Rasmussen to Propose Special Taxing District for Transportation

Well, this is just one of the elephants in the room, funding-wise. There are many more legitimate projects in need of funding than there are revenue generating mechanisms. That's a mouthful, but you know exactly what I mean.

As a voter, I hope this doesn't turn into an ugly political battle. The City has to set clear priorities and use its fundraising capabilities accordingly. How's that for idealism?

Smart idea! This proposal seems to actually focus on priorities!

Why do we need a citizens’ oversight committee to come up with the right mix of taxes for pedestrian, bicycle and transit improvements with costs in the millions, but we are called birthers if we ask tough questions about the tunnel?

You (that is, the mayor's lackeys), are “called birthers” not because the questions you ask are “tough” but because your question has been answered, (yes yes.. not to your liking), and yet the question is asked again and again. It is the redundant behavior that resembles the birthers. (now watch… the question will be asked again as part of the reply)

So will this group of citizens include the usual bunch of insider stakeholders or will this actually be a broad cross section of local groups?

“wasn’t much, as I recall. It was more a concept.”

Just like the mayor himself!

I'll ask a different question: what does state law say? It says Seattle pays. You can write all the clauses into non-binding documents that you want. At the end of the day, the Legislature has appropriated a fixed amount, and no one knows who will pay if it goes over budget. The only thing the Legislature has said on it is Seattle pays.

Sorry if asking that makes you so uncomfortable that you have to state calling me names.

What the hell is going on here? Doesn't Rasmussen know that transportation plans must be heaped on the folks that already have it?

Overlapping multimodal ass kissing can not get distracted by this “whole city” nonsense.

Same thing I'm worried about. We already have a ped plan that's designed to take whatever $$ are available and help prioritize projects based on, you know, data…the bike plan already has a long list of projects and they have a rating system based on factors like geographic equity and others. One day maybe we'll have a transit plan as well. So tell me again why we need yet another committee? Pick a number and go fight for the funding!

I think a TBD is a great idea! We have a pretty substantial taxing authority we are not using–meanwhile Metro is going to cut bus service and the Ped and Bike Master Plans are woefully underfunded. I hope the Mayor and Rasmussen can figure out a way to work together on this rather than constantly working against each other. The mayor could have come out with a detailed plan, but he missed the boat and Rasmussen is now taking the lead. McGinn has an opportunity to jump on board and still shape how this turns out, but only if he is willing to work with the council.

Hope springs eternal.

Maybe the City of Seattle can pony up the actual cost of the downtown Ride Free Area and keep it. The compensation to the County (Metro) hasn't changed since 1973.

It will be dominated by Real Change and the Sierra Club. That's right, it's the Josh Feit Coalition, now gaining currency in The Stranger for its referendum drive.

Is it a coincidence that Josh has been pushing this coalition for several months now, and then it suddenly appears in The Stranger with an initiative drive? Or is this some dark conspiracy where Josh and Publicola are in cahoots w/McGinn, the Sierra Club, and Real Change????

Journalism or public advocacy?

Here's the Eli Sanders link:
http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/to-the-ballo…

It's awesome. Not only do they site a bogus poll, but they also end with a quote that once again illuminates just how clueless and inexperienced they are:

“For now, it remains unclear exactly when an initiative would be filed. 'People who are good at filing initiatives at the right time are watching very closely,' says Montz.

That's what we say about our dogs when they're begging for food scraps.

If the goal of this is to decide where to spend money for “bus, bike, pedestrian” improvements, that was my point: why would you do things like ask the port, truckers, DSA, etc. what their opinion is? You need a plumbing opinion, you ask plumbers, not Nordstrom's board. You need parks advice for a landscaping project, you ask landscapers, not the Pioneer Square Community Association. If you need guidance on which bike project to fund in 2011, why would you ask a drive by trucker?

The Mayor.

Detailed Plan.

Ne'er the twain shall meet.

“that would pay for transportation improvements citywide, including bicycling and pedestrian infrastructure improvements.”

INCLUDING, not EXCLUSIVELY.

But come on. You and I both know that the committee part is just bullshit – more Seattle Process and political posturing. No matter what you do, it'll still get political and people will still argue.

And we'll still end up with watered-down compromises that make no one happy.

So it citizens taxing citizens, not the politicians. And when things go wrong, its the citizens fault.

Seems like there should be a broad group deciding how to divide the money into which buckets (walk, bike, ride, SOV, freight, ferry, elevated modes, etc.) once it's divided up, let the special groups in each bucket decide how to spend it. But it should be a bunch of cyclists deciding how to divide the whole pie, just their piece.

This is the answer to all the people who complain about the lack of authority to implement an MVET or VLF. Let the voters decide. Seems like a win/win/win for everyone, but McGinn will somehow oppose it.

Maybe we can get rid of the ride free area altogether. It's a dumb idea that complicates fare and keeps outbound buses at stops longer than necessary.

If the mayor can't lay down real proposals, detailed and smart, others will do the job. Congrats Tom. Much work to be done.

The ride free zone was designed as a shopper shuttle system. Fast easy, no extra cost as shoppers SPENt THEIR MONEY in the downtown core.

That era is not all gone – I love the ride free zone. I would extend it to C. Hill. That would sure boost downtown.

Hmmm… Asking a tough question for which the council has an *inadequate* answer makes us “lackeys” of one of the few politicians listening to us?

Let me ask a different question: Why do so many tunnel boosters go immediately to ad hominem epithets instead of actually trying to defend the tunnel or the risks of cost overruns (without a designated payor of said overruns, BTW)?

Maybe your rhetoric is turning people off to the tunnel.

The problem is that, under the tunnel agreement, the *county* was supposed to be given sufficient authority to spend certain minimal levels of money on transit infrastructure (one-time expense) and operating costs (ongoing expense). The city can't bring in nearly as much revenue going it alone, and it still leaves the deal as broken by the state (thanks to the veto of local transit funding options by Governor Gregoire).

The secondary problem was the amount mentioned in the broken agreement won't do much. In order to have the possibility of something like a West Seattle light rail line, a second downtown transit tunnel is most likely necessary. The amounts listed in the broken agreement won't come close to covering the cost of this basic first step of having high-capacity transit to West Seattle and Ballard.

And of course, we would vote on it. At least twice.

As for letting the voters decide, isn't that precisely what the mayor is asking, vis-a-vis the automobile tunnel?

At the risk of being a sap, I'll try to defend the idea of a citizens' transportation oversight committee.

Consider how powerful the Citizens' Police Oversight Committee is.

Still worried?

FWIW, unless someone can point out how moving forward with creation of this city transportation district removes the possibility of other funding avenues, I don't see why this district shouldn't be created.

Hint to the mayor: When the council publicly unveils a proposal you haven't been informed of, just say “I haven't seen the proposal yet, so I don't have a comment at this time.”

The Ride Free Area moves buses through downtown faster, reducing operating costs for Metro, and reducing traffic congestion and smog. That's probably why the issue hasn't been pushed by people in a position to do something about it.

However, Metro is installing ORCA card readers at all bus doors within a year or two. They may already have one or more plans for ending the RFA while moving buses through downtown more quickly.

It's called Link. Hold your breath for seven more years, and you'll get to ride it from C. Hill. No, it ain't free. But there are those (especially those who can afford north downtown prices) who are more likely to ride a public transit mode on which their fellow passengers also paid to get on transit.

Because the Publicola crew has been milking disagreement on the Tunnel so much, for so long, that everything has already been said. Multiple times. The arguments have all been made. Just go back through the archives.