this tax is a formula to drive businesses out of town.
...
The funding package does not include repairs to the Alaskan Way Viaduct, and voters still need to decide on tax proposals for the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and Sound Transit.
Add the taxes up, and Leahy says it sends a message to businesses that Seattle is not a "business friendly" city.
Fitzpatrick plans to pay the taxes but says she'll think twice about staying in Seattle, when the lease at her Fremont office expires 18 months from now.
It seems like every other story I post is about the Viaduct, but I just have to mention this Seattle Times editorial by guest columnist Earl J. Bell. If you thought you had heard all of the Viaduct replacement options (tunnel, rebuilt, tear-down, retrofit), you were wrong. Try this on for size: build a bridge over Elliott Bay.
Restricting the viaduct alternatives to two, equally unsatisfactory, options — rebuilding an elevated structure in the existing right-of-way, or digging a tunnel — is unnecessarily narrow and destined to produce a foregone conclusion. The expert panel should look at other alternatives, including a bridge over Elliott Bay.Costs less, doesn't disrupt traffic, looks cool... I have to say, Mr. Bell's idea is the best plan I've heard yet. Which of course probably means that the chances of it being implemented are somewhere between zero and "when Hell freezes over."
In a classic decision-making approach, the alternatives would be weighed against something like the following criteria:The first criterion, in the absence of greater assured funding, would exclude the tunnel, while the third would exclude rebuilding the elevated highway structure; the second would preclude both a rebuild and the tunnel.
- Costs should fall within "assured funding" limitations;
- No damage should be done to existing businesses (they are extremely sensitive to disruptions);
- Any "improvement" should open the waterfront.
Evidently, neither of these two alternatives is "achievable" if the above criteria are to be met simultaneously. It is not sufficient for an alternative to meet only one or two. Thus, "achievability" would require relaxing, modifying, or removing one or more criteria.
The only way to comply with these criteria simultaneously is to include one or more additional alternatives. Truly viable alternatives have not been included and thoroughly explored. We are bogged down in a phony dichotomy of "tunnel vs. rebuild." In the classic problem-solving scenario, the objective would be to find the least-cost alternative among those that are "achievable."
Many of us believe that there is but one way to meet all the criteria — a bridge over water. A new class of bridges, "cable-stayed," has surfaced in a variety of places to provide a potential solution. Cables are used not to suspend the bridge but to provide additional structural stability, where needed, to assure the bridge's integrity during high wind or seismic activity.
A group of citizens began organizing Thursday night to fight a tunnel-replacement proposal and demand an up-or-down public vote on it.I don't see why we can't have a public vote on all the viable options. Put the following choices on a ballot:
The vote must be agreed to by Seattle City Council members, who haven't yet declared themselves on the issue. Thursday, a group of about 50 people, most of them appearing critical of the $3.6 billion tunnel proposal, decided to form a committee to push for a tunnel vote this fall after a panel of experts reviews a plan for replacing the 53-year-old structure.
The critics said the tunnel was too costly, its construction would be too disruptive to waterfront business, and not enough thought was being put into less expensive alternatives as Mayor Greg Nickels continues his tunnel campaign.
"Seattle has a history of things that people didn't want and they got them shoved down their throat anyway," said Chip Marshall, a developer and longtime political activist. "Other solutions are dismissed."
As someone who cycles to work 60% or more of the time, this article in the Seattle Weekly about the state of cycling in the Seattle area was fairly interesting.
...suddenly you're noticing all those people who are commuting to work on their bikes these days—and it seems that there are a lot more of them. And you notice that a lot of them nowadays are just normal schlubs like yourself.I'm quite fortunate in that I live just 2 blocks from the Burke-Gilman / Sammamish River trail, and my work is less than a mile off the trail, making my 13.6 mile commute roughly 90% trail. Whenever I ride other places though, I do find myself wondering how Seattle ever got a reputation for being "cycle friendly." Are other cities just absolutely awful for cycling, or does the Burke-Gilman trail all by itself make us deserving of the title?
Suddenly, riding a bike to work seems to make a lot of sense.
After all, Seattle has a national reputation as a bike-friendly city. It should be fun and easy, right?
Well, um . . . yes and no.
...
In other words, the Seattle area's oft-touted bicycling system is actually a happenstance, an often broken network that doesn't function particularly well, especially when it comes to providing a complete infrastructure that could encourage people to take up bike commuting.
Andrew Galbraith, who moved here last year from the San Francisco Bay Area—where he also used to commute by bike—has found, in his year of commuting from Fremont to Pioneer Square, that Seattle's bike-friendly reputation isn't everything it's cracked up to be. "I think that it probably got that reputation because people look at things like the Burke- Gilman trail or Green Lake and think, 'Oh, there's bike paths,' because that's what the city is promoting, but the reality of actually commuting is different," he says. "It's one thing for people like myself who are avid bicyclists, but certainly somebody who doesn't bike much and thinks it might be a new way to commute, they might find it frightening. Especially downtown."
"The challenge we have is convincing people," says Kirste Johnson, a transportation planner for the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), "because we see these really small percentages of commute trips from census data [the average in King County has for years been about 2 percent to 3 percent]. When it comes to divvying up pots of money for transportation projects, it's like, 'Why should we spend any more than, say, 3 percent? Why should we put more money towards this when nobody's doing it?'Let's apply that same logic to, say... transit. Maybe 10% of commute trips are on transit, so why spend more than 10% of transportation revenue on transit? I can't locate actual figures (if anyone reading this knows where to get such numbers, please let me know), but I've got a feeling that more than 10% of transportation dollars are spent on busses, rail, and ferrys. If there are people making such an argument against spending money for bicycle improvements, it's bogus. More trails & dedicated bike lanes = more bicycles on the road. More bicycles on the road = less cars, less smog, and more money in the pocket of the cyclists that aren't paying through the teeth for gasoline. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.
Here's a shocker for you: most people in the Seattle area don't live all that close to where they work.
Despite the dramatic surge of new jobs in suburbia over the past three decades, most people in this and other metropolitan areas don't work in the same communities in which they live.It's a nice thought, isn't it? The truth is, I bet most people would still drive even if they lived less than two miles from work. People are just that attached to their cars. When it comes to the decision about where to live, I think "length of commute" is an mostly an afterthought. All the planning in the world is unlikely to change the perception that certain neighborhoods are "desirable," while others are what you settle for if you can't get into the nice places.
...
A commute that crosses city limits isn't necessarily lengthy. Still, census estimates, based on information collected in 2000, help explain why traffic in the Central Puget Sound area can be such a mess.
...
Seattle is one of just three cities and unincorporated "census designated places" in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties where a majority of residents live and work in the same community. The other two are military bases.
The geographic divide between home and work is most pronounced in bedroom communities where there simply aren't many jobs.
...
In the 1980s, a concept called "jobs-housing balance" arose in urban-planning circles.
If government policies promoted building new houses, condos and apartments close to offices, stores and factories, the thinking went, people would commute shorter distances and be more likely to walk, bike or take the bus to work.
Traffic and air quality would improve. Energy consumption would plummet.
The census estimates for places like Redmond and Issaquah suggest "there are limits to that notion, and they should be recognized," says Dan Carlson, a senior lecturer at the University of Washington's Evans School of Public Affairs who studies transportation and land use.
Remember the Mayor's big fat tax package that I've mentioned here a couple of times? Apparently the City Council wants to put it on a diet. The tax package, that is.
Seattle City Council members are poised to cut Mayor Greg Nickels' $1.8 billion transportation improvement package by 23 percent in hopes that the slimmed-down proposal will be more acceptable to voters.Is there any doubt that the line will be "pass this huge tax package or watch the roads crumble"? That's pretty much the usual mode of operations around here lately, right? It hurts my head to think of how many new transportation taxes we'll be blessed with here in the next few years. It's not that I'm against transportation improvements/maintenance, it's just that I'm still not convinced that the 1.4 billion dollars they're already collecting is being well spent, so why should we trust them with billions more?
The council on Monday will discuss the counterproposal, which would trim the mayor's 20-year spending plan for major road projects and street and sidewalk repairs by more than $15 million annually.
The taxes to finance the work also would be shaved under the council proposal. It would retain the $25 annual per-employee tax on businesses in the mayor's plan, but would reduce its property tax, which would need voter approval, by 26 percent.
The council plan also would cut the mayor's proposed 10 percent parking tax to 8 percent while phasing it in over three years, instead of imposing it immediately, and would add some exemptions.
The council proposal also calls for an oversight committee to conduct an evaluation — most likely after the first six years of the program — of how well the money is being spent and possibly to recommend whether the taxes should be continued.
The changes reflect discomfort among council members with the original size of the mayor's proposal and a strong lobbying effort by the parking industry against the parking tax Nickels proposed.
"Our concern was voter fatigue," said Councilman Richard McIver, who said he supports almost all of the revised package. "I think (the change) gets it down to a cost I think is reasonable to the taxpayer."
...
Nickels' staff has said in the past that to cut the mayor's package would mean the backlog couldn't be eliminated.
Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels recently ran a publicity-stunt public poll, allegedly to allow the public to have a say in which city roads are most in need of repair. Last week, he held a press conference to announce that the people's voice has been heard. Twelve road improvement projects were named... one of which was actually identified by a large number of people in the survey.
Of more than 700 people who responded to a city survey last month, 50 named North 45th as one of the worst traffic blots in the city, more than any other location.Until I learned that 11 out of the 12 announced projects were in fact chosen without any regard to the survey, I was quite confused at how Mercer Street next to I-5 could have possibly not been in the top 12. Taking a public poll to determine the worst roads was a good plan. On the other hand, ignoring the poll and choosing projects arbitrarily seems like a slap in the face from our public "servants."
So that's where Mayor Greg Nickels held a news conference Wednesday to announce the "dirty dozen" — 12 sore spots on the city's streets, bike trails and sidewalks that he pledged to fix within the next year for about $20 million. The survey was far from scientific — nominations were sought online or by snail mail — and seemed ripe for manipulation by organized neighborhood groups.
Given that, the mayor's dirty dozen didn't correspond exactly with the people's picks.
Other than North 45th, the other 11 projects were among those identified in the survey but were not necessarily the top vote-getters, said Gregg Hirakawa, a spokesman for the city Department of Transportation.
Instead, the projects were those for which money was available or that were on the city's priority list for street repairs already, he said. Wednesday's announcement, with a carefully selected fall timeline for some of the work, had the feel of a campaign stop.
Here's a real shocker for you: Sound Transit board votes to send light rail across the lake. I bet you totally didn't see that one coming.
Light rail is the best way to connect Seattle and Eastside communities, Sound Transit's board of directors agreed unanimously Thursday, adding momentum to a $3.9 billion project that would include the world's first transit rails on a floating bridge.If $30 tabs round 3 passes this November, does that mean that the $75-$125 will be collected through things like gas taxes or road use fees? I really hope so, because taxing someone who drives 20,000 miles per year the same as someone who drives 5,000 miles per year through yearly vehicle registration fees is pretty bogus, in my opinion. I actually make an effort to live close to where I work, and to get my butt around with something other than a car. So why should I be paying just as much to subsidize transit as someone who commutes 30 miles both ways from Everett to Seattle, just so they can own their 2,500 square foot home on a cul-de-sac?
Board members said the electric trains would attract more travelers and move them faster than another option they dropped — a "bus-rapid-transit" system that travels on its own lanes and overpasses.
The Eastside line, crossing Lake Washington on the Interstate 90 floating bridge to Bellevue, the Microsoft campus and downtown Redmond, is the biggest piece of a huge regional transit package that voters will be asked to approve in 2007 — which also could extend light rail north to Lynnwood and south to the outskirts of Tacoma.
...
Voters may be asked to double their current Sound Transit taxes. The transit board voted to drop its do-nothing and low-cost options, ensuring the request will be at least $75 a year for a typical household, or $125 per year if the full plan is approved.
I've seen a couple of stories in the last week touting the big important decision that's going to be made tomorrow regarding transit options across the I-90 bridge:
Just a week before Sound Transit's board of directors meets to determine whether it prefers a Seattle-to-Redmond light-rail line or bus rapid-transit system that can convert to light rail in the future, Eastside residents and community leaders are debating the merits of both.Hang on a minute. In the next 25 years, the number of cars crossing Lake Washington is predicted to go up by nearly a third. The 520 bridge is scheduled to be replaced with a new span that will include—at most—two additional lanes. The I-90 bridge, on the other hand, will lose a lane to rapid transit. So we're looking at 32% more traffic being carried on one additional lane? And eliminating an existing lane across I-90 will alleviate traffic? Sorry, something doesn't jive.
...
By the end of the year, after community input, the Sound Transit board will decide on a more detailed plan and funding package that will go before voters in November 2007.
The fast-paced growth of the region has spurred many on the Eastside to consider alternatives to alleviate traffic.
It's estimated that by 2030, the area's biggest job and housing centers will be Bellevue, Redmond and Seattle, according to the Puget Sound Regional Council.
Also by 2030, the number of vehicles that cross Lake Washington on both bridges will grow from 250,000 a day to 330,000, said Sound Transit CEO Joni Earl.
Both a light-rail system and a bus rapid-transit convertible system would take up an exclusive right of way across Interstate 90 from Seattle to Bellevue and then connect to the Highway 520 corridor to Redmond.
...
Both proposals would alleviate traffic, increase commuter reliability and provide alternative modes of transportation for special events, Sound Transit officials say.
Ever since the Mayor began pushing the tunnel option for the Viaduct, I've been saying (in conversations with people, not publicly on this blog) that if they want to build a tunnel instead of one of the more economical (sane) solutions, the people that would benefit from a tunnel should pay for it. Imagine my surprise when I discovered that they're actually considering (partially) doing just that!
Last week, the city projected that downtown property values would increase by $400 million to $600 million if the viaduct comes down. The big increase — as much as 25 percent for some properties — reflects the fact that land next to a roaring highway hasn't historically been the city's most desirable.Granted, that's only 25% of the price difference, but at least it's a step in the right direction. For the vast majority of Seattle area residents, an elevated freeway is a perfectly adequate solution. A very small minority stand to benefit both monetarily and aesthetically if the viaduct is torn down and left down. Since there exist viable alternatives that cost far less money, that small minority should be the ones to pay if the more expensive option is the one that is selected. It only makes sense.
Hoping to close a roughly $1 billion gap between the cost of building another elevated highway and a more expensive tunnel, Mayor Greg Nickels is considering a special assessment on property owners who would benefit from better views, more parks and less noise, vibration and pollution. That could yield up to $250 million for the tunnel project, city officials have estimated.
This weekend is predicted to provide still more evidence that while people may complain loudly about high gas prices, they're not likely to actually change their actions as a result.
If the high gas prices keep some from traveling this Fourth of July holiday, the good weather and long weekend will lure others out, enough that Puget Sound-area travelers can expect record numbers of people on the roads along with the high temperatures.Okay I don't know what that mumbo-jumbo is all about that allegedly the Iraq war makes people "nervous about traveling," but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to see the prediction of "record numbers of travelers" come true. When it comes to gas prices, 99% of people are all bark and no bite. It's as if they think they deserve cheap gasoline or something. Okay, I'm done ranting for now.
Record numbers of travelers are expected nationwide this holiday weekend, according to the Washington AAA, as people regain confidence about traveling in a post-9/11 environment.
"It was a trend that we saw for a long time prewar, but with 9/11 and the (Iraq) war people got a bit nervous about traveling," AAA spokeswoman Jennifer Harbison said. "We've seen the confidence build gradually and now we're seeing the confidence level as (high as) it was before the war. The gas prices are certainly not keeping people home."
I'm flying out to California this morning, and I shan't return until Sunday night. So please feel free to use this post as an open discussion to discuss any stories I miss while I'm gone. If I somehow manage to find a usable computer connected to a descent internet connection I may try to make a post or two, but don't bet on it.
If not for the hojillions of dollars it will likely cost to fix—oh, and the nasty traffic inconvenience it will cause—this would actually be pretty funny: Street near light rail could 'sink into a goo'
The city's main downtown street is sinking alongside the Link light rail line that went in four years ago.Whoops.
It's not clear why, though city officials note the street is very old and the soil beneath it is weak.
Sound Transit says its light rail line is not the issue.
"We built a foundation for the light rail line that's having no problem," transit spokesman Geoff Patrick said. "That track is not sinking. It's the road on each side of the track that there are some issues with."
...
"The city doesn't believe that it's solely the fault of the light rail construction, but the slumping is probably somehow related to the overall project," he said.
No one tested the soil beneath Pacific Avenue before construction of the light rail line. If they had, they would have discovered that the subsurface is weak, substandard clay, Steve Shanafelt, Tacoma public works engineering division manager, told The News Tribune.
The light rail tracks and concrete intersections are in fine shape, Shanafelt said. But the asphalt roadway needs to be fixed within five years.
"If we don't get a grant, the street will sink into a goo," he said.
More and more every day it sounds like tolls will make a comeback in our area sooner rather than later. Likely initial candidates? I-90 and 520 across Lake Washington.
Imagine free-flowing traffic across both Lake Washington floating bridges at all hours of the day.As I have said before, I learned long ago that it's just a bad idea to live across the water from where you work. If the choice is between nasty traffic or a $3-$5 per day toll, you've put yourself in a pretty crummy spot.
Now imagine paying more than $5 every time you drive across the lake — because that's what it would take.
That's according to the preliminary findings of a state Transportation Commission report that will be presented to the public at open houses across the state this week, including one in Mercer Island.
Using tolls on the State Route 520 and Interstate 90 bridges was one of several hypothetical scenarios the commission considered in its study of the potential benefits of tolling.
According to the study, a relatively high toll price to cross the bridges would improve traffic flow across the lake — by influencing people to shift their commuting habits — but could have a negative impact on overall traffic on the Eastside and in Seattle.
This wasn't intended to be a one-post-per-week kind of blog, but I guess that's what it has been the last few weeks. Oh well, I can't change the past. But I will try to make updates more frequently from this point forward (not counting this coming Thursday-Sunday, when I will be out of town).
Moving on to the latest big traffic news... As I'm sure you've heard, it turns out that the 520 bridge is a bit worse off than we may have previously thought.
The aging Evergreen Point floating bridge across Lake Washington needs to be replaced soon, officials said after a weekend inspection of the span.If the Viaduct is any indication, now that we know that 520 has a serious problem, it will only take approximately five years of committee meetings, focused studies, and "consensus building" before we actually start on a real solution. Given the Puget Sound's stellar reputation when it comes to bridges, I think your best bet would be to just avoid the bridge if at all possible.
"This bridge is in jeopardy. This bridge is aging. This bridge needs to be replaced," said Dave Dye, urban corridors administrator with the Washington state Department of Transportation, in a tour with politicians, media and community members.
More than 6,000 feet of cracks in the walls of the bridge were the most obvious signs that the structure, now in its fifth decade, is reaching the end of its useful life.
Obviously I can't ignore yesterday's big news. Gary Locke and John Carlson team up to form a transportation tax-advocating super team. Gary Locke and John Carlson? Yeah.
Former Democratic Gov. Gary Locke has joined conservative radio host John Carlson in leading a campaign to put a hefty package of regional transportation taxes on the November 2007 ballot.I'm still not convinced that the RTID is a good idea. The state hasn't shown me that they can be trusted to effectively spend the dollars they already have. So why should we give them billions more, especially when they admit up front that they'll be pouring a good portion of it into "solutions" that only a tiny percentage of people will use?
Locke says he hopes other leaders in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties will help him educate voters about the need to invest more in roads, buses and rail. The tax package could total $13 billion to $16 billion, the amount Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District plan to put on the November 2007 ballot.
This is an attempt to forge a consensus on transportation solutions in order to shape the 2007 ballot measures. The three co-chairs, Locke, Carlson and Jessyn Schor (from public transit advocacy group, Transportation Choices) will bring in a broad range of people across the political spectrum to help formulate the package, including conservatives and transit skeptics as well as transit advocates.They've got their work cut out for them, building "consensus" across such a diverse political group. It's no wonder they're starting 17 months before the election.
This is interesting. Remember the story a few weeks ago about I-405 neighbors wanting the state to use rubber road to reduce the noise? If you recall, the rubber road plan had a bit of a problem: "But the problem for us is it doesn't wear like normal and it comes out in chunks." Something I didn't see mentioned in the article at all however was the fact that the state is already planning to test a new version of rubber roadway on a stretch of I-5 in Everett:
In August, the state will begin testing quieter asphalt, with the test material to be used on southbound I-5 in Lynnwood while the state repaves that section of the freeway.I still don't have any pity for people who chose to live next to a freeway but then complain about its noise. But if some fancy new polymer rubber can lower the volume, that would of course be a good thing. Just be careful driving I-5 south through Lynnwood in a few years in case that "coming out in chunks" thing is still a problem.
...
According to the state's plan, two miles of that stretch, between Interstate 405 and 44th Avenue West, should be noticeably quieter for those who live nearby and even for people driving on it.
...
The problem is past versions of the quieter asphalt haven't held up to Washington state's wet weather, cold temperatures, and, worst of all, drivers using studded tires.
[Mia] Waters [acoustics program manager for Transportation Department] said the hope is that the newer, improved surfaces will hold together longer.
Did you catch the argument between the Seattle P-I and Mayor Nickels? The debate is whether city streets are too expensive to maintain without increased taxes, or the city government is spending too much money on concerns that should be secondary to roads. On May 24, the P-I "Editorial Board" laid the smack down on the Mayor's grand tax scheme:
Seattle government has for decades neglected its fundamental obligation to maintain the city's streets, bridges and sidewalks. The correction for this neglect, however, does not lie in Mayor Greg Nickels' grandiose $1.8 billion package of new taxes and tax increases.While I rarely agree with editorials in the P-I, I have to admit that this one makes a lot of sense. When you think of the purposes of city government, what are the first things that come to mind? For me its police, fire, and roads. Everything else should be secondary.
A better solution was proposed six years ago by a business coalition alarmed at the condition of our streets. The bottom line then remains the bottom line now: Get the money from the city's general fund.
Certain functions and services are basic to municipal government, things taxpayers expect the city to provide. Safe and passable streets are among them. If general taxes must be increased to deliver those fundamentals, then do it or spend less on matters of lower priority.
Like it or not, Seattle faces a growing $500 million backlog of repairs and maintenance just to bring our city transportation system back to a decent and safe condition.Speaking of false choices, I love how the mayor's idea of finding matters of lower priority is "a 10 percent across-the-board reduction." Way to make your case, Mayor. Appeal to emotion by claiming that the only way to fix roads without raising taxes would be to fire 200 police officers.
With a challenge this big, half-measures aren't going to cut it. Neither is wishful thinking by the Seattle P-I Editorial Board.
The paper has suggested Seattle simply "get the money from the city's general fund" to magically wipe away this enormous problem. Sufficient funds could be found by cutting money for "matters of lower priority," the paper argued.
What lower priorities would the Editorial Board suggest?
...
Ending the growing backlog with the existing budget could require a 10 percent across-the-board reduction to other city departments. Imagine the outrage if we followed the P-I's advice and cut:The people of Seattle want a real solution to our transportation woes, not a false choice between money for safe streets and money for public safety or human needs.
- 19 million from the police department, which is equivalent to losing about 200 officers.
- $12 million from the fire department, which is equivalent to closing about six engine companies in neighbor stations.
- [etc...]
Here's an interesting article that highlights the apparently growing trend of hiring legal council to contest traffic infractions.
More people in Washington are fighting — and beating — traffic tickets than ever before. More than 158,000 traffic charges were dismissed last year, twice as many as a decade ago.I heard Ms. Mucklestone on the radio yesterday on my way home. Interestingly, her main point was that most of the time the state does not have enough evidence to uphold traffic citations, and therefore must dismiss them. Gee, that sounds like a familiar argument, where have I heard it before?
Factoring in the growth in tickets issued, the dismissal rate grew over 10 years from fewer than nine out of every 100 traffic charges in 1996 to more than 13 out of every 100 last year.
There are a lot of reasons for it, but one is the emergence of a cottage industry of sorts: Attorneys like Jeannie Mucklestone and her lawyer brothers, James and John Mucklestone, have created niche practices in the art of getting people out of their tickets.
Here's another interesting tale of a family that has no car at all. Only this family doesn't live close to everything in Ballard , and they've gone a lot longer than a year with no car. This Issaquah family has been car-free for almost 20 years .
The Petersons don't drive. They haven't since 1987. No one in the family has a driver's license. At 17 and 20 years old, the Peterson kids have never been behind the wheel.I have to say, that's pretty awesome. Cars cost a heck of a lot of money. My ideal solution would be to live within five miles of work so I can ride my bicycle every day. I'd still have cars, but they would be 100% electric. I'm not so much anti-car as I am anti-internal combustion engine.
As the rest of the country frets over the highest gas prices in history, the Petersons carry on as usual, biking, walking and riding the bus wherever they need to go.
"We're not anti-car," said Kent Peterson, 47. "We've just figured out that we don't need one."
Major props to Mike Lindblom of the Seattle Times for this detailed report that gets to the bottom of just how much money we are currently forking over in transportation taxes —and how much more we could be forking over very soon.
As Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels asks voters to spend more money on city roads, and King County Executive Ron Sims promotes a countywide sales-tax boost for more buses, the annual local tax bill for transportation already exceeds $800 per adult.I have been noticing this nagging feeling lately that maybe I'm not quite paying enough in taxes. Wait... no. And what's the deal with the money being split half and half between roads and public transit? Last I checked, far fewer than 50% of trips in our area are on public transit. Is 50% even a remotely reasonable goal? (I really would like to know—does anyone know where I can find studies of highly "transit friendly" cities?) Why is so much money being dumped into a "solution" that accommodates so few people, even while the roads are being "overwhelmed by growth in the motoring population"?
The dollars are collected in so many ways — state and federal gas taxes, sales taxes, car-tab taxes, property taxes, business taxes, real-estate tax — that the average person doesn't know the bottom line.
A Seattle Times review of major transportation taxes estimates that agencies collected an average of $843 per adult in urban areas of King County, including Seattle, last year. The figure for Seattle residents is $881. Roughly half the money went to transit, and half to roads.
In addition to this year's proposals by Nickels and Sims, another pair of multibillion-dollar packages — for Sound Transit and regional highways — appear headed toward the ballot next year.
If all four measures win, the area's transportation investment likely would exceed $1,000 per adult in both Seattle and its suburbs.
To avert a "roads-vs.-transit" fight, state lawmakers have required the highway and Sound Transit measures to pass together, or they both fail.I just have to ask... why?
There are plans in the works to make significant improvements to I-405, including some major widening action. Of course, while freeway improvements are good, it's pretty much impossible for any kind of progress to happen anymore without some group protesting the change. For this project, it is nearby homeowners concerned about noise .
Residents who live along Interstate 405 already know how loud traffic noise can be as they barbecue on their decks and patios.I can understand not wanting more noise, but I don't really see what the big deal is here. The state has clear rules about noise levels and mitigation methods, and those rules are being followed already. Did these people buy their homes next to the freeway expecting the noise level to decrease? Why are they trying to push an inferior and expensive solution to a non-existent problem?
Now, some homeowners in south Bellevue neighborhoods are worried about how much worse it could get once planned widening projects move the freeway even closer to their backyards.
In addition to noise walls, the traditional way to dampen the freeway din, they want state Department of Transportation officials to consider a less-tested way to mitigate noise: rubberized asphalt.
...
Officials say surveys of noise at dozens of sites on I-405, and computer modeling that predicts future levels, show most locations will not experience levels that push them above the state's limit of 66 decibels.
If the noise is louder than that, mitigation measures such as noise walls must be considered. At 67 decibels, two people having a conversation, standing five feet apart, would have to raise their voices to hear each other.
Though residents have expressed concerns about other issues, such as drainage, environmental impacts and freeway alignment, the potential for increased freeway noise tops the list, said Goran Sparrman, director of Bellevue's transportation department.
...
In the case of the rubberized asphalt on 104th Street [in Bellevue], it began to deteriorate after just a few years.
"Our experience is that it works well for a couple of years," Sparrman said.
"But the problem for us is it doesn't wear like normal and it comes out in chunks."
Following is a lengthy post about my experience in traffic court yesterday. Some of you may find it boring, so I didn't want to flood the entire main page with it. Short story: "Deferred finding." Long story...
View/Hide the expanded post.
Due to the bus schedule I arrived roughly 20 minutes early for my 10:00 court appointment. This gave me the opportunity to witness a few cases. I was in the King County District Court, room E-341, with Judge Mark Chow residing. Apparently everyone whose ticket involved a collision is sent to this court.
In the first case I was present for, a lady who was in the middle of a three-car rear end collision on I-5 was contesting a ticket for "following too closely." She rambled on for a long time, basically saying nothing more than "I think I only felt one impact" and more or less claiming that she was pushed into the car in front of her by the SUV that hit her and then fled the scene. She presented a—shall we say—less than compelling case, and yet the judge dismissed her ticket.
The next case was a lady that rear ended someone on I-405 in stop-and-go traffic and was ticketed for "speed too fast for conditions." The best she could come up with was "I didn't have time to stop," and when pressed on why she didn't have time, she said "I might have been distracted." Her citation was not dismissed, however she was offered a reduced fine or a deferred finding (more on those later).
Next up was a gentleman that was ticketed for failing to provide proof of insurance. He admitted to not having insurance, so the judge asked if he had been ticketed for no insurance before. He said that he had not. Then the judge pulled up his record and found out that—what do you know—he had; in '02 and '04. He was ordered to pay the full fine of $538. Ouch. This was the only case where the infraction was not dismissed or the defendant offered a reduced fine or deferral.
The 10:00 session didn't actually start until 10:25, at which point the judge called roll. Two of the individuals in the group were non-English speaking, and had interpreters. They both got to go first, simply because they had the interpreters. The first one was ticketed for "improper lane usage" and had hit the side of another vehicle. For some reason, he decided to subpoena as a witness the driver of the other vehicle. On the stand, this driver explained that they were at a full stop when suddenly the defendant's truck was implanted in the driver's side of their vehicle. The defendant brought photographs that for some reason didn't even show the scene of the collision, and tried to claim that the other driver somehow hit him. The judge didn't buy it, but because of his good record gave him the reduced or deferred option.
The next guy barely said anything. He basically just told the judge that two cars collided ahead of him and he couldn't avoid hitting them. The judge agreed, and dismissed the charge.
The last to go before me was a lady that brought a lawyer along, and to be honest the lawyer was talking so much legalese I'm not really sure what the charge was or what was going on at all, but whatever it was, it was dismissed.
Finally at about 11:00, it was my turn to go. The basic outline of my case was that the state is required to "prove by a preponderance of the evidence" that I committed the infraction of driving "at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions." Given that the state troopers arrived on the scene after the fact, and given that there are multiple plausible ways to lose control of a vehicle despite traveling at a safe speed (oil slick in the road, tire blowout, evasive maneuvers after being cut off, violent sneeze, etc.), the state can offer no such evidence (because I wasn't driving "too fast for conditions"). Therefore the infraction must be dismissed.
I attempted to give the judge a copy that I had prepared of the outline of my argument, but he refused to accept it, stating that it was "too long." I made my case, and he basically said that the fact that my car was wrecked was circumstantial evidence and was proof enough. Apparently Judge Chow could not possibly fathom that there are other ways to lose control of a vehicle. End of story.
The two options that were offered to me and others were: 1) Pay a reduced fine of $40, and the ticket goes on your driving record. 2) "Deferred finding," which basically amounts to a state-sanctioned bribe. If you pay a flat $100 fee and don't get any tickets for the next 12 months, they let you off. It's a codified version of Mexico's "slip the officer a few $20s and be on your way." Since I value having a clean driving record, I selected the bribe option.
Obviously I'm frustrated that the judge was unwilling to reason with me, but there are a couple of things that particularly bug me about the whole ordeal. It's not really the money that bothers me. Sure, it sucks to flush another hundred bucks after I already tossed $500 (the value of the wrecked car) and $150 (the towing fee), but to be honest $100 isn't all that much money to me anymore. What really bugs me is that Judge Mark Chow is basically calling me a liar. The fact that I was intimately familiar with the handling capabilities of my vehicle of nine years, and I knew for a fact that I was not traveling at a speed greater than was "reasonable and prudent under the conditions" didn't matter one iota. That is an unacceptable assault on my honor, and I really didn't appreciate it.
Furthermore, I realized something yesterday afternoon as I pondered my experience and the other cases that I witnessed. I realized that every one of them followed a simple pattern:
Before this pattern dawned on me I was really confused how a few of the people ahead of me were able to have their ticket dismissed when they offered weak or virtually no explanation for their actions. Once I realized the judge's method of operation though, it frustrated me even more. Why bother wasting time with the whole charade at all if the judge isn't really considering what you have to say? I could have worn my "blame the flying monkeys" t-shirt, and even used the "blame the flying monkeys" strategy, and the outcome would have been no different. It's not that I really had all that much faith in the justice system to begin with, but I guess now it's approaching zero.Sure, I could prepare a more rock-solid and convincing case and defend my honor with an appeal, but what's the point when there's really no reason to believe that another judge will listen to me either? So rather than spend another $240 on an appeal, I'm venting my frustrations here. Although the official government "public records" may show that I committed this infraction, this public record contains the truth of my innocence.
All in all it was a very disappointing experience. Fate knocked me to the ground and the so-called "justice" system kicked me in the gut while I was down. At least nobody/nothing was hurt except my crappy car and my honor.
Hide the expanded post.
Back in March I lost control of my car on the 520 onramp to southbound I-5. It smashed into the right wall, then the left wall before coming to a stop. Thankfully, no one else was involved, and my car had enough left in it to move to the side of the road out of traffic. Roughly ten minutes later some Washington State Patrol officers showed up on the scene to write up an accident report. Oh yeah, and to write me a ticket for "speed too fast for conditions."
I've got a 10:00 court appointment downtown today. The way I see it, the state doesn't have a leg to stand on, since the ticketing officer wasn't even there to witness my speed (which was not too fast, by the way). I'll report back here tonight on how it goes.
What's the solution to Seattle's traffic problems? Well, apparently if you ask the Mayor, the solution is a tax hike... on homeowners.
Since 1998, voters have passed five levies: $117 million for education, $86 million for low-income housing, $72 million for the Seattle Center and community centers, $198 million for parks and $167 million for fire-fighting facilities.Granted, Seattle homeowners seem only too happy to spend far more money than necessary for overpriced real estate and granite countertops—and a few hundred dollars per year isn't going to break anyone's bank. But what is the deal with begging for more money just to do (supposedly) routine maintence? What in the heck are they doing with the general budget?
The result is a four-fold increase over the past 10 years in what the average homeowner pays for levies. The owner of the average home in Seattle 10 years ago paid $104 for voter-approved levies. This year, the owner of the average home — assessed at $399,200 — will owe $459.
Today, Mayor Greg Nickels is expected to propose a new levy and other taxes — not for shiny new buildings, but to repair roads and bridges. His citizen advisory committee has suggested a levy of $25 million a year, and Nickels may choose to go higher.
"The need is clear, not only for the routine work of paving streets but also for the bigger projects, such as our aging bridges," Nickels said in his State of the City speech in March when he announced that he would explore a new way to fund repairs.
...
The new road-repair levy would signal a departure from how Seattle has used levies in the past. Previous levies were sold to the voters like Procter & Gamble products — offering something new and improved, such as new parks, fire stations and community centers.
This levy would improve roads but not pay for any new ones. The money would fill potholes, repaint crosswalks, repave roads — in other words, pay for tasks voters have come to expect government to include in its general budget.
Nickels said the city needs new money for road repairs to make up for funding that used to come from the state.I don't quite buy that argument, and as it turns out, neither does the state legislature.
State Senate Transportation Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island, said she was "aghast" at Nickels' complaints about state funding. In the $8.5 billion gas-tax package the state passed in 2005, Seattle received $2.8 billion for projects like the viaduct and the 520 bridge, and an additional $2 million a year for maintenance, she said.So, we're getting billions of State dollars for all kinds of fancy projects, but we have to jack up the tax on (already stretched) homeowners to afford to fix potholes? Something just doesn't add up. I could be way off base here, but I can't help picturing Mayor Nickels sitting at his desk with dollar signs in his eyes, thinking about the soaring property "values" in Seattle and wondering just how much more in taxes the populous will tolerate.
"The largest share certainly went to Seattle," Haugen said. "That was one of the things that people had heartburn about in the rest of the state."
Using weeks-old news about America's longest commutes as a pretense, Danny Westneat actually makes an insightful point about our attitudes toward gasoline .
These commuters may sound extreme. But it's only a matter of degree. The truth is rising gas prices haven't led to any drop-off in driving, by you, me or almost anyone. The feds just reported America is using more gas this year than last.I would have to agree. Although people may whine and complain about gas prices, they show by their (lack of) actions that it really isn't all that big of a deal to them. Personally, I've been fed up with gasoline since before prices even started with a 2. $3 per gallon gas hasn't changed my opinion—I still hate gasoline, and am doing my best to work toward eliminating it from my lifestyle.
Why? Because except for the poorest among us, gas isn't that expensive. Regardless of pandering politicians saying it is.
Some say nothing will change until gas hits $4 a gallon, and stays there. Or $6.
I don't know. I do know if a stylist is happily driving 820 miles a week to cut hair, our gas crisis isn't registering as one.
It's almost as if there's some kind of unwritten rule that at least once a year someone has to write a story about how "polite" Seattle drivers are on the road.
In a survey by AutoVantage released this week, Seattle drivers were rated as among the most courteous — less likely to change lanes without signaling or swear at fellow motorists. But many in this region say it's a reputation that's dead-on, but not always welcomed.Those things aren't polite or courteous... they're just stupid. Traffic laws are designed to make traffic flow smoothly. When someone stops unnecessarily to let a pedestrian jaywalk or breaks the pattern at a four-way stop, that screws up traffic. Speaking of traffic laws, there's one part of the article that I have to take exception to:
"There are many drivers who think that yielding right of way is always a courtesy, when in actuality it can be frustrating or even dangerous," said Dan Manville, 27, a library technician from Tacoma.
Stopping to let pedestrians cross when there is no marked crosswalk is one example, he said. Another is the "famous reluctance" to go first at a four-way stop.
"Yes, they're polite, but they're also very passive-aggressive," said Robert Heath, 40, an e-commerce consultant who moved here from Los Angeles six years ago. Seattleites, he said, don't have a clue how to drive in an urban area.So, according to Robert, following the law is "childish," and according to Prof. James, following the law is equivalent to "breaking all the rules." Hmm. How exactly does traveling at the posted speed limit "force" anyone to go around on the right, pray tell? Could someone explain the "logic" behind that?
Nothing makes him crazier than this classic move: Drivers in the freeway fast lane who refuse to go fast, letting traffic pile up behind them.
"The culture is kind of this childish, 'I'm going to stick by the book,'" he said.
That's the worst form of passive-aggressive motoring, said Leon James, a psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who studies driving.
"The person is breaking all the rules and creating a traffic danger point, forcing others to go into the right lane to pass them," James said. "That one driver will upset hundreds of drivers in one minute. That's dangerous and selfish."
Just when we thought the retrofit option was dead in the water, here comes yet another study.
For months the state Department of Transportation has dismissed proposals to repair, not replace, the Alaskan Way Viaduct.Allow me to translate for Mr. Paananen. Basically what he's trying to say is:
But now, the state plans to hire an engineering firm to study a retrofit plan crafted by retired structural engineer Victor Gray of Port Townsend.
...
"We don't think it's a good idea," said Ron Paananen, viaduct project manager.
"But they've gotten some attention from their latest proposal, and it seems reasonable to give it a look and see if it works technically."
The state has hired T.Y. Lin International to study the retrofit idea, the same company the state hired in 2001 to look at viaduct options. The company found a retrofit wasn't wise or cost-effective. Paananen, who expects the report to be completed in about six weeks, acknowledged the decision to study a retrofit option is a victory for Gray.
"We recognize there's a lot of people out there who still believe it can be retrofitted," Paananen said. "Let's see what the experts tell us."
There is no way in hell that we are just going to retrofit this thing. The directive has come down from the top, it's tunnel or bust. Unfortunately, the retrofit concept has received a lot of attention and public support lately. They're talking about saving money or something—whatever. So here's what we're going to do. We'll hire the same engineering firm that has already previously concluded that a retrofit would not work. They'll "study" Mr. Gray's idea, and report their findings. I strongly suspect that they will conclude that Mr. Gray's retrofit is not, in fact, a tunnel. Therefore, this silly retrofit concept will be dismissed once and for all.I think that about sums it up.
According to a Ron Sims press release, King County is going to combat global climate change by... by... well it's not quite clear what they're going to do, aside from spew a bunch of hot air on the topic .
King County will be the first county and the first major bus transit agency in the United States to join the Chicago Climate Exchange, under a proposal by King County Executive Ron Sims.Leading by example, huh? That's a pretty good idea, one that many of our local officials are really good at... or not. I wonder, how often do you ride a bicycle to work, Ron?
...
"By joining the Chicago Carbon Exchange we expect to play a key role in determining how markets should operate, especially in the areas of transit and solid waste," Sims said. "We have to be innovative and forward-thinking if we are to prepare for and reduce the impacts of global warming on our future."
...
"King County has demonstrated strong leadership in our commitment to clean air and sustainable living – from our world-class bus system to well-run wastewater and solid waste systems, and ambitious forest preservation practices," said Councilmember Phillips. "By stepping forward now to become the first county in the United States to make a binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, King County once again has a chance to lead the way for climate control solutions."
Sims believes that such regional efforts will ultimately influence the federal government to create a binding federal market, similar to that in Europe.
Uh-oh. It looks like downtown businesses are taking a cue from the city and carving up the cash cow that is parking.
REI today starts charging for parking beyond one hour at its Seattle flagship store, proving once again that as a city grows, fewer things in life are free.Actually I totally understand the need that they have to crack down. Unlike the city of Seattle, REI is a private business. Their parking spots are not a public resource, and they have every right to enforce a "customers only" policy. A "customers only" policy makes sense. A "cars get the heck out of our city" policy, not so much.
REI's 366-space underground lot had been unregulated ever since the store at 222 Yale Ave. N. opened 10 years ago. For most of those years, the outdoor-gear co-op was pretty much the neighborhood's only bait to draw shoppers. But as South Lake Union's skyline rapidly changed, bringing in more and more workers, visitors and residents, REI has had to rethink its charitable ways.
The new policy targets those in the neighborhood who have abused that generosity, stashing their cars in the lot for free, hour after hour, day after day. The REI lot proved a cheap substitute to parking at a pay lot and a convenient alternative to scouting for free parking along the street, where spaces increasingly are at a premium.
"Our garage is often full even on days of average business," Bobby Mullins, the store's business-operations manager, informed inquiring customers via letter. "We had to choose either free parking for everyone in the neighborhood or parking controls.
Enlightened P-I guest opinion columnist J. Craig Thorpe has discovered the solution to all our transportation woes: Sarcasm!
Last week, as I languished in Bellevue's I-405 traffic — and gas prices rose by the minute -- my mind began to wander. What would happen, I pondered, if the lines of snarled cars could perhaps be hitched together (even the trucks could be similarly joined) and the wheels modified to run on those little-used ribbons of steel in the corridor that parallels the interstate.Well duh, why didn't I think of that! It's simple, just build trains!
Maybe one vehicle with a larger power plant could pull the whole string. Then people would not have to drive and could actually enjoy the ride.
Why, such contraptions might actually be serviceable — be inviting, environmentally efficient and even contribute to our cityscapes and landscapes. (It appeared there would even be room for a trail for bikers and joggers to enjoy the same corridor ... a sort of linear park). Silly me — I realized the obvious. That contraption already exists, and it's called a "train." We don't see many trains here anymore.
During the three months of summer between my sophomore and junior years of college I worked in downtown Portland while living with my parents across the river in Vancouver. I learned a valuable lesson that summer: never live on the opposite side of a large body of water from where you work. Unfortunately, there are many people in the Seattle area that have not yet learned that lesson.
To the surprise — and disappointment — of local officials, an Interstate 90 traffic study appears to have yielded no methods for easing congestion on the floating bridge in the coming decades.I have to say, I'm shocked (shocked I tell you) to learn that the addition of fixed rail across the lake will not relieve future congestion. As a side note, apparently what they mean when they say they completed "analysis and load testing," is "we drove a bunch of trucks across the bridge together, because math is hard."
In fact, state Department of Transportation officials expect dramatic increases in travel times between the Eastside and Seattle in coming years, regardless of what is done in terms of the addition of light rail or other modes of regional transit.
...
The state transportation study, referred to as the I-90 Travel Analysis, was conducted at the request of Sound Transit's Board of Directors.
In July, the Sound Transit board also asked transit staff to work with the transportation department to complete analysis and load testing of the I-90 bridge to examine traffic flow, mobility, accessibility and capacity for users across Lake Washington.
That study showed the bridge could accommodate light rail across the lake, but some modifications would be required.
According to the DOT's most recent study, regardless of Sound Transit plans to put light rail or bus convertible to light rail across I-90, traffic commute times are expected to dramatically increase based on the anticipated additional vehicles and people traveling the interstate.
I guess it's funny week on Seattle Traffic, because here comes another story that amused me. It turns out that Seattle drivers get in fewer auto accidents than our southernly neighbor Portland—and apparently that little fact keeps some Portlanders awake at night.
Sometimes a statistic jumps out and says: Analyze this.That's rich. All the smart people are riding bikes... I mean, I ride a bike, so that's certainly a flattering suggestion, but really, how ridiculous can you get? I grew up in Vancouver (just across the river from Portland) and I can tell you anecdotally that Portland drivers just plain stink. Whenever I was driving around town and I saw someone pull a crazy/idiotic driving stunt, I checked the license plate. I'd say at least 80% of the time those plates would be from Oregon. I constantly found myself wondering just how lax the driver's license requirements are in Oregon. I mean, Seattle residents aren't exactly paragons of safe and responsible driving, but they're definitely noticably better than Portland drivers.
Here's one: Portland drivers are 13 percent more likely to crash their cars than drivers in Seattle.
...
According to Progressive, more than 26,000 car crashes will occur in the Portland metropolitan area this year. That's about 70 a day. And Portland drivers are actually safer than most — 3 percent less likely to be involved in an accident than the national average driver, according to the same report.
Idaho drivers are even better — 18 percent less accident-prone than the national average, based on accidents per capita. And Nevada drivers are 13 percent less accident-prone.
But the one statistic that doesn't make sense, or at least begs for explanation, is the comparison between Portland and Seattle drivers.
A couple of quick possibilities: The smart people here are all riding bikes and taking mass transit, leaving the rest of the drivers in their cars at the mercy of, well, one another. And Seattle's infamous traffic patterns could be a factor. But on the other hand, if you're in gridlock, you're not likely to hit anybody.
[Dick] Walker [manager of Metro's transportation research and modeling services], a guy who knows his way around a spreadsheet, cautioned not to put too much faith in the Progressive statistics. They may only tell half of a story, he said.There's a phrase that describes this article pretty well... hang on, it'll come to me... oh yes: grasping at straws.
For instance, he posed, maybe people here don't crash more often. "Maybe we report our accidents more frequently than they do in Seattle," he said. "We just may make more claims. It doesn't mean more accidents, necessarily."
For some reason I was rather amused by the story today about the increased sales of locking gas caps.
With gas prices hovering at more than $3 a gallon, some motorists are worried that a thief armed with no more than a gas can and a length of hose could suck pricey fuel right out of the tank.So, it's not that theft of gasoline is actually on the rise (there's no proof that it is), it's that people are just becoming more paranoid about their precious fuel being stolen. Here's why that is funny to me. Number one, a locking gas cap won't really stop someone that is determined to steal your gas:
Although there's no real way to measure whether gas siphoning is increasing with the rising prices at the pump -- police say they don't track it -- some Seattle-area stores are selling more locking gas caps than they typically do. And some business owners say their fleets are losing fuel to petrol poachers.
...
Kimo Corpuz, a manager with Action Auto Parts on Aurora Avenue North, said none of his customers has complained of being targeted by gas thieves. At least not yet. "People are buying the locking gas caps just for deterrence," he said.
But locking caps won't stop a determined gas thief, Smith said.But more importantly I am amused that people's reaction to rising gas prices is to try to protect their gas, not to try to cut down on their use of it. Someone actually wanting to steal your gas is a pretty statistically unlikely thing, and it's going to cost you what, $20-$30? So you spend $15 on a locking gas cap to save you $30. Good move. How about instead try carpooling once a week—or get some exercise and ride a bicycle to work? Over time you would definitely save a lot more than $15.
Mathews agreed. When her company tried locking gas caps, the thieves responded by cutting gas lines, which required a much more costly repair job.
Don't miss the roundup of commute-calculating tools in today's Seattle Times:
Does the rising price of gas have you contemplating parking the car and hopping on the bus to get around?It's not too surprising that online calculators for commute alternatives are somewhat lacking. I think it's really an issue of demand. When most people decide how they are going to commute, convenience, not cost is the primary consideration. In fact, I'd say cost barely even registers as part of the equation. The main point of the online cost calculator is really just to make you feel good about a decision you've already made. Hey, there's nothing wrong with that. I'll be saving over $700 this year by riding my electric bicycle to work just 60% of the time. And that feels pretty good.
Metro Transit says its online "commute calculator" — transit.metrokc.gov/tops/bus/calculator.html — can help you figure out whether you'd save money by taking the bus, and if so, how much.
The calculator requires you to plug the right numbers into the right boxes. It asks the number of miles you travel round-trip to work (there's a Mapquest link to help you figure that out), and what you typically spend for parking and gas. Then the calculator compares your total to the cost of paying cash fares on Metro at different times of the day and in different parts of King County.
But there are other considerations not calculated by the online calculator...
...
Metro also has an online trip planner — tripplanner.metrokc.gov — which can help you plot a bus trip from Point A to Point B that's either the quickest or has the fewest transfers or the least amount of walking. But on occasion, the trip planner can trip you up.
