McGinn’s $13 Million Walk Bike Ride Plan Is More Equitable Than You Think

The bigger issue here is the effort by some critics to ghettoize the thousands of Seattleites who walk or use their bikes in the city as being some kind of lunatic fringe, as if there’s some tradeoff between someone on foot, on a bike, or behind the wheel.

This is about basic infrastructure projects that serve a LOT of people in the city in their daily lives, whether they’re a trendy bike commuter or a family in the Central District walking to/from school.

Plus, Tim Burgess might complain about some made-up anti-North End bias, but NE 125th St could definitely use a long-desired sidewalk – seems like City Hall is indeed being attentive to the needs of North Seattle.

I think he ought to take twenty percent of the roads budget and put it into teleportation research. Come on, Seattle! We can be a green “leader”! Can anyone provide me seed money to start a new non-profit advocacy group: Telepods Now!

Many of these are fine projects. None of them are urgent. Naturally, people are puzzled why McGinn has made them such a big priority in the midst of the city’s budget crisis.

I suspect McGinn knows these projects can and should wait until the city’s financial condition improves, but rather than making the hard call, he is using Walk Bike Ride as a way to consolidate his base, and the Rainier Community Center renovation as a way to win votes in south Seattle.

And why shouldn’t the mayor pander, when the city council ultimately controls the budget anyway?

cue the “McGinn Hates Cars” posts

Whose the “you” in the headline? The people that are getting social services cut while $13 million is spent on walk/bike/ride? That argument can be mad for any increases in other transportation spending too.

A new sidewalk on NE 125th St. between 35th Ave. and Sand Point Way

Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god.

This would change me and my 3-year old’s life. Right now we are prisoners to my pick-up because I don’t feel safe walking him on this stretch into Lake City to get to retail and buses.

I can’t see Burgess’ comment as anything other than pandering for votes for a future campaign. Anyone living south of Madison just giggled over that comment. No question folks north of 85th, in particular, deserve sidewalks – and let’s remember Linden is in the north end too. But if you look at the Pedestrian Master Plan, it’s pretty clear where the highest demand and needs are.

Please define “urgent.” South Park Bridge last time I checked was relatively urgent. Sidewalks to schools and sidewalks that connect neighborhoods are pretty urgent for safety and public health reasons.

These projects align really nicely in an environment of declining revenues (they’re low cost, high impact) and when household incomes are constrained (providing more choices for walking, biking and transit offer choices when folks can’t pony up the $8,000 that AAA says it costs to own and operate a 2009 mid-sized sedan).

Seems like a good fit to me.

This critics issue is that it is half-assed. The fact that it can be described as “equitable” should be your first clue.

Before the mayor arrived on this planet much of the north end was annexed by Seattle with a plan for sidewalks. Then McGinn was born, many plans were born, he ran for mayor on supporting neighborhoods, and what we get is a half-assed plan for piecemeal projects, some in the works and paid for before he was elected.

A comprehensive transportation plan, 2011 version, for the city should be produced, prioritized by the neighborhoods, funding sources identified and VOTED on for that statement of work.
Goofing around with bridging the gap money and then jacking up parking rates to fill the revenue shortfall is half-assed.

This IS a pandering to a small anti-car constituencyBut that’s his base and his whole purpose for being in office, so why complain?

The anti-car nuts in the bike associations and the Sierra Club want to make it difficult for poor people who have to go to work in the middle of the night . They should be rich enough like the smug bicyclists to arrange their schedule to a better time slot.

Handicapped people should learn to walk on their hands if they don’t like it

The elderly should just do us all a favor and die instead of needing to ride a car to their doctor’s or to the grocery store. They are evil.

(For the bikers on this site, this is sarcasm — but nothing you haven’t said to each other on your Critical Mass rides breaking the law )

Oh that Rainier bike blvd would make my day.

The Transit Master Plan is part of the funding package. If someone on the Council is out there pushing for a larger transpo package (non-tunnel division) that the Mayor is resisting, that’d be one thing, but this is a step forward from the status quo and more than anyone else is willing to propose.

My friend Carla jokes that the insane bike advocates in this city will tell you that bicycling will end racism, sexism, and homophobia. I always thought it was a way of poking fun at the bikes-uber-alles folks through exaggeration. But this post saying that bicycling is an issue of “equity,” and so deserves increased taxes to support it while other programs face cuts, suggests that perhaps she wasn’t exaggerating so much after all.

The post above lists some deserving projects (along with weird stuff like “pedestrian education”). But we could come up with a list just as long if not longer of worthy programs being cut. The question is about priorities and fairness, not whether bikes are good/ bad or transportation spending is needed.

Oh, and by the way I’ve been biking as my main form of transportation my whole adult life, and I’ve lived in Seattle for 12 years. I’m not anti-bike. But I just don’t get bike identity politics, and those people who place that one single issue above all other social justice issues.

Because he’s the one that brings up what is needed from the people, especially when we have issues with, for example, the council promoting the acquisition of a space shuttle: http://twitter.com/#!/sallybagshaw/status/25916584141

Which actually requires a payment by April 2011 of at least $28 million dollars. They aren’t very concerned with the voters as we’ve seen.

We do indeed have many major items that are vital — south park bridge, sidewalks, and even minor things like potholes, that are going by ignored by many groups and the obstructionists that scream “this can wait, this can wait”. Really? Look at others telling you the South Park Bridge is important or sidewalks and enhancements that work well in the scope of SDOT’s safe routes to school program.

And about that thing about south Seattle…

All these projects are on a scaled priorities list. As you can see from responses above (biliruben, for example), they do have an immediate effect on folks. This is all in the context of a limited budget and they’re absolutely necessary projects that are pretty much above your petty brand of obstructionism and “these are issues from long ago, they can wait” BS.

And you talk about delays in the DBT project and then turn around and tell your own neighbors in other parts of the city that they can wait? Have you ever in your posting life advocated for anything that wasn’t a contrarian viewpoint?

thanks Martin – I guess Mr. Baker slept through a couple months when the Council was holding back the master plan.

The “bike identity” thing is a strawman, as is the “anti-car” trope. Another misdirect is the funding issue, which is used shamelessly by folks who complain about dedicated transportation funds being used when there are “worthy programs being cut” whenever $20,000 of transportation funds are used to improve multimodal flow on a major arterial like Madison or 12th. All while advocating a multi-billion dollar project. Where’s the cry to hold off on the DBT to save the various health care initiatives in this state?

Now, as far as this imaginary cult of huffy goes, it’s simply not a realistic thing. Most bike commuters are just like you in the sense of their reasons for use. However, not everyone that rides a bike can do so at your skill level and not everyone that wants to ride a bike can safely do so. It’s about adjusting your current transportation system to fit latent and pent-up demand.

If you look at biliruben, they need sidewalks to circulate within their neighborhood. That’s a positive, that’s pent up demand, and it boosts the localized economy. There are also plenty of bike riders that opt to use their car most of the time because traffic lanes are marked in a way that is prohibitive to them and signalized intersections are dangerous.

If we’re going to talk about demand for car facilities, we have to look at the underlying silent majority of bike riders (versus the vocal bike advocacy groups) and the silent majority of pedestrians and transit riders. There are so many of them that could ditch their car if they could, which is a positive for you.

The victim complex of car drivers in this city is puzzling. We have more roads than we need, we spend millions and millions a year on them, but we can’t spend a pittance of that on folks that need similar accommodation? Okay.

If it’s in the middle of the night, then a lack of congestion makes your point moot. They won’t be dodging bikes and bike-related auto congestion at 3am.

And, last I checked, not every elderly person required the use of cars. In fact, many of them do indeed walk, but we’ve made it so dangerous that they’re basically at the whim of whomever will drive them since it’s a gamble just to cross the street.

This “fuck you, get a car” mentality is gross.

Actually you need to look in the mirror – it’s you who doesn’t care about underserved people. Disabled people need sidewalks and bus service. People with lower incomes need transportation choices that don’t require them to maintain and buy gas for a motor vehicle. The elderly should be able to get around and not be humiliated and dejected because they no longer have the ability to drive. There are too many tragedies that occur because we don’t serve the elderly and they keep driving long past the time when their faculties decline. Go ask the AARP why they support Transportation for America and other organizations working to provide choices.

Adding on: http://t4america.org/blog/2009/03/25/aarp-joins-transportation-for-america/

Adding on: http://t4america.org/blog/2009/03/25/aarp-joins-transportation-for-america/

Thanks Alex, this is compelling: “today, 1 in 5 Americans over age 65 either choose not to drive, or are unable to drive. 600,000 people over age 70 stop driving every year. 50 years ago, this perhaps wasn’t quite the barrier it is today because seniors lived in places where life as they know it did not have to end the moment they stopped driving.”

Urgent projects are those that simply can’t wait.

The South Park Bridge may be urgent, but it is not in McGinn’s Walk Bike Ride proposal, nor is it covered by the Rainier Beach Community center renovation.

As for the new sidewalks, the city has done without for 70 years, it can certainly do without for a few more.

What does the Space Shuttle have to do with the city budget?

The Museum of Flight isn’t run by the city, it’s an independent nonprofit corporation that pays for itself through membership dues, admissions, store sales, the simulator ride, and private donations. To date, the space shuttle effort has been funded by a $3 million grant from the state and private donations. The city isn’t involved, other than as a cheerleader.

There may be a few urgent items buried in Walk Bike Ride (e.g., the South Park Bridge, if that’s actually covered), but it looks to me like it’s 90 percent things we could easily do without.

Sidewalks aside, the North End has historically been the white and affluent part of the city, more likely to see good services than the city as a whole. I’m sure Burgess isn’t intentionally playing on that dynamic, but it sure reads to me like whining about losing a historical privilege because of overdue investment in other parts of the city.

Psssh, don’t you know Copenhagen has had a functioning telepod transportation system for decades now? Pleeeease.

The Alaskan Way Viaduct – 105,000 vehicles per day.

The new sidewalk on NE 125th – 25 baby joggers per day.

Good point on dedicated funding streams. I should have taken that into account.

Otherwise, though, the problem I was talking about with regard to bike advocates is not improving streets to make them more bike friendly. It is their tunnel vision that is producing the backlash. It’s not a straw man. For example: CBC would sign onto any amount of corporate welfare just to get some bike lanes, on 2 way Mercer, for instance. That’s money that could, and should, be going elsewhere.

Cost? Priceless.

How many pedestrians are there in the city?
How many people are there physically capable of walking in the city?
How much of the city is inaccessible to pedestrians due to missing sidewalks?

Compare:

How may transit riders are there in the city?
How many people in the city are physically capable of riding transit?
How much of the city is inaccessible by transit due to delays and multiple transfers?

Compare:

How many bicyclists are there in the city?
How many people in the city are physically capable of cycling?
How much of the city is inaccessible due to missing paved roads or paths?

Assign the numbers and you’ll see EXACTLY why spending anywhere close to as much money on cyclists as pedestrians is inequitable. Install sidewalks first. Then work on transit access. Then, and only then, work on cyclist infrastructure. That is the RESPONSIBLE thing to do in a down budget cycle where money should be spent to benefit the largest number of constituents.

Any other decision is political pandering.

Given that the knock on Burgess is that he’s a stealth conservative, you’d think he’d be more careful before saying things like he said. Sounds very Scalia-esque.

The tunnel – 40,000 vehicles a day with $3.50 tolls each way; awesome.

The city is involved in heavy negotiating; they used it as a linchpin for their blasting McGinn over the MOHAI contract. They used it repeatedly. Bagshaw is especially incensed that their acquisition of the Space Shuttle would be put in jeopardy. Cheerleading? Right. Unless Bagshaw was overreacting? Can’t tell.

As far as “it looks to me like it’s 90 percent things we could easily do without” goes, that’s an arbitrary assessment from someone who is neither a transportation planner or city executive, someone that doesn’t answer to voters with a distinct and strongly stated agenda.

So if the sidewalk is about $250,000 and only carries “25 baby joggers” a day, that’s $10,000 per person.

105,000 vehicles at 2.4 billion is $25,000. Except, in reality, it’s closer to half that in the new DBT, so let’s bump that up to a round $50,000 per car.

Of course, your “25 baby joggers” number, made up as usual, is total crap.

That’s the thing, though: you’re conflating bike advocates with actual bike riders.

Except you completely ignore the astronomical cost difference between painting a sharrow or bike-lane and building a sidewalk.

He sure looks lonely up there, all by himself, at that big table. Someone needs to talk to his PR guys about that image that keeps getting spalshed on the screen every time he makes some kind of announcement. Someone might get suspicious….

In other words, as far as actual funding goes, your argument is totally specious….

B.S. on that “more roads than we need” crapola. I’m not advocating adding (or widening) roads, but the FACT that Seattle has the worst surface street congestion is a pretty strong indicator that the roads we have are both needed and used.

Which is to say what, fewer and few?

The both of ya miss the part where the council did not give the mayor a blank check, and Rasmussen proposed a more comprehensive solution?

You are the half-assed cheerleader.

Name the century that sidewalk was put in a priority list.

There was always something more important, there was never a long term funding plan.
A list is not a plan.
A plan has resources.

The 13 million dollars is about 487 million dollars light of anything near progress.
We have a Walk or Bike or Ride plan according to the wish for 30 million for some projects, and that is stripped down to 13 million and an attempt at shuffling the deck.
We have a parking tax hike to fill a hole in the Bridging the Gap levy that was limited to begin with.

Property taxes should go up, as well as parking taxes, as well as better and more and metered bike parking, as well as an mvet, as well as a bike license fee that forces cyclists to sign and agree to follow the rules of the road they are helping to pay, and I would like 1 of the 2% sales tax credits on the hotels in Seattle, and … In exchange for getting things done this century.

I am saying that the McGinn plan was remarkably light, dare I repeat half-assed, in his effort. The “either/or” arguments should clue you people into that the current efforts are short.
There should be more sidewalks/bike lanes/ and buses, and a real plan to get there.

I’m not ignoring it and your attitude is why large sections of the North and Southeast don’t have sidewalks. We fritter away “tiny” sums for less important items under the lame excuse we don’t have enough money at hand to fix the problem all at once. If all those tiny wasted sums had been saved for walk/ride projects, we wouldn’t still be in this pedestrian mess.

Setting aside several major revenue streams for a freeway tunnel, and ignoring the long-term effect on human services funding, while pretending to be concerned about human service funding vs. transportation funding, is a full-a@@ed approach, Mr. Baker.

How was Mr. Rasmussen’s proposal “more comprehensive”?

Take a cue from Mr. Burgess, and cut it out with the ad hominems, please.

“Don’t attack people. Attack ideas. And don’t just attack ideas. Attack ideas with better ideas.” — the late Jim West, former Mayor of Spokane, and former State Senate Majority Leader

Trevor, old friend, the “bike identity” politics is a creation of the downtown business establishment, as a marketing campaign against a mayor who has become a seriously effective thorn in the side of their misbegotten agenda (e.g. kicking the homeless out of Seattle).

I don’t wish to debate the merits of road diets vs. human services, as I think human services are an even higher “safety” issue. But the road diets are really a tool to make streets safer to walk along and cross. Bike lanes have just become a method of choice to implement those pedestrian safety improvements. They also happen to be the cheapest (although probably far from the most effective) pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements to implement. Paint is a lot cheaper than cement or purchasing right-of-way.

So, if you oppose road diets, the practical effect is that the cost of traffic safety improvements will go up, and less money will be available for human services.

I would also point out the differing approaches of Mayor McGinn and Executive Constantine toward human services: Executive Constantine is threatening to zero out human services (as in, everything, including women’s and family shelters) as a threat to get us to raise the sales tax (to which I will vote Hell No, since it is really earmarked for the Sheriff’s Office). Mayor McGinn is just asking human services to cut the same percentage as nearly every other department, except first responders. The plan is still for SDOT to take the deepest cuts of all.

And how will your endless attacks on politicians who support more funding for sidewalks/bike lanes/ and buses, and support for politicians who want all the money spent on a freeway tunnel, get us there?

FWIW, I would rather keep the librarians than speed up the road diets. On this point, I strongly disagree with the mayor’s budget proposal. Otherwise, I think it is a very good starting point.

Pretty sure these projects were selected for funding because they are the top priorities of the Pedestrian Master Plan and the Bike Master Plan. These plans were all the things you call for; comprehensive, prioritized by neighborhoods, and now funded. They were not voted on because we live in a representative democracy not a participatory one and I would not want our government frozen by voting on every million dollar transportation investment. They are far from half-assed.

Classy comment.

You got it all wrong. Poor people and disabled are the most transit and pedestrian dependent population out there. These investments provide them with more opportunities to get around without a car. The burden of owning a car is what breaks a lot of households budgets.

There is a ton of elderly housing on Linden where the City is finally funding the Linden Complete Streets project. This is huge for these retirees. You should be thrilled for them.

The road diets are for pedestrians, primarily, and bikers, secondarily. The anti-bike crowd has just chosen the most vulnerable and least popular punching bag.

You do know that the surface option would cost Seattle 30 million more than the tunnel option, right?
Dominic Holden reported that more than a year ago, McGinn never gets around to mentioning it.
Also, it isn’t attacks on “politicians”, it is “politician”, same dude. He has positioned himself as incapable of doing anything meaningful on securing more funding for transportation. He has actively made the argument about the tunnel into an argument about him. He has reduced his universe of possibilities to 13 million dollars in parking taxes. Pathetic.

Elderly people have been finding their way in neighborhoods without sidewalks for years. It would be nice to have them but Linden Avenue is not the only area (and a very small area) in town to have low-income/retirement homes and no sidewalks. As another poster said, sidewalks are horribly expensive, and if one area demands them, it would be unfair to not build them in other areas. I’m fairly old and have walked down 125th Street from my Lake City hill to Lake City Way, and it’s worse than the Linden area because it’s downhill/uphill. However, the money proposed for these projects, including Linden, would be better used to provide more shelters for the increasing number of people who don’t have anywhere to live except their car, if they’re lucky enough to have one.

And the county does not fund shelters; don’t know where a previous poster got that idea. The county will not be funding any human services. The City, and other cities in King County, will have to pick up the slack. Sidewalks won’t do that.

BS on worst surface street congestion. What is the average speed on surface streets through Manhattan?

“the surface option would cost Seattle 30 million more than the tunnel option, right?”

that’s how much it might cost the city budget in the short term. you leave out the cost of tolls on the tunnel that Seattle residents will be forced to pay if they actually want to use it, the cost of induced travel demand, etc.

Yup, it’s true – Seattle has the most roads/city streets with heavy delays (the other measurement commonly used is how congested interstates are, and we do usually come lower by that measure)

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2009/11/30/daily14.html

I’ve been to Manhattan – traffic on Seattle’s downtown streets is just as slow or slower (and Manhattan has very wide arterials with one-way couplets that are designed to ensure vehicle capacity/throughput, yet this has not hindered pedestrians despite the fact that NYC is statistically more dangerous for peds than Seattle is.)