Seattle Traffic

WSDOT: Drop the Tunnel Lite

2007-02-13T12:25:00.000-08:00

Breaking news:

Seattle's proposal for a reduced, four-lane Alaskan Way tunnel should be dropped from further consideration, because of "serious operational and safety problems found during our technical review," the State Department of Transportation said in a letter released this morning.

Hmm... Would that be the four-lane tunnel that Seattle voters will be voting on with the upcoming "advisory ballot"? Yes, indeed it would be:

Next week, advisory ballots will be mailed to Seattle voters, who are being asked to choose a four-lane tunnel, or a six-lane elevated structure. Final decisions rest with the state, where some officials have called the advisory measure flawed, or even meaningless.

I'll say. If the state says "this idea will never work," then it really doesn't matter if the city (for some reason) chooses that idea anyway, now does it?

(Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times, 02.13.2007)

Doh.

2007-02-02T07:04:00.000-08:00

Oh, snap.

A new express bus ramp above Interstate 405 in Kirkland has cracked because of a design blunder, so it will need to be partly rebuilt at a cost of $2 million to $3 million.
...
The roadway cracked lengthwise where a wide concrete slab hangs partly over the freeway in what the DOT says is an innovative cantilevered design.

Like an overloaded teeter-totter, the slab cracked down the center and sagged an inch at one of its far ends...

"Innovative..." Heh.

(Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times, 02.02.2007)

$10 To Cross 520?

2007-01-30T14:23:00.001-08:00

I hardly ever drive over the SR-520 bridge as it is, but although I support the concept of tolls, I'm pretty sure I would just drive around the lake if this plan gets put in place:

Tolls to finance a new six-lane floating bridge across Lake Washington could be nearly $10 when the proposed replacement along State Route 520 is opened in 2015, a legislative committee has been told.

Financing and cost estimates for replacing the overcrowded and aging Evergreen Point floating bridge between Seattle and the suburbs east of the lake were presented Monday at a House Transportation Committee hearing.

In the most optimistic outlook with tolls to finance construction, the round-trip charge for motorists would range from $5.66 to $8.13 in today's dollars and $6.90 to $9.90 when traffic begins flowing over the new span in 2015, lawmakers were told.

The low end assumes that the same toll would be levied on Interstate 90 across the Mercer Island floating bridge and that money borrowed for a new span would be paid back over 40 years.

Yowza. $10 to cross the lake? No thank you. Of course, as someone that lives in Kenmore and works in Redmond, crossing the lake is rarely something I do.

I believe that high tolls would have the dual effect of paying for construction and reducing traffic as people make other commute decisions. Over time it would probably also cause people to re-think the wisdom of living and working on opposite sides of a major body of water. Of course, I've never understood why people would do that in the first place, tolls or not.

(Associated Press, NWCN, 01.30.2007)

Road Construction Costs Climb

2007-01-16T11:15:00.000-08:00

It looks like we'll be getting even less road construction out of the RTID (if it even passes) than was previously thought.

The price tag for what was a $7.2 billion package of major new regional highways has risen by millions in the past year, leaving planners for a fall ballot measure searching for what to pursue and what to abandon.

The exact increase hasn't been calculated because a list developed a year ago didn't clearly define what projects would be built in the Interstate 405 and state Route 167 corridors. New cost estimates can't be compared with the original list in those cases, one state official said.

But new estimates circulated last week showed increases of more than $1.1 billion for just six of the biggest projects the Regional Transportation Investment District has on its list for King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
...
The package, intended to supplement state highway spending, is expected to be on the November ballot and needs approval of voters in at least the urban areas of the three counties. The higher costs aren't expected to change the estimated $107 per-household cost of new taxes to help finance the projects but the higher costs could at least scale some projects back, if not eliminate any.

So, a vote for the RTID is a vote for an ever-shrinking list of road additions and improvements, plus billions of dollars frittered away on toy trains that a tiny percentage of the population will utilize. Sounds like a great plan guys. Good luck with that.

(Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 01.15.2007)

Viaduct: To Vote or Not To Vote

2007-01-08T13:02:00.000-08:00

I would be remiss if I didn't review the current situation with the Viaduct upon my return to posting here. Of course the latest news is Mrs. Gregoire's push for a public vote. It seems to me that, she's trying to have it both ways with this course of action. On the one hand, she avoids having to make a decision herself, but on the other hand, she can "put the pressure on" and appear to be a strong leader.

Gov. Christine Gregoire on Thursday said the state would move ahead with replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with an elevated highway if the city of Seattle fails to let voters decide the project's future this spring.

Gregoire last month called for a public vote in Seattle to break the political stalemate over whether to build a more affordable elevated structure or a tunnel that she considers financially out of reach.

She wants the vote to take place before this year's legislative session ends in April. The session starts Monday.

In recent weeks, some Seattle City Council members have questioned whether the issue should go before voters.

The governor gave the ultimatum in an interview at her office. If the public doesn't vote before lawmakers leave town, "it's over," she said. "It's over because then I will instruct the Department of Transportation to move forward with the above-ground" option.

At least she is (apparently) putting her foot down. Of course, any public vote on the matter will not include my favorite option, because a bridge doesn't cost enough to be worthwhile to the politicians' political backers. But I digress.

One thing in particular that amused me in this latest batch of Viaduct news is the amazingly blatant flip-flop-flipping of Mayor Nickels.

March 9, 2006: "Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels, who is pushing hard for a tunnel, said he welcomes a public vote."

September 22, 2006: "Mayor Greg Nickels, who had initially supported a vote, said he changed his mind after learning of the new numbers, feeling they were too uncertain to send to a vote."

December 21, 2006: "Mayor Greg Nickels, a tunnel advocate, said last week he welcomed a vote. Deputy Mayor Tim Ceis said Wednesday the mayor stands by that position."

So which one is it Greg? Is citizen input welcome, or are we too stupid to comprehend all the nuances of funding a "$4.6 billion" (yeah right) tunnel?

Also worth noting is Danny Westneat's editorial yesterday in which he suggests that the city do a trial run of sorts on life without the viaduct:

So here's my modest proposal: Let's just try it. Close the viaduct. It's unsafe anyway, remember? Let's come up with a thousand-point plan like they did for the bus tunnel and shut down the viaduct for a month or two. Then see what happens.

That sounds like a good way to (hopefully) settle the argument about whether or not the "no build" plan is a viable option. Personally I think it would be stupid to tear down the viaduct and not replace it with another freeway, but I'd rather the city do that than sink untold billions of dollars into Big Dig, part II.

(Andrew Garber & Bob Young, Seattle Times, 01.05.2007)
(Danny Westneat, Seattle Times, 01.07.2007)

Surprise! Traffic Getting Worse.

2007-01-04T10:01:00.000-08:00

I think a good way to kick off the resumption of posting here would be to bring attention to the annual WSDOT Congestion Report. Here's a three-word summary that is sure to shock you: traffic got worse. Now enjoy some quotes from the press release:

To nearly no one’s surprise, the annual WSDOT congestion report released this week shows traffic congestion in the Puget Sound region is worse than it was two years ago.

The report tracks several measures of delay and congestion on major commuting routes. On 34 of the 35 commute routes analyzed, travel times increased at peak periods, speeds slowed, peaks lengthened, and the reliability of travel times worsened. All those factors resulted in reduced productivity of the freeway system, which means the system is less successful in meeting the need of people and freight to move around the region at the peak use hours.

“Several factors are playing a part in the build-up of congestion,” said state Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald. “In the period from 2003 to 2005, the Central Puget Sound region added over 40,000 new jobs and over 70,000 new people. Growth is placing ever greater demands on the system.”

According to the state’s Chief Traffic Engineer Ted Trepanier, WSDOT’s efforts to operate the transportation system more efficiently are helping, but not by enough to offset the continuing pressures of more people and more trips on the freeways.

What troubles me more than traffic getting worse is that there does not appear to be any realistic plan to prevent it from continuing to get worse in the future. Puget Sound population is expected to continue to increase at a good rate, and yet there are virtually zero plans to increase road capacity in any serious way.

Instead it seems that all of the transportation schemes center around rail or "mass transit" systems that under even the most optimistic estimates will carry only a tiny percentage of the commuting public. How bad will traffic have to get before they actually decide to do something that will actually address the problem, instead of merely further utopian visions of an unattainable future?

As traffic jams affect more areas of the freeway system for longer periods of time, the importance of good driving becomes increasingly larger.

“On crowded freeways, bad driving practices cause traffic flow breakdowns and even result in accidents that can put traffic in gridlock for hours,” said Trepanier. “Fighting traffic congestion requires strong operational programs, delivery of new projects to build capacity and every-day attention by motorists to their own safe driving habits.”

Speaking of good driving, I believe that the biggest improvements in transportation will come not from mass transit or building roads, but from smarter, smaller cars. I think that within 50 years, we'll have fully automated cars drive themselves from point to point, communicating with each other in a wireless peer-to-peer network to automatically regulate congestion and avoid collisions. We're already well along the path, with incremental steps like adaptive cruise control and self-parking cars. If every car on the road was operating in sync with each other, freeway capacity would probably quadruple, since the need to maintain a "safe following distance" would be eliminated.

Anyway, now I've gone and put myself into fantasy Utopia dream mode. Even if self-driving cars are on the horizon, there's still a major traffic problem today that needs real solutions. I wonder when the policy-makers will wake up to that fact.

(Press Release, WSDOT, 11.15.2006)
(WSDOT Congestion Report, WSDOT, 11.22.2006)

Hiatus

2006-10-11T10:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Seattle: Smug, Arrogant, Delusional?

2006-08-17T12:02:00.000-07:00

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.
...
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.

You should really go read the entire comment.

This was cross-posted on both Seattle Bubble and Seattle Traffic.

(Face Reality, Seattle P-I (comments), 08.16.2006 )

Study Funded By Tunnel Supporters Supports Tunnel

2006-08-17T09:25:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

Bah. I still want a bridge over Elliot Bay.

(Aubrey Cohen, Seattle P-I, 08.17.2006)

The Neverending Story

2006-08-16T09:38:00.000-07:00

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.

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:
It could last forever.
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.

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."

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?

Of course, it might just be me, but it also seems like all these excessive taxes aren't going to do much to help the Mayor's plan to increase the city's population 60% by 2040. But what do I know, right?

(Angela Galloway, Seattle P-I, 08.16.2006)

City Passes Two-Pronged Roads Plan

2006-08-08T10:08:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

(Akiko Fujita, KOMO News, 08.07.2006)

Forget Tunnels, It's Bridge Time

2006-07-28T07:28:00.000-07:00

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.

In a classic decision-making approach, the alternatives would be weighed against something like the following criteria:
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.
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.

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.

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 other Viaduct news, the tunnel is apparently unpopular enough that a coalition of citizens has formed with the sole purpose of preventing a tunnel.

A group of citizens began organizing Thursday night to fight a tunnel-replacement proposal and demand an up-or-down public vote on it.

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."

I don't see why we can't have a public vote on all the viable options. Put the following choices on a ballot:

do nothing
retrofit
rebuild
tear down
tunnel
bridge Elliott Bay

Let the people decide. How hard is that?

(Earl J. Bell, Seattle Times, 07.26.2006)

(Not So) Cycle Friendly Seattle

2006-07-26T09:59:00.000-07:00

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.

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."

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?

This bit of the article also quite amused me:

"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.

(David Neiwert, Seattle Weekly, 07.26.2006)

NewsFlash: Living Close To Work Not A Priority

2006-07-22T12:10:00.000-07:00

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.
...
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.

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.

Forget big freeways, bus frequency, and light rail. As long as people continue choosing to live far from where they work, we're going to have crappy traffic.

More thoughts at Seattle Bubble.

(Eric Pryne, Seattle Times, 07.22.2006)

City Council Trims Mayor's Tax Proposal

2006-07-18T10:49:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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?

(Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 07.15.2006)

City Ignores People, Selects Own Worst Roads

2006-07-17T08:49:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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."

Maybe it's just me, though. Oh well. Given how infrequently I actually visit the city proper, it's not as though I have much skin in the game anyway.

(Mary Andom, Seattle P-I, 07.13.2006)

Light Rail For Everyone!

2006-07-14T07:01:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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?

I'm not against transit, but I am against foisting the cost of transit on people that make wise decisions to avoid being part of the traffic problem and don't want or need transit.

(Lisa Chiu & Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times, 07.14.2006)

Like It Or Not, I-90 Transit Coming

2006-07-12T11:35:00.000-07:00

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.
...
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.

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.

Here's what I would do with transportation across Lake Washington if I were in charge:

Replace 520 with an 8-lane (all for cars) bridge.
Include an additional two lanes for bi-directional "rapid transit" across 520.
Add a two-lane dedicated transit bridge alongside I-90.
Institute tolls on both bridges for all vehicles.

What would your plan be?

(Lisa Chiu, Seattle Times, 07.06.2006)

Viaduct Tunnel: Who Should Pay?

2006-07-11T14:45:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

(Jennifer Langston, Seattle P-I, 07.03.2006)

Holiday Travel Unfazed By Gas Cost

2006-06-30T11:08:00.000-07:00

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.

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."

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.

(P-I Staff, Seattle P-I, 06.30.2006)

The Tim Is On Non-Vacation

2006-06-22T04:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Tacoma's "main downtown street is sinking"

2006-06-21T22:40:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

Whoops.

(Associated Press, Seattle P-I, 06.19.2006)

Toll Talk: Lake Washington Bridges

2006-06-21T10:28:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

Then again, as a commenter on yesterday's post pointed out, the neighborhoods around the edge of the bridges (Medina, Mercer Island, Madison Park, etc.) are some of Seattle's richest. They would probably be happy to pay $5 a day to reduce the traffic (by eliminating the cars of all those pesky commoners).

(Jamie Swift, King County Journal, 06.19.2006)

520 Bridge Not Long For This World

2006-06-20T07:35:00.000-07:00

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.

"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.

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.

(Associated Press, Seattle P-I, 06.19.2006)

Locke + Carlson = RTID FTW?

2006-06-13T07:51:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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?

Maybe Carlson can convince me otherwise. Given his most recent political activity (to repeal the 9.5 cent gas tax hike), I'm quite surprised to see him pushing this (and I'm not alone). What's going on, have we entered bizarro world? Stefan Sharkansky over at Sound Politics did a little digging and sheds a little light on the situation:

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.

P.S. (FTW = "for the win.")

(Associated Press, Seattle P-I, 06.12.2006)
(Stefan Sharkansky, Sound Politics, 06.11.2006)

Rubber Roads Coming To Lynnwood

2006-06-13T07:15:00.000-07:00

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.
...
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.

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.

(Associated Press, Seattle P-I, 06.13.2006)

City Streets Too Expensive?

2006-06-08T08:41:00.004-07:00

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.

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.

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.

Of course, the Mayor doesn't quite see things that way, and today the P-I gave him a chance to defend himself.

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.

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:
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...]
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.

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.

(P-I Editorial Board, Seattle P-I, 05.24.2006)
(Greg Nickels, Seattle P-I, 06.08.2006)

Lawyers Increasingly Beat Traffic Citations

2006-06-02T07:54:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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?

Callers to the talk radio show yesterday were fairly evenly split between "you're providing a great service" and "you're making our roads more dangerous." Personally, I say more power to her. This is still America, where we are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If there's not proof of guilt, innocence must be assumed. I wish I had thought to call someone like that. It just didn't even cross my mind that I would have to, since I was innocent, and the only "evidence" the state had to the contrary was an assumption of cause based on outcome.

(Jim Davis, Seattle Times, 06.01.2006)

Cut Costs By Cutting The Car

2006-06-01T06:57:00.000-07:00

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.

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."

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.

When you read about a family like this, you can't help but realize that 99% of people that insist they just need their cars are really just unwilling to kick the habit.

(Sonia Krishnan, Seattle Times, 05.28.2006)

Transportation Tax Breakdown

2006-05-31T07:31:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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"?

Oh, and I especially love this bit:

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?

(Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times, 05.27.2006)

Freeway Neighbors Worried About Noise

2006-05-30T12:28:00.000-07:00

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.

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."

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?

(David A. Grant, King County Journal, 05.30.2006)

Traffic Court

2006-05-26T11:07:00.000-07:00

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:

Judge Chow reads the defendant the accident report.
He listens to the defendant's explanation.
He asks a few questions, converses with the defendant for a short time.
He makes his ruling based entirely and solely on the accident report.

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.

My Thrilling Schedule Today

2006-05-25T06:59:00.000-07:00

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.

Homeowners To Fund Road Repairs?

2006-05-23T10:27:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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?

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.

"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."

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.

This was cross-posted at both Seattle Bubble and Seattle Traffic.

(Sharon Pian Chan, Seattle Times, 05.22.2006 )

Commuters Unfazed By Gas Prices

2006-05-22T14:36:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

Actually it's not entirely true that people's actions have not been affected by this. They're buying locking gas caps, remember? Don't we all just feel so much better now?

(Danny Westneat, Seattle Times, 05.14.2006)

Seattle Drivers (Not Really) Courteous

2006-05-18T09:24:00.000-07:00

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.

"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.

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:

"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.

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."

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?

Consider this scenario: Driver A is driving down I-5 south of Olympia (where it's just two lanes in each direction). The right lane has a steady flow of semi trucks, RVs, and other slow-moving (as in, below the 70mph speed limit) vehicles. So Driver A sets his cruise control to 70 and keeps left as he glides past the slower traffic. Driver B is flying down the road at 85mph, and soon finds himself behind Driver A. Angrily reducing his speed to the unbearable crawl of 70mph, he waits for his opportunity, and when a slight gap appears between semis, he zips into the right lane (without signaling), speeds past Driver A, then cuts back into the left lane (again, no signal) and speeds back up to 85mph.

Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that Driver A was the one that was creating a dangerous situation here? Don't even bother trying the old "the law requires you to keep right except to pass" argument. Is the driver traveling at 85mph keeping right? Furthermore, why is it okay for Driver B to exceed the speed limit by 15mph (breaking the law), but it is not okay for Driver A to stay in the left lane?

If the speed limits are set too low, we should petition the government to raise them. It doesn't make any sense to rage against people that choose to follow the law. And that's my rant for the day.

(Phuong Cat Le, Seattle P-I , 05.18.2006)

Viaduct Retrofit: The Undead Option

2006-05-17T10:55:00.000-07:00

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.

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."

Allow me to translate for Mr. Paananen. Basically what he's trying to say is:

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.

(Susan Gilmore, Seattle Times, 05.17.2006)

Hot Air To Control Climate

2006-05-16T15:29:00.000-07:00

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.
...
"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.

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?

(Press release, Ron Sims, 05.15.2006)

Free Parking Dying Downtown

2006-05-15T14:37:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

(Stuart Eskenazi, Seattle Times , 05.15.2006)

Columnist Divines Transit Solution

2006-05-15T14:17:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

Well duh, why didn't I think of that! It's simple, just build trains!

(J. Craig Thorpe, Seattle P-I, 05.15.2006)

No Hope For I-90 Bridge Traffic

2006-05-11T13:30:00.000-07:00

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.

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 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."

Note that they said "no methods for easing congestion...regardless of what is done in terms of the addition of light rail or other modes of regional transit." Did they even consider adding lanes? You know, actually increasing the capacity for normal cars? I doubt it. When the problem is "too many cars" Seattle's solution rarely seems to be "add more space for cars."

Unfortunately, although you can add more space for cars once, twice, even three or four times, it is not really a viable long-term solution, and rail or buses aren't much better. Realistically the only sure way to reduce traffic is to reduce the actual number of people on the road. Land use restrictions, Growth Management Acts, and other social engineering tactics already attempt to influence that number, but no matter what government regulations are put in place, people still have the right to choose to live 30 miles from work.

I guess the question is, to what extent is the government required to accommodate stupid choices?

(Ruth Longoria, King County Journal, 05.11.2006)

Safer Seattle Confounds Portland Experts

2006-05-10T08:08:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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.

[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.

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."

There's a phrase that describes this article pretty well... hang on, it'll come to me... oh yes: grasping at straws.

(Peter Korn, Portland Tribune, 05.09.2006)

Locking Gas Caps = Warm Fuzzies

2006-05-09T12:49:00.000-07:00

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.

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.

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:

But locking caps won't stop a determined gas thief, Smith said.

Mathews agreed. When her company tried locking gas caps, the thieves responded by cutting gas lines, which required a much more costly repair job.

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.

Again it comes back to convenience. It's much easier to drop $15 on a locking gas cap and get the warm fuzzy that your valuable fuel is now safe than it is to actually use less of said fuel.

(Hector Castro, Seattle P-I, 05.09.2006 )

Commute Calculator Roundup

2006-05-08T15:25:00.000-07:00

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?

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.

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.

(Charles E. Brown, Seattle Times, 05.08.2006)

Novel Concept: Kids Walking To School

2006-05-04T06:31:00.000-07:00

Here's a practice that was once commonplace but now seems totally foreign—kids walking to school:

It's no surprise that fewer students are walking to school these days, especially considering the busy intersections near some schools and the ever-present parental concerns about "stranger danger" or child abductions.

But for the past year and a half, the pedestrian-advocacy organization Feet First has collaborated with Bailey Gatzert Elementary in Seattle to form a "Walking School Bus" program to get children exercise, promote alternative transportation and pedestrian safety, and better connect families — particularly immigrant families — with their schools.

On any given day, dozens of students will gather several blocks from Gatzert and walk to school with their parents and community volunteers, sometimes making stops along the way to pick up more students.

I used to walk to school all the time, even through high school. Of course as the article mentions, modern parents are so terrified that child abducters are lurking around every corner that they would hardly allow their children to walk next door without close supervision. Interestingly, the latest update from the carless family in Ballard addresses that very topic:

Well, to judge by others' reactions, the thought of preteens traveling to softball practice or drama on their own triggers the fear of "stranger danger"--the specter of losing a child to abduction by a pedophile, serial killer, or psychopath. Amy and I hear a lot of things like, "Bike all that way alone?" "Oh, I wouldn't be comfortable with them walking by themselves. I'll come get them." "The bus? Are you sure that's safe?"

In the age of Amber Alerts, JonBenet, Polly Klaas, sex offender housing (find it in your neighborhood here), and sensationalist TV news, most parents don't want their children ever to lack adult supervision. What's more, people we know don't even want our children to lack supervision.
...
Parents' perception of "stranger danger" is catastrophically inflated. And the lock-down security regime that's resulted may do more harm than good.
...
Of the 115 US children abducted in 1999, about 50 were murdered. That number is horrible. Even one case is too many. But the United States is a really big country. It's such a big country that even minuscule risks kill dozens of people. Tylenol, for example, kills about 150 Americans each year. Aspirin kills about 60. (Go here.)

So no, your kids do not face certain abduction if they go 10 minutes without your personal watchful eye upon them and yes, a little exercise and independence will do them good. Plus saving gas is always a bonus, too.

(Jessica Blanchard, Seattle P-I, 05.02.2006)
(Alan Durning, Sightline Institute, 04.28.2006)

'No-Build' Not Dead Yet

2006-05-02T09:30:00.000-07:00

Sorry I'm a bit behind on this one, as it is last week's story. I wanted to post it, but I don't want this blog to be "all Viaduct, all the time." Anyway, a few weeks ago I talked about the option to tear down the Viaduct and just don't replace it. At the time the idea appeared to be dead in the water, but apparently Seattle's City Council is still interested in the thought:

Despite discouraging signals from the state, the City Council said Wednesday that it is going to take a longer look at tearing down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and funneling its travelers onto surface streets and public transit, without building a new elevated or below-ground roadway as a replacement.

"The surface/transit option is emotionally appealing," Councilman Richard Conlin said after the announcement.

But Conlin said he doesn't have enough information to know if that's a feasible alternative. He still favors replacing the 2.2-mile double-decked viaduct with a tunnel — the position that he, and a majority of the council, supported in a 2004 vote.

The council said it's commissioning a preliminary, $15,000 study that will review previous studies of viaduct replacement options and also consider the experience of other cities. Depending on what that examination comes up with in five or six weeks, the council will decide whether to pay for a deeper analysis of the so-called no-build option.

Keep in mind that Councilman Conlin is the only member of the council that actually practices what he preaches about personal trip reduction and alternate methods of commuting. That said, I am still confused about this whole thing, because spending $15,000 on a preliminary study sure doesn't sound like it is being treated like an emergency. Wasn't the imminent collapse of the Viaduct a major part of the emotionally-charged "No on 912" campaign? Oh yes, it was indeed.

It's so much of an emergency that we aren't even in a hurry to decide what we're going to do about it, much less actually start the work.

(Gregory Roberts, Seattle P-I, 04.27.2006)

Transportation Secretary Denied License

2006-05-01T08:50:00.000-07:00

While our supposedly environmentally-active Mayor uses 5 gallons of gasoline per day , another prominent politician has been kicked out from behind the wheel:

[Doug MacDonald] , the state's energetic highway chief with the thick Boston accent is selling his wheels, though under unfortunate circumstances.

He was recently unable to renew his license after failing the required eye exam three times.
...
Still, "I expect spending more time on transit will give me lots of ideas about what transit is doing well and what it can do better," he said.

"My parents live in Seattle, and I'm very interested in how to get from Olympia to Seattle on public transportation. I'm seeing a program which isn't as good as it should be, but we already knew that."

But it's unmistakable that he misses the view behind the wheel. People are very tied to their cars and the lifestyle they provide, he said.

"If I had a chance to get back my driving privileges or a restricted license of some kind, I'd jump right on it."

Mr. MacDonald is not as notorious for pushing the anti-car agenda as some in our local governments, but it will be interesting to see how future policy is shaped by his new perspective in being forced to use alternative transportation methods. Of course, he could just follow Mayor Nickels' lead and hire a driver to cart him around in a 17-mpg Cadillac with heated seats with built-in massage and Premium Enhanced Audio with Satellite Radio...

(Jeff Switzer, Everett Herald, 05.01.2006)
(Stefan Sharkansky, Sound Politics, 04.27.2006)

Reduced Parking Not Popular — Duh

2006-04-29T16:04:00.000-07:00

The Seattle P-I takes a look at some street-level, real world reactions to the city's plan to reduce the amount of parking downtown.

To owner Steve Shulman — who relies on seven angled spots in front of his small market — a city proposal to reduce or eliminate minimum parking requirements in neighborhood business hubs around the city seems insane.

"It blows me away that they want to cut more parking because it's so precious right now," he said. "It's a huge disconnect — just talk to the people, ask what their shopping habits are, where do they go and why."

The changes would make commercial areas more pedestrian friendly. But some say the city's tough-love approach to parking is likely to create huge frustrations without better transit alternatives.

Bingo. Of course, where "better transit alternatives" would go is the multi-billion dollar question, isn't it. Still though, if they want to ban cars from downtown, why don't they just do it. You know that's what they're trying to work toward.

(Jennifer Langston, Seattle P-I, 04.29.2006)

Reaction To Ron's Bus Plan

2006-04-27T10:02:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting pair of editorials about Ron Sims' buses for everyone plan. On one side of the fence you have a Seattle Times unsigned editorial gushing over the thought:

At a time when the public clamors for leaders willing to stick their necks out and plan for the future, Sims does that. It may make him seem like he loves to raise taxes, but it costs money to operate a truly convenient bus system. Buses have higher operating costs and lower up-front costs compared to fixed-rail transit.

To hear the Times' tell it, all of Seattle's traffic problems can simply be solved by throwing more buses on a few select routes. It's the "bus it, and they will come" strategy. Not everyone is a fan of buses, though. On the other side of the argument, you have Dan Savage of The Stranger working himself into a frenzy of rage against all things bus.

Buses—the public-transportation option favored by people who do not take public transportation. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that no one on the Seattle Times op-ed board commutes to work by bus. And Ron Sims? Like most pols, he only boards a bus for photo-ops. Fact is, people don't like riding buses, which are notoriously slow, noisy, dirty, and unreliable. Putting more slow, crowded, stinky buses on the streets isn't going to do anything to address Seattle's transportation problem or provide a transportation option attractive enough to get people out of their cars.

And that's about the tamest excerpt I could take from Dan's diatribe. He really doesn't like buses. Personally, I find myself in between the anonymous Times editorial author and Mr. Savage. I think buses are a decent transit solution, but I am not impressed with Ron Sims' plan to add more buses to places that are already fairly well served. How about throwing eastside commuters a bone here, Ron? I guess if we want useful bus service on the eastside we're going to have to pay even more. Yippie.

(unsigned editorial, Seattle Times, 04.24.2006)
(Dan Savage, The Stranger, 04.27.2006)

Mountlake Terrace Parking Crack Down

2006-04-26T08:37:00.000-07:00

Mountlake Terrace is on a mission to fight blight.

Drive through the older neighborhoods north of Mountlake Terrace City Hall, and they're everywhere.

Boats, modest vacation trailers, huge recreational vehicles, junkers — some on blocks, others sagging on flat tires — plus an assortment of family cars and pickups, presumably in running condition.

Many are parked on grass or patches of loose gravel, making them illegal as of March 15. The city is offering free driveway-construction permits, which cost up to $200, through Sept. 8.

Mayor Jerry Smith estimates that about 10 percent of the city's 6,000 households are in violation of the new parking rules. But he said residents generally support the rules, approved March 6 by the City Council.

I certainly understand the desire to promote tidy and inviting neighborhoods, but how are rules like this not a violation of private property rights? I'm as averse as anyone to living next door to a house with six broken-down cars parked in the front yard, but how does that make it okay to create laws against it? I also don't like living next door to people that smoke out on their porch... can we make that illegal, too? Where does it stop?

(Diane Brooks, Seattle Times, 04.26.2006)

Council & Mayor Love Their Cars

2006-04-25T10:13:00.000-07:00

Stefan Sharkansky over at Sound Politics has been doing some digging into Seattle city officials to find out whether they practice what they preach with regards to commuting and "trip reduction." Unfortunately, the answer for most of them is a resounding no.

The highlights: Nearly all of the Councilmembers drive to work. When they travel around the city on official business they usually take cars, although some occasionally travel by bus or bicycle or walk to nearby appointments. To his credit, Councilmember Richard Conlin practices what he preaches and reports the lowest overall auto usage among his colleagues and that he usually takes the bus, walks or bikes to work. Some of the other members to their credit, at least don't charge the city taxpayers for their automobile use. And the most prolific automobilist on the Council? It appears to be Peter "trip reduction" Steinbrueck himself.

Mayor Nickels seems to quite like his cars, too:

I've been curious about Mayor Nickels own automobile usage, so I recently submitted a records request for all of his city-paid auto expenses for 2005-2006. The city responded late yesterday: Nickels has been driving enough in the last 16 months to fill 168 pages of expense records.

In Seattle, what's good for the goose is apparently quite beneath the gander.

(Stefan Sharkansky, Sound Politics , 04.24.2006)
(Stefan Sharkansky, Sound Politics, 04.25.2006)

Upcoming Seattle Road Improvements

2006-04-24T10:00:00.000-07:00

While improvements to Mercer Street may only be in the "planning" phase, real constructions is moving forward this summer to improve the embarrassing condition of some of the city's worst streets.

The plans include nearly 80 miles of road repaving, installing or upgrading a dozen traffic signals, and improving 60 street crossings.

The biggest project is the $22.8 million repair of the Fremont Bridge.

Nickels said the city faces a $500 million backlog in transportation projects.

He said he plans to release a funding package soon to put on the November ballot to pay for more road repairs.

Of course, it would be too much to expect real progress to be made with existing funds. But hey, at least we get this nifty map of all the projects. I wonder which of those dots won't get done without increased taxes.

(KIRO, 04.19.2006)

Seattle & Expensive Gasoline

2006-04-22T12:16:00.000-07:00

Let's talk about gas prices. A few weeks ago a study was released that placed Seattle as the 8th "most prepared" for a sustained oil crisis among large cities in the US.

With gas prices on the rise and $3 or $4 a gallon gas on the horizon, SustainLane.com took a close look at the 50 largest U.S. cities to see which are most prepared and which are most vulnerable to an extended gas price shock in the $3 to $8 dollar a gallon range. Those cities that can reduce or stabilize their spending on gasoline will keep substantially more money in their state's economy, rather than siphoning it overseas.

Huzzah for us, I guess. Although I think Seattle would still be in a pretty tight spot if gas started costing $8 a gallon. There aren't that many people that carpool or take the bus. But if $3 per gallon is a "crisis," then yeah, Seattle's not likely to hurt much. According to the Seattle Times, rising prices isn't really likely to affect Seattle much at all:

From the federal Energy Department to your neighborhood cashier, experts think the price will continue to rise as summer approaches — and they say we'll take it in stride.

"I hate to say people are comfortable, because that would seem a stretch, but they're resigned. We see the demand staying relatively consistent," said Janet Ray, communications director for AAA Washington.

Jason Toews, co-founder of the national GasBuddy.com Web site, which tracks gas prices nationally, said he expects Seattle prices to hit $3, "possibly as high as $3.25."

Well I speak for one family whose demand is going down, thanks to my new wheels. And I'm anything but "resigned" to paying out my ears for gasoline. I've been dreaming of ditching the ol' internal combustion engine for years. I don't like being completely dependent on a substance whose cost could double overnight. It just doesn't sit well with me. Personally I think electric will be the wave of the future, especially if gas prices do reach $8 per gallon for any extended period of time.

(SustainLane, 03.24.2006)
(Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times, 04.15.2006)

City Plans Mercer Improvements

2006-04-21T10:16:00.000-07:00

During my time in college at SPU, there were two convenient ways to get to the freeway. To go north on I-5, you would wind around along the canal through Fremont to the 45th Street onramp. To head south, it was Westlake to Mercer Street, which was always fun since that last stretch of Mercer before the onramp feels like it's been the victim of a sustained air campaign. Every time I drove that stretch, I wasn't thinking "man, this traffic is horrible," but rather "why don't they fix this road?" Now, almost ten years later, they're finally drawing up plans to do just that.

The plan for fixing the Mercer Mess continues to chug along, even though more analysis by the city of Seattle is showing it won't do much to get people around faster.

The city's latest analysis of travel times under Mayor Greg Nickels' $100 million plan to widen Mercer Street and turn it into a two-way road will be unveiled at a community meeting this afternoon. That analysis, completed this week, shows that commuters could save a few minutes heading west on Mercer from Interstate 5, but they actually could spend more time in traffic going east toward the interstate.

Seriously, I wouldn't mind spending a few more minutes in traffic through there if the road was at least pretending to be smooth and non-bombed. My main beef is that they didn't do this a decade ago.

(Kery Murakami, Seattle P-I, 04.20.2006)

Bus Rapid Transit Feasible For Seattle

2006-04-20T08:09:00.000-07:00

Here's a story from last week's P-I about what I think is the most promising method of public transit: bus rapid transit.

[Jaime Lerner,] former mayor of the Brazilian city of Curitiba — and an architect and international sustainability guru — is a champion of public transit systems that use buses in a different way.
...
Visiting Seattle this week, Lerner shared his impressions about how to tackle this city's traffic:

What is the difference between the way our buses in Seattle operate and your city's system?

"A system of bus rapid transit is not only dedicated lanes. You have to have really good boarding conditions — that means paying before entering the bus and boarding at the same level. And at the same time having a good schedule and frequency. We have a system where you don't have to wait more than one minute. That defines the quality."

Is there a way to create dedicated bus lanes in a cramped city like Seattle?

"There are many ways, many corridors where you can have a really good system. ... Sometimes you think, 'Aaah we don't have enough space.' ... There's always a good solution."

Bus rapid transit is fast, it's flexible (relative to fixed rail), and it's way stinking cheaper than light rails or monorails. The main problem with bus rapid transit—the reason it will most certainly never get off the ground in Seattle—is that it isn't romantic enough. It wouldn't look good enough on aspiring politicians' résumés. Perhaps from the ashes of the Seattle Monorail Project, we should raise up the Seattle BRT Project.

I'm an open-minded kind of guy though, so I'm willing to listen to you if you have a convincing argument about how useless BRT is and how much better trains are. So let's hear it.

(Jennifer Langston, Seattle P-I, 04.12.2006)

Buses For Everyone!

2006-04-18T07:42:00.000-07:00

Yesterday there was an announcement that Ron Sims would be making a big announcement today about transit. And today he made that announcement— higher taxes for more buses.

King County Executive Ron Sims is proposing a sales-tax increase for the November ballot in hopes of buying so many buses that riders won't even need a schedule.

The plan, nicknamed "Transit Now," promises Metro Transit runs between downtown Seattle and West Seattle, Ballard and Aurora Avenue North every 10 minutes, with equally frequent trips from Bellevue to Redmond and along Pacific Highway South.

Sims' office calls it the largest expansion of service in two decades.

And in the P-I:

King County Executive Ron Sims today will propose raising the county's sales tax to pay for sweeping upgrades in Metro bus service, speeding up buses on about three dozen routes and adding service in a corridor that would have been served by the canceled Seattle monorail.

If voters approve, the increase would raise the tax countywide by one-tenth of 1 percentage point. In urban areas of King County, that would result in a jump from 8.8 percent to 8.9 percent. The difference would amount to one penny on a $10 purchase, and Sims' spokesman, Sandeep Kaushik, said it would total about $25 annually for an average household.

Granted, I'm probably not going to notice a penny on every ten dollars, but I question the usefulness of simply increasing the capacity of existing routes. Is the number of buses really the factor that is limiting more people from taking the bus? When I started my new job in Redmond I thought about taking the bus. Just to get from my house to my work—a drive that takes twenty-five minutes—I would have to take one bus all the way down to Bellevue, transfer, then take a second bus from Bellevue to Redmond, over a span of an hour and twenty minutes. Then I have to wait for the ten minute shuttle from the park & ride to my work. When I was commuting from the Northshore area to Monroe I understood why there weren't any bus routes that I could take. But from Northshore to Redmond? What the heck? And Ron Sims wants to jack up my taxes so that people going downtown (where service is already ten times better than the eastside) don't have to have a bus schedule.

Job growth alone in the county is expected to increase 25 percent over the next 10 years and "our transit service growth is not keeping up with that at our current level," said Victor Obeso, Metro's service development director.

So is all this projected job growth going to be people working downtown and living in Ballard or Northgate? I'm no transportation planner, but it seems like I could think of more effective ways to spend $50 million a year.

(Mike Lindblom, Seattle Times, 04.18.2006)
(Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 04.18.2006)

Remember Toll Roads?

2006-04-17T10:47:00.000-07:00

When you think of toll roads, what do you think of? The 50's, 60's or 70's? Privileged access to express lanes? Coin slots in older cars? Well, what you should be thinking of is paying tolls on many Washington roads—soon. Did you know that the Washington State Transportation Commission has been seriously researching how they can implement tolls as an additional source of revenue, and that some form of tolls is likely to be rolled out soon? It's true. Apparently the ever-increasing gas tax and the still-not-$30 tabs just aren't bringing in enough money. Check out some of the points from the Tolling Study Summary (pdf) ("pricing" is code for tolls):

Pricing can manage traffic to make the system flow more efficiently and reliably.
Pricing saves people time, and time is money.
Pricing generates revenue.

Do you believe that tolls save people time and money? Last Wednesday a public forum on tolls (pdf) was held in Seattle. It will be broadcast this Wednesday, April 19 from 4:00 to 7:00 p.m. on your local TVW affiliate . At this point there might not be much we can do to stop tolls from making a comeback in Washington. Or maybe you think that tolls are long overdue for a return. If we're not informed, there's definitely nothing we can do about tolls, one way or the other.

(Thanks to reader Bill Wright for tipping me off to this important issue.)

Seattle Not Very Cycle Friendly

2006-04-17T07:38:00.000-07:00

Let's take a look at another form of alternative transportation—one that I have some personal experience in—cycling. We're all supposed to do our part to reduce traffic, and although Seattle's weather isn't the most ideal for it (to put it lightly), cycling is generally an attractive option for relatively short commutes. Unfortunately, for all the green talk, Seattle isn't a very cycle-friendly city.

"The Burke-Gilman Trail is fabulous," said Severtson, 51, a programmer who often bikes from his Ballard home to Microsoft in Redmond. "But other than that, the network isn't as well-connected."

It's not easy navigating the streets of the Puget Sound region on a bike, according to the Cascade Bicycle Club, which recently mapped out a 1,521-mile bicycle network and found that 27 percent of the area's roads and trails aren't suitable for cycling.

There were "missing links" in the network with no alternative routes, the club found. There weren't enough signs, and busy bike trails and connections were closed at night.

Limited bike storage space on buses crossing the Evergreen Point Bridge forced cyclists to keep waiting at bus stops.

The region should make major improvements to its bicycle trails and facilities, especially filling in gaps between areas that draw large cycling populations, the report recommends.

Fortunately my bicycle commute is 90% Burke-Gilman/Sammamish River trail, where the only real complaint is tree roots pushing up the pavement in a few places. However, you would think that with all the anti-car sentiment around here, there would be more effort put into improving conditions for bicycles. I mean, the bureaucrats in government that go out of their way to socially engineer us out of our cars, but it takes a private cycle club to push for better roads and trails for bicycles? That's rather messed up.

(Phuong Cat Le & Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 04.14.2006)

Car-Free in Ballard

2006-04-15T23:17:00.000-07:00

So lots of the leadership and publicity hounds in Seattle like to talk about things like trip reduction and public transit, but how useful is that for your average person? Can normal people really do much to reduce the amount that they drive? Well, that's a pretty silly question, because of course they can, most just aren't willing to. However, one family in Ballard has taken the plunge and is finding out what it is like to live without owning a car at all.

Happenstance thus made us car free. But we decided to stay that way ... at least for a little while. OK, actually, it's more of an experiment, to see whether a middle-class family of five can live a contented life in Cascadia's largest city without owning their own car.

And from the source blog post:

Why are we doing this? Cost, conscience, and capability.

Cost: Owning a car is expensive. Replacing our car with another old Volvo would cost us, well, several thousand dollars up front plus at least $400 a month in fuel, taxes, insurance, and depreciation. Buying a new Prius would cost about $650 a month, including the same things (and more than $1,000 a month during the first year!).

I quote only the "cost" rational here because that one seems the most likely to really matter to most people. Granted, not everyone lives in a neighborhood like Ballard with 151 restaurants within two miles of their front door, and many people have lengthy commutes to work. However, much of our dependence on our automobiles is the direct result of where we choose to live. If more people thought like—and more importantly, made choices like—Mr. Durning, I wouldn't be writing a Seattle Traffic blog.

(Alan Durning, Tidepool via Cascadia Scorecard Weblog, 03.29.2006)

Light-Rail to Somewhere

2006-04-14T17:27:00.000-07:00

Good news if you happen to be someone who often travels from downtown Seattle to the airport:

The deal to build a 1.7-mile light-rail link between Seattle-Tacoma International Airport and Tukwila was approved by the Sound Transit board April 13. A light-rail link between downtown Seattle and the airport is expected to be completed by December 2009.

The deal between Sound Transit and the Port of Seattle, which operates the airport, will allow a light-rail station next to the fourth level of the airport's parking garage, with a pedestrian bridge linking the station and airline ticket counters.

I guess having at least some transit options is better than having none at all, but I can think of only two people I know (a married couple) that would be served by a line running from downtown to the airport, and they're not even going to still be in Seattle in 2010. I'd be a lot more excited about the whole thing if:

I thought there was even a slight chance it would be useful to me.
It wasn't costing the region an arm and a leg (with much of that going to wasteful bureaucracy like paying people $20/hr to board up windows—no joke).

Hey at least the people living in those new extra-tall condos downtown will have easy access to the airport though.

(Puget Sound Business Journal, 04.14.2006)

That Other Viaduct Option

2006-04-14T17:08:00.000-07:00

One option I failed to mention in yesterday's post about our favorite local elevated highway was the "just fix it" option. Today the Times ran a piece on Victor Gray, the man with the mission to convince the city to do just that.

Gray, a retired structural and civil engineer, took his campaign Thursday to the Seattle Marine Business Coalition, asserting that the viaduct could be braced to withstand a 500-year earthquake at a cost of about $800 million, including replacing the Alaskan Way Seawall. That's a fraction of the $2.5 billion to $4.5 billion the state said replacing the viaduct, or putting it in a tunnel, would cost.

"I can't believe the state is pursuing [replacement] without considering a bracing system," Gray said.

That's because you don't understand just how much people in government love spending money, Victor.

(Susan Gilmore, Seattle Times via Sound Politics, 04.14.2006)

To Viaduct, Or Not To Viaduct

2006-04-13T09:27:00.000-07:00

Let's talk a little bit about the Viaduct. Everybody knows that it's falling apart and could basically come crashing down at any moment—at least that's the scary story we were told last year when I-912 was on the ballot. Since that election the terrified shrieks have toned town a bit and the story has been revised from "could fall any time" to "will fall in the next earthquake." That story would sound a lot more reasonable, but if it's really that dangerous, why is it still open? Furthermore, why haven't the powers that be even made a decision on how to replace it yet? These are pretty sensible questions, I think.

As far as replacement goes, the Mayor certainly has the prettiest option , and he's definitely the loudest one in the discussion, but one group, the People's Waterfront Coalition, wants people to ask the question: what if we just tear down the Viaduct—and don't replace it ?

This approach is gaining currency because it has been successful in cities both around the world and as close to home as Portland. Research into actual cases where highway capacity was reduced in a city finds an average decrease of 25% in the number of car trips, while road planners' computer predictions of mass gridlock have not been borne out in the real world. At the end of an era dominated by abundant, cheap energy, city planners worldwide are shifting away from urban highways designed for the personal automobile to models of dense, walkable and well connected communities with effective transit.

Given all the other anti-car activity going on in our city, I'm actually surprised that the Mayor isn't pushing for this option himself. Personally the best option to me is the one that strikes the best balance of simplicity, low-cost, and moving automobiles. A tunnel would be neither simple nor low-cost, and would move fewer cars than the current structure. The no-replacement option would certainly be the most simple and lowest cost, but simply move automobiles onto other already stressed roadways. Direct replacement would however be simple, reasonable cost, and move at least as many cars as the current roadway. It just makes the most sense to me. If I-5 were to see some major improvements (including having more than 2 stinking lanes through the center of towntown) then a "highway-free shore" would sound pretty good. But as it is, I just don't think I can get behind something that actually reduces the miles of roads in Seattle.

(Dan Gonsiorowski, Seattleest, 03.13.2006)
(Susan Gilmore, Seattle Times , 03.26.2006)
(Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 03.29.2006)

City's New Drug: Electronic Parking Meters

2006-04-12T20:04:00.000-07:00

So Mayor Nickels wants to reduce the number of parking spots downtown, and thanks to the Seattle Weekly, we learn that the city is also systematically converting free street parking into $1.50/hour e-parking—and making bank on the deal.

The program to replace parking meters on city streets with a pay-station system is a financial success no one at City Hall wants to brag about. New figures show the ubiquitous curbside kiosks, which issue time-stamped parking stickers that can be affixed to a car window, are already earning about $3 more a day per parking space—at $6.50, they're bringing in almost twice as much as the clunky electronic coin meters they replaced. The wireless, solar-powered kiosks will collect $16 million in coin and credit- or debit-card revenue this year, officials say. That's an impressive $6 million jump since 2003, when the system was launched and parking meters collected $9.9 million.

Being a government program, there's a catch, of course, which might be why politicos and bureaucrats don't seem to be talking up the big score. A great deal of the added revenue is coming from hundreds of pay stations that have been or will be installed at once-free downtown and neighborhood parking spaces. The target is the citywide conversion of 2,000 free or time-limited parking spaces (30-minute and two-hour spots, for example) to paid kiosk spaces.

With free parking going the way of the free lunch, another sly parking revenue–maker is lurking: a rollback of after-hours free parking. City Hall is mulling plans to extend paid-parking hours to nights and weekends in some areas.

I enjoy going downtown, I really do. But it's almost as if city officials are combining forces to keep people like me away. Seriously, what's the deal? How about first fix the bus system—you know, so it actually serves people outside the downtown core with useful routes—then implement your step-by-step banishment of cars. Either that or just come right out with your true agenda and ban cars from downtown all together, right now. Oh but wait, I guess then you would miss that cool $16 million.

(Rick Anderson, Seattle Weekly, 04.12.2006)

Eastside Bus Changes Make Headlines

2006-04-12T08:32:00.000-07:00

King County Metro has come up with an ingenious, groundbreaking plan: adjust bus routes as the transportation needs of the people change. Revolutionary.

With more jobs, more shops, more restaurants and more entertainment on the Eastside these days, King County Metro says it wants to overhaul its bus routes to better serve those residents whose travels rarely take them into Seattle anymore.

Over the next few years Metro hopes to better connect Eastside cities, increase the frequency of buses along popular routes, improve evening and weekend service and make the most of new park-and-rides and transit centers.

More capacity along popular routes? Eliminating unpopular routes? Who would have thought of such a plan! Seriously though, if this is uncommon enough as to be deemed newsworthy when it happens, isn't something a little messed up? Wouldn't a bus system running at peak efficiency be frequently trying out new routes, adjusting capacity on existing routes, and eliminating unused routes? Of course, that assumes that Metro is concerned with efficiency...

Surely if this is news it's only because it's long overdue, right? Here's the reaction from the ever-anonymous "editorial" author at the Seattle Times.

King County Metro's idea to readjust bus routes on the Eastside is a good one. This needs to be done deliberately, because bus service needs to be predictable. But every decade or so, it does need to be done because the mix of people and their destinations constantly changes.
...
Whatever Metro does will cause complaints. People resist change, but this is the sort of change that, done right, will be appreciated.

It also demonstrates the advantage of the bus over the train. Rail is fixed. The idea with rail is that people will move to the rail stations. Sometimes people cooperate with these ideas and sometimes not.

Buses are built for a world in which people change plans for their own reasons, and the buses follow.

Buses are flexible, I'm with you there, but adjusting schedules only "every decade or so"? Yikes. What possible reason could there be to react that slowly to shifting commuter demand?

(Karen Gaudette, Seattle Times, 04.11.2006)
(Editorial, Seattle Times, 04.12.2006)

Mayor Nickels Proposes Less Parking

2006-04-11T21:08:00.000-07:00

Could someone explain to me just how Seattle's Mayor got re-elected using transportation as one of his major platforms? First he's hell-bent on Big Dig West, and now he wants less parking downtown.

Think about the last time you tried to find parking on the street in Seattle. Unless you had a day of great parking karma, it wasn't very easy was it?

But now, Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels is proposing even fewer parking spaces in the future and as you might imagine, there are a lot not too happy with that plan.
...
Nickels says he wants to make our city more livable. When new condos go up anyplace out of the downtown core, they won't have to build as many parking spaces for residents.

So, many worry those extra cars will wind up on the street, creating a terrible crunch.

To discourage that, the plan proposes less free street parking and more meters with a maximum two hour limit.

Sounds pretty half-baked to me. Difficulty finding parking (that's a candidate for understatement of the year) is already one of the main reasons that I don't go downtown very often. Sure, my wife & I could take the 522 Express bus and get downtown in a little more than a half an hour, if we wanted to spend $10 to do it. Or, we could go somewhere closer instead, get there quicker, easily find a free parking spot, and pay pennies quarters for the gas to do it. I guess if Mayor Nickels wants downtown to become more and more of a closed-off social club, then this is the way to go.

(KOMO Staff, KOMO News, 04.11.2006)

Choosing Convenient Commuting

2006-04-11T09:00:00.000-07:00

Richard Seven wrote an excellent piece called Getting Nowhere last month that explores the personal side of traffic that I touched on in my about the blogger post. The subtitle really sums it up well: Diehard singles, we commute, clog, stall, rage and refuse to change. Here are some choice quotes:

Convenience is the drug that salves commuting guilt.

Transportation planners study volume and flows and bridging the blobs where people live and work. What does not fit so easily into their matrix is the human behavior of the lone commuter who, one by one, determines congestion.
...
I'm not a road-clogger, I tell myself. My commute is only five miles each way. I often work from home and on weekends just to run counter to the grain. And I need my car. No good reporter hangs around the office; nothing happens there.

Still, my morning choice strikes me as a wimpy one. I look around and see everyone else is driving alone, too. I wonder why they can't rideshare and if their excuses are valid or, like me, they just don't want to get wet. The question is not why can't they rideshare, but why won't they?

As director of the Washington State Transportation Center, Mark Hallenbeck says congestion is not just a function of too many cars in too small a passage in too tight a window. It is also the sum of choices.

"Flexibility and convenience still far outweigh the costs of driving alone," he says. "People don't really feel the pain — even though they complain about it. It isn't so bad that they are really, actively looking for an alternative. And since they aren't looking, they don't know what the alternatives are." And he hastens to add, there aren't many good transit alternatives for suburb-to-suburb commutes.
...
So we drive alone and pine for relief as we idle. We spew outrage at the price of gas while we burn it into fumes. We whine about clogged roads as we help clog them. We grumble about Sound Transit yet we throw Monorail Hail Marys. We're addicted to flexibility but completely inflexible about what commuting options we will accept. Some experts say it boils down to control.

Indeed. In a perfect world, we would all be able to live wherever we want, work wherever we want, and magically get to and from anywhere we need to be in the blink of an eye. The problem is that in the real world, transportation channels have a limited capacity, and too many people make choices that don't take that under consideration.

People want big city amenities and conveniences with rural freedom and individuality, and that's just not reality. As I've said, I hate traffic, but every time I find myself sitting in an idling car, surrounded by others in the same predicament, I'm keenly aware that I'm part of the problem. At least on a subconscious level, I think most other people realize this about themselves too, but until it becomes inconvenient enough, they're not going to change. What will it take to breech that threshold? $5/gallon gasoline? $10/gallon? 3 hour commutes from Lynnwood to Seattle? Who knows. But until we reach that point, the majority of people will continue to contribute to the problem and all the while complain about it.

Me—I'll be enjoying the fresh air while I zip along on the trail, where the only traffic I have to worry about has feathers and webbed feet.

(Richard Seven, Seattle Times, 03.12.2006)

Seattle to Pay Billions for RTID

2006-04-10T09:30:00.000-07:00

Let's kick things off with a story from the Seattle P-I about the Regional Transportation Investment District.

So what is the Regional Transportation Investment District and why should you care about it?

Because the RTID will have a huge say in how and even if the Alaskan Way Viaduct is replaced.

It will also help decide whether drivers will soon see tolls again on the Lake Washington bridges.

And it will soon be asking people in Seattle and throughout the Puget Sound area to pay billions of dollars in new taxes to fix the viaduct and other major transportation projects.

They are the biggest of the big-ticket items: Paying part of the cost of replacing the viaduct and the 520 bridge; widening Interstate 405 and state Route 167; and helping connect state Route 509 to Interstate 5.

So in order to get some maintenance and a few improvements, we in the Seattle area are going to be on the hook for billions more in taxes. Are you aware how much money the State currently collects in transportation taxes? According to documents on Joint Transportation Committee website, $1.4 billion flows into State coffers each year in transportation taxes. And what does 1.4 billion per year buy? Apparently not a whole lot. Hence the RTID.

I find myself somewhat conflicted about the RTID. I'm not inherently against the idea, but I am somewhat suspicious as to whether involving yet another government agency will somehow lead to my money being better spent. Consider these "guiding principles" taken from the RTID's Blueprint for Progress:

Any proposal must significantly improve traffic flow and mobility in major corridors in all three counties.
The roads portion of a regional transportation package should be fully integrated with the potential transit package currently under review by Sound Transit as part of its proposed Phase 2 investments (Sound Transit 2).

See, I'm totally on board with that first one. We need to make significant improvements to traffic flow and mobility. But, what's the deal with road improvements being "fully integrated" into Sound Transit? Sound Transit has yet to demonstrate any ability to "significantly improve traffic flow and mobility." Those two principles seems to be at odds with each other.

So what do you think about the RTID? Is it really necessary? How much deeper into your pockets are you willing to reach to fund these projects?

(Larry Lange, Seattle P-I, 03.10.2006)

Thoughts On Posting

2006-04-09T10:19:00.000-07:00

I'd like to take a few moments to share about the posting frequency here. Much like my Seattle Bubble blog, the topic that I have chosen to dedicate this blog to is of a relatively specific nature. As such, there is a rather limited supply of new information available at any given time that is worthy of posting. There are plenty of news stories every day about the traffic, cars, or parking in general, and you can easily find them with a Google News search. Repeating and re-hashing every traffic story under the sun is not something that I am interested in doing. In fact, before I started this blog I actually performed some internet searches to make sure that a similar blog did not already exist.

Rather than adding yet another voice to the discussion on the more general topics, as I have stated before, I intend to keep this blog's focus centered on the specific topic of "news and discussion about traffic, roads, parking, and other related issues in the Seattle area." As such, if there is no news about Seattle area traffic issues on a given day, there probably won't be any posts (unless I think of a good discussion topic). Other days, there might be five or six posts. There will be busy surges and boring lulls. I expect it to be quite random, and I just wanted to make sure that anyone reading this doesn't come on a five-post day and expect it to be like that every day.

About the Blogger

2006-04-09T10:10:00.000-07:00

I'd like to use some space to tell you a little bit about myself so you can best understand where I'm coming from, what my purpose is in writing this blog, and to share some of my feelings regarding traffic in Seattle.

I'm 25 years old and live in a small house (actually a converted garage) in the Seattle area (North King County) with my wife, dog, four ferrets, and an aquarium full of water critters. For a living I design control systems for a large construction equipment manufacturer in Redmond. I earned my Bachelor's degree in EE from Seattle Pacific University in 2002.

To get right down to it, sitting in traffic is one of the few things that really frustrates me. I'd sooner take a route that is 50% longer but allows me to keep moving than spend half the drive motionless on the freeway. Unfortunately here in Seattle it seems that traffic is bad and only getting worse. Granted, we're no Los Angeles, but even so, consider our four major freeways:

I-5 is slammed for hours every morning and evening, even with the express lanes, and just forget about trying to get downtown on a weekend afternoon.
I-405 gets hosed throughout rush hour to the point that it's little more than a parking lot.
I-90 crawls across the lake, with the express lanes offering little relief.
SR-520 maxes out even earlier, and seems like it could sink any time we get a little rain and wind.

...and there are hardly any alternate routes worth considering:

SR-522 around the lake? Slammed.
Alaskan Way Viaduct? Too short and falling apart.

So how is the government spending our ever-increasing tax dollars to address these issues? In short—they're not. They claim that they only have the money to repair existing roadways and build "mass" transit. Actually they claim that they need more money for those, too. But now I'm just ranting.

Of course, the government only carries part of the blame for our region's traffic woes. You are also responsible. Every time you find yourself sitting motionless on the freeway, you are part of the problem. Traffic is really the result of the choices that we have all collectively made regarding where we live, work, and play. Of course, there are many good reasons that people live and work where they do, not the least of which is the issue of housing affordability, but it is still your choice. Nobody held a gun to your head and forced you to live in Everett even though you work downtown.

Until recently I worked in Monroe. My commute was 18 miles each way, mostly on SR-522, but took me only about 25 minutes since all the traffic was going the opposite direction. Since starting my new job in Redmond traffic has become more of an issue for me, so I recently began riding an electrically-assisted bicycle to work. Not only does this free me from so-called "fossil fuel," but it also allows me to breeze along almost the entire way on the Burke-Gilman / Sammamish River Trail. By car in moderate traffic the drive takes around 45 minutes—on bicycle: about 50 minutes. Five extra minutes each way plus a little exercise, and never worrying about traffic is well worth it to me.

To sum up, even though I am not often personally affected by Seattle's nasty traffic, I still see it as an increasing problem with no easy solutions. I offer this blog as a forum where we can vent about the problem, discuss related news, and work together to find a way out.

Welcome to Seattle Traffic

2006-04-08T21:25:00.000-07:00

Welcome, planetoids to another new blog, "Seattle Traffic." This blog was created to post news stories and generate discussion about traffic, roads, parking, and other related issues in the Seattle area. Questions we will explore:

Why does Seattle have such horrible traffic?
What realistic solutions exist?
How does public/mass transit figure in?
What will transportation look like in Seattle in the future?
etc...

Many local blogs and news outlets frequently discuss traffic-related issues. I highly recommend you educate yourself through the links in the sidebar. I am starting this blog to collect traffic-related stories for my own interest, as well as to provide others with a forum to discuss issues that affect almost all of us that live in the Seattle area. I hope you find this to be a useful resource.