Viva La Cola!

Founded in January 2009, PubliCola is a blog about Seattle written by journalists who are dedicated to non-partisan, original daily reporting that prioritizes a balanced approach to news. Started by longtime local editor and award-winning reporter Josh Feit, PubliCola is the first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol.

PubliCola was off and running. In June 2009, PubliCola hired another award-winning journalist, super-sourced Seattle city hall reporter Erica C. Barnett.

People were afraid that blogging would change journalism. Instead, we believe journalism can change blogging. Twenty-first century journalism may look and feel different, and yes Erica isn't afraid to get cranky, but we're committed to making sure online news still delivers independent, reliable, even-keeled coverage. And most of all, we're committed to making sure the coverage sparks honest civic debate.

Bringing you cola for the people, PubliCola is named after Publius Valerius PubliCola, the alias for the authors of the Federalist Papers—the original bloggers.

The first online-only news site in state history to get media credentials to cover the state capitol and Seattle city hall, PubliCola has been called a “must-read” by the Seattle Post Intelligencer and a hot “New Media Mover and Shaker” by Seattle Magazine—which also cited our own Erica C. Barnett as the city's No. 1 news nerd.

What the $80 License Fee Will Get You

This coming November, Seattle voters could be asked to vote on an $80 increase in vehicle license fees to pay for about $27 million annually in road maintenance, transit improvements, and bike and pedestrian projects—some of it “new” money to fund projects that were previously unfunded, and some of it money to backfill projects that have been cut due to budget shortfalls.

This afternoon, the Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee III (AKA CTAC III, pronounced “SeaTac Three”) will hold its second-to-last meeting to go over the details of the potential ballot measure. Whatever the committee recommends will go to the city council, which can modify the recommendations, come up with a completely different list, or opt not to put the measure on the ballot at all.

Since the group rolled out its initial proposal, back in June, more funding has been shifted to transit and bike/ped improvements over basic maintenance, in response to advocates who made the case that the city’s bike, pedestrian, and transit master plans remain woefully underfunded (at the current funding rate, none of those plans will be completed for decades).

Additionally, the proposal now includes far more emphasis on transit, bike, and pedestrian access in every category of project funding—great news for transit and bike/ped advocates who’ve been pushing the city to do more to promote nonmotorized transportation.

The $80 fee would be in addition to a $20 license fee the council has already passed on its own; only the additional $80 requires voter approval.

Here’s what Seattle voters would get each year if they pass the annual fee this November (numbers are only approximations; some of the money would be bonded for larger projects):

$5.5 million (20 percent) for Pavement Preservation, including pothole repair, more extensive spot repair, and major paving projects in locations around the city.  The emphasis of this funding is on enhancing safety, including: 1) timely and cost-effective investments that prevent further deterioration of the roadway to the point where repair becomes prohibitively expensive; 2) complete street improvements that serve vehicles, pedestrians and cyclists; and 3) paving heavily-used transit and freight corridors.

$3.5 million (13 percent) for Traffic Safety, including keeping critical components of safe travel along the roadway in a state of good repair. Traffic signals, lane markings, crosswalk signals and safety lighting, maintaining real-time transit and driver information, and signs are included in this funding category.

$3.8 million (14 percent) for Neighborhood Transit Connections, including demand management programs that increase transit mode share; partnerships that expand the range of neighborhood transit options for those with limited mobility or those who live outside convenient walking distance to transit stations; improved pedestrian and bicycle access to transit; and transforming the 3rd Avenue Busway and underused urban spaces near transit into vibrant, people-oriented places.

$4.7 million (17 percent) for High Capacity Transit Corridors, including connecting the South Lake Union and First Hill streetcar lines, operations, and alternatives analysis and preliminary design for future alignments for high capacity transit (rail/BRT). Make high capacity improvements consistent with the priorities identified in the Transit Master Plan.

$5 million for Frequent Transit Network Corridors, including enhancement and expansion of the electric trolley bus network and completion of speed and reliability improvements along priority transit corridors, with a focus on cost-effective projects that increase mode share and make the system work better. Make corridor improvements consistent with the priorities identified in the Transit Master Plan.

$1.85 million for Pedestrian Safety and Access, including sidewalks, curb ramps , crossing treatments, and other improvements along and across the roadway, with an emphasis on improving connections to transit and neighborhood business districts, consistent with the recommendations of the Pedestrian Master Plan.

$1.85 million for Bicycle Safety and Access, including completion of critical connections in the existing bicycle network and improvements to rider safety consistent  along other routes through the addition of cycle tracks, neighborhood greenways, and bike lanes. Make improvements that serve cyclists of varying ability and propensity to ride, and continue to implement the Bicycle Master Plan.

$1 million for the Neighborhood Opportunity Fund, for neighborhood improvements such as sidewalks, neighborhood greenways, and other improvements to bicycle and pedestrian safety and mobility. Projects would be nominated by neighborhoods.


  • Brice

    HUGE caveat: the numbers cited were provided to the committee for discussion purposes. None of this has been decided.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3CLQQP4RJOCVCFSMCW4KZ4ACWU DH

    I can’t see car owners voting to subsidize mass transit and bike riders, especially in a pretty anti-tax period with a poor economy. But I’d bet car owners would happily vote for an extra tax on themselves if it went entirely into road repairs and improvements.

  • Bruce Nourish

    Looks good generally. My question is about connecting the SLUT and FHSC. That’s an excellent project but  that $4.7 million can’t possibly cover the construction cost. It must just be for PE and AA on that project and maybe the Aloha extension. Or am I missing something?

  • Hardly

    No more money for yuppies on bikes and boondoggle transit projects. Unless Aleen wants to cough up more money for his pet trolley and bike riders start to pay license fees they can both get bent.

  • Shaggy

    Aren’t the electric buses part of Metro?  Why are Seattle taxpayers being asked to pay for Metro improvements?  

  • NewDemocrat

    I am a big supporter of Mass transit, but this $80 is not going to fly well with the voters. Let me tell you how much sacrifice the Seattle citizens did for the last year and half for the transit projects; increased parking fee, license fee. King County is also looking at increasing the license fee. We are asked this year to pass education levy, Human service levy. We have just passed Housing levy. We are demanding that our elected officials to show us some result before we can pour in more money into the system. At the moment, our trust for the local governments to manage this money wisely is in doubt

  • Just Thinking

    So if I am not mistaken, 100% of the cost would hit drivers pockets, but 100% of the funding would not benefit drivers.

    When will people understand that a lot of folk do not think that is fair. Why not find a way to share cost with all that benifit? Most folk think that would be fair.

  • Billy

    Polls that actually ask voters their opinion on this issue say otherwise and are a much more accurate gauge of the electorate than your conjecture. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3CLQQP4RJOCVCFSMCW4KZ4ACWU DH

     What polls are you talking about Billy, a few links to them would rock.

  • Bruce Nourish

    33% is for potholes and traffic safety. That incontrovertibly helps drivers, even if they never use transit. Arguably all of the other things will indirectly help many drivers by providing them more transit access, or at least shift other people’s trips to transit, which will mitigate and may help reduce congestion.

  • jimu

    It’s getting pretty expensive to live in Seattle. If they keep raising taxes, how many taxpayers will be left?

  • Bigger Picture

    Lets think about this for a moment. Certainly there are folks that don’t own cars that won’t be paying for this, but many of us do own a car and use the transit system, ride our bikes and use sidewalks in our own neighborhoods. We are paying for the betterment of the system for all. I think most of us will be sharing the costs through our car ownership, and I, for one, don’t mind paying to make the system better for everyone instead of worrying about the own personal benefit.  This is a balanced proposal. Similar proposals have polled well with citizens of Seattle. People do want to see a better transportation system, because in reality, at some point, we will all benefit.

  • Bigger Picture

    Lets think about this for a moment. Certainly there are folks that don’t own cars that won’t be paying for this, but many of us do own a car and use the transit system, ride our bikes and use sidewalks in our own neighborhoods. We are paying for the betterment of the system for all. I think most of us will be sharing the costs through our car ownership, and I, for one, don’t mind paying to make the system better for everyone instead of worrying about the own personal benefit.  This is a balanced proposal. Similar proposals have polled well with citizens of Seattle. People do want to see a better transportation system, because in reality, at some point, we will all benefit.

  • Guest

    100% would benefit drivers – smoother, more structurally sound pavement, plus more people leaving their cars at home because buses are more reliable and more people feel safer walking and biking means more room on the roads and fewer accidents clogging the roads for the people who need to drive and for the businesses that need to get their goods delivered by truck. 

  • Bruce Nourish

    Plenty. Have you seen all the building in Capitol Hill and Belltown lately? Seattle is booming.

  • Anonymous

    Per year. Over many years.

  • Anonymous

    Per year. Over many years.

  • Anonymous

    Do you have any idea how much more it would cost to provide pavement for all Seattle’s transit users instead of buses?

  • Anonymous

    Seattle routinely partners with Metro on the trolleybus network because it’s entirely within the city.

  • Anonymous

    People who pay for polls don’t generally go link to them.

  • Anonymous

    More tomorrow than today. Seattle’s growing.

  • Biliruben

    Like most people who ride and take the bus/train, our family also owns 2 cars.  Our truck mostly just sits in the driveway, though my wife drives the other one a fair amount.   We would be happy to pay the fee, even though I’m pretty frustrated that a large portion of general fund dollars, property taxes and other taxes at all levels of government goes towards supporting drivers.

    As someone who puts in far more miles on bus and bike than in a car, I vastly over-subsidize the driving infrastructure.  The hear the whining from drivers that don’t appear to understand or appreciate this disparity ticks me off a bit.  The blatant selfishness mixed with a massive dose of ignorance is disheartening.

    That said, this sort of measure what living in a cohesive society is all about.  We need to keep an eye on the greater good, make sure we provide for those who are less fortunate than ourselves, and constantly strive to make our world a better place.

  • Anonymous

    Cyclists pay the license fee as well. When will those who make this ignorant claim get off their high horse?

    I guess you would rather cyclists take the lane, and force those who might use transit or bike to use the cars, all of which would increase congestion on your precious commute?

  • shane phillips

    I feel like Seattle has this problem of going a little too big on all their initiatives. I would be 100% supportive of this fee, but when I see “$80 license fee” even I am kind of surprised at the number. I suspect we could’ve passed the plastic bag fee if it had been set at 5 cents, which is more than enough to change people’s habits (and what little revenue it would bring in is certainly more than the zero we currently get). The same goes for the income tax if the threshold had been a bit higher (I’m more willing to accept that this may have been hopeless in the 2010 climate). I’m particularly worried here if this ends up on the same ballot as the $20 fee that council may forward to the ballot, in which case you will have plenty of people choosing to support neither, but then also a number of people who will choose yes for their favorite of the two and no for the other, leaving overall support for each below 50%. Talk me down, Publicola.

  • Johns

    It’s electric transit, some of the heaviest-used routes in the system, and this money wouldn’t pay for buses or service hours.

    And frankly, if we don’t do it, Metro probably can’t.

  • SEATTLETUNNELCAT

    Seattle is growing to be a waystation for the young and (trust)-funded and the old and retired.  families with kids please exit to the north or east.

  • repete

    The city council is like a child with an allowance who blows
    it on candy and comes back for more when they need new underwear.   They
    are asking for money to fix roads they failed to budget for.  I suppose they were too busy being all giddy
    and green over their new palace of a city hall to bother with the basic infrastructure
    of the city.  What the council really
    means when referring to “world class” city is that it is a city of world class
    suckers.

  • SEATTLETUNNELCAT

    Can this circumvented like the old monorail fee?  P.O box in Shoreline?

  • RossB

    Ms. Barnett: You forgot to put the percentages by the last few items.

    Speaking of which: you can look at these numbers a bunch of different ways. Here is how you could easily sell this to folks that don’t care about bike riders or pedestrians:

    20 percent: Pavement
    28 percent: General Safety Improvements (car, bicycle and pedestrian)
    47 percent: Traffic Improvements (transit improvements)
    5 percent: Neighborhood Directed Safety Improvements

    (The numbers may be off by a bit)

    So, anyway, the tricky thing is getting people to view the mass transit improvements as being good for traffic. If so, then people will probably support this. If not, then purely selfish voters may not support this.

  • My Vote Still Only Counts Once

    Thank goodness we have cars in the City of Seattle. In alot of way cars are like City Light to council. Little short on cash, then raise them rates.

  • My Vote Still Only Counts Once

    Thank goodness we have cars in the City of Seattle. In alot of way cars are like City Light to council. Little short on cash, then raise them rates.

  • Bark more, Wag Less

    Only the ones who can afford it.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    Are there enough car-less people that live within the area where the bulk of this money is being funneled to pass this?

  • mjd

    “100% of the cost would hit drivers pockets, but 100% of the funding would not benefit drivers.”

    Actually, 100% of the cost would hit CAR OWNERS pockets, regardless of whether they drive the car or not.

    Personally, I would prefer to see road improvements and maintenance paid by a gas tax, and transit/ped/bike paid by a property tax.

  • Bruce Nourish

    Speak for yourself. I work for a living.

  • Monster

    a 80 dollar fee will get you a republican king county council.

  • jimu

    I don’t understand this comment

  • Dente

    I’m not sure I get why it’s an excellent project.  Lots of people seem to agree with you, but I’d love to hear the rationale spelled out. 

  • Dente

    With due respect, that’s an awfully weak argument for why the City should pony up funding.  Seattle-ites routinely fund most of KC’s bus service by paying taxes; and way too much bus service is wasted on serving the hinterlands like Black Diamond, milk runs to Issaquah, etc. 

    So could you please explain a more coherent rationale for why Seattle should pony up yet more money?  If it’s a good idea to run electric trolley system, then it’s a good idea; and KC should pay.

  • Bruce Nourish

    While it’s true that most rural and exurban service is horrifyingly cost-ineffective, in terms of service hours allocated to each part of the county versus taxes paid, Seattle is being subsidized by the suburbs, even when you take into account the much higher farebox recovery ratios in Seattle. I don’t know of any formal computations done by Metro, and it’s hard to compute exactly based on public data, but by my back-of-the-envelope calculations from ST’s taxing district numbers, I suspect South King gets back what it pays, and the Eastside subsidizes Seattle. This is just for Metro — ST’s strict subarea equity policies prevent inter-area subsidies like that.

    I believe the main precedent is that the last major expansion of the trolley network was under George Benson, back in the ’80s under Seattle Metro (this is all second hand — I probably wasn’t even born at the time). While Metro does minor upgrades to the wire network, the city is expected to pay for major expansions because of that history. Regardless, it’s probably politically impossible given the financial situation and politics at the county to expect suburban council members to vote to spend a sack of money in Seattle, given that it would necessarily involve cutting someone’s bus somewhere.

    Trolley wire is about $3 million per mile, and electrifying the lowest-hanging fruit (48S, 11, 8)  is probably $20-$30 million, all with an ongoing $60 million hole in the O&M budget if the $20 tab fee doesn’t pass.

  • Cuyahoga

    So let me get this right, the city wants $80 for transportation stuff and the county wants another $20 for Metro? There has got to be a better way to fund this stuff.

  • Cuyahoga

    So let me get this right, the city wants $80 for transportation stuff and the county wants another $20 for Metro? There has got to be a better way to fund this stuff.

  • Bruce Nourish

    From the perspective of creating an optimal streetcar alignment, the SLUT and the FHSC suffer from a broken walkshed downtown. If you want to get to SLU from the CBD, your choice is to walk to 3rd and ride the 70, or to take a bus on 3rd, get off at Pike/Pine, walk two blocks, get on the SLUT. Guess what most people do?

    Now, of course, the FHSC and SLUT, in their incipience, were basically single-purpose systems. The SLUT is a work shuttle for SLU employers and the FHSC is a consolation prize for First Hill after they lost the Link station (although it will serve as a more generally useful interim fix for a major hole in Metro’s bus network, from Capitol Hill to the I.D./Pioneer Square, before U Link opens). They both serve their original purposes well, but a relatively small amount of track to connect the two of them will give them a far more general utility.

    It’s unclear what the best alignment for such a streetcar would be (choices are basically 1st, 2nd/4th, 4th/5th), but suppose for the moment that we build it on 1st Ave. Then, taken as a whole you have a streetcar system that serves the blockbuster local demand corridor that runs from Little Saigon, down Jackson, and up through Downtown. We could capitalize on this by making that part of the streetcar ride free and abolishing the RFA for buses. This way, buses would be used by people traveling into or out of downtown rather than around downtown, so they waste less time moving people a few blocks up and down 3rd Ave.

    Streetcars excel compared to buses in environments where you have very heavy on-offs at every stop, because they typically have lots of wide doors, they’re very roomy inside, and the tram floors are level with the ground, making boarding with strollers etc. much faster. They’re more approachable to casual riders, as they feel more certain knowing exactly where the tram will go. Streetcars are perfect for moving people around downtown, as they don’t have the slower boarding of buses or the time penalty of going below ground to get to Link.

  • Bruce Nourish

    From the perspective of creating an optimal streetcar alignment, the SLUT and the FHSC suffer from a broken walkshed downtown. If you want to get to SLU from the CBD, your choice is to walk to 3rd and ride the 70, or to take a bus on 3rd, get off at Pike/Pine, walk two blocks, get on the SLUT. Guess what most people do?

    Now, of course, the FHSC and SLUT, in their incipience, were basically single-purpose systems. The SLUT is a work shuttle for SLU employers and the FHSC is a consolation prize for First Hill after they lost the Link station (although it will serve as a more generally useful interim fix for a major hole in Metro’s bus network, from Capitol Hill to the I.D./Pioneer Square, before U Link opens). They both serve their original purposes well, but a relatively small amount of track to connect the two of them will give them a far more general utility.

    It’s unclear what the best alignment for such a streetcar would be (choices are basically 1st, 2nd/4th, 4th/5th), but suppose for the moment that we build it on 1st Ave. Then, taken as a whole you have a streetcar system that serves the blockbuster local demand corridor that runs from Little Saigon, down Jackson, and up through Downtown. We could capitalize on this by making that part of the streetcar ride free and abolishing the RFA for buses. This way, buses would be used by people traveling into or out of downtown rather than around downtown, so they waste less time moving people a few blocks up and down 3rd Ave.

    Streetcars excel compared to buses in environments where you have very heavy on-offs at every stop, because they typically have lots of wide doors, they’re very roomy inside, and the tram floors are level with the ground, making boarding with strollers etc. much faster. They’re more approachable to casual riders, as they feel more certain knowing exactly where the tram will go. Streetcars are perfect for moving people around downtown, as they don’t have the slower boarding of buses or the time penalty of going below ground to get to Link.

  • Anonymous

    +1

  • repete

    Yes, how should waste be funded?

  • repete

    Yes, how should waste be funded?

  • repete

    Yes, how should waste be funded?

  • Anonymous

    For what it’s worth, my girlfriend and I were trying to find our way from the Mukilteo ferry dock to our house in Wallingford last weekend.  It was an unplanned route home and all we had was her iPhone.  The experience was frustrating and difficult, and I would have loved to have had better bike signage.  The Interurban North is a joke, and very difficult to follow if you’re unfamiliar with its many turns and twists and utter vanishings.

  • Anonymous

    For what it’s worth, my girlfriend and I were trying to find our way from the Mukilteo ferry dock to our house in Wallingford last weekend.  It was an unplanned route home and all we had was her iPhone.  The experience was frustrating and difficult, and I would have loved to have had better bike signage.  The Interurban North is a joke, and very difficult to follow if you’re unfamiliar with its many turns and twists and utter vanishings.

  • Anonymous

    For what it’s worth, my girlfriend and I were trying to find our way from the Mukilteo ferry dock to our house in Wallingford last weekend.  It was an unplanned route home and all we had was her iPhone.  The experience was frustrating and difficult, and I would have loved to have had better bike signage.  The Interurban North is a joke, and very difficult to follow if you’re unfamiliar with its many turns and twists and utter vanishings.

  • Anonymous

    Gosh, my girlfriend and I own a car, meaning we would pay for this.  Golly, I ride a bike to work every day.  We ride buses.  We ride our tandems around the county on our weekends.

    How do we fit into your willfully narrow worldview?

  • Anonymous

    What waste?  That’s a huge assumption.  You must not drive… or use the roads at all in any way.  Check the numbers or, at least, back up your statement of “waste” with references to actual data.

    And it used to be funded by gas tax revenue, State funds and Federal funds.  All the sources have diminished over time, party do to the “we don’t want to increase taxes, but we sure as hell want our paved roads and bridges to get around!” and partly just due to the economic down turn.  Also, voter approved initiatives have hamstrung the State from raising additional revenues through general taxes, so the only other option is fees.  Or, would you rather, we sell the roads (our tax dollars paid for) to private enterprise to manage (and toll, for private profit generation)?  Not a good solution, that.  Of course, all the road COULD be tolled… and those or we could turn entire blocks into “pedestrian only” and not worry about the pavement anymore (let it deteriorate, maintain sidewalks only and let the rest reclaim for green-strips), which would also save money on road maintenance and traffic management.You want roads, you gotta ante-up to pay for roads.

  • Anonymous

    … and that will get you tax breaks for the wealthy and corporations, privatized toll roads, the selling off of parks to developers (except in the neighborhoods where the money lives, of course), gutting of public education and the elimination or massive reduction of service to the most needy and vulnerable… because they are just that caring and compassionate about people and the common good….

  • Anonymous

    The “bulk of the money” is going to support things that drive on roads … which is mostly cars, trucks and buses… and making it easy to access transit (to, you know, encourage people to get out of their cars and into mass transit to help reduce gridlock) … do the math.

  • Dente

    Thank you for the thoughtful response.

  • Anonymous

    Gee, tax revenues are DOWN … it has nothing to do with “failed to budget for”… the money necessary to support the infrastructure just isn’t there from the current funding base… thus, if we want to have good, safe roads and reliable, safe transit, and reduce gridlock, it’s got to be paid for somehow.  Would you prefer tolls on all city roads for all privately owned vehicles?

    How about you propose another way to pay for the roads you drive on every day?

    By the way, that “green” city hall is saving tax dollars by being more energy and resource efficient… over the decades it’ll last as a building, the net savings will be substantial.  You’re just too myopic to see the long term view.

  • Anonymous

    Cost of living is still way below that of NYC… so suck it up.

  • Anonymous

    Actually, you are mistaken. Re-read the word problem and do the math again.  If you drive at all, you benefit.  

    Alternative is to toll the roads or, alternatively, put transponders in all cars at charge a “tax” based on mileage driven — either would be a “user fee” system… bet neither appeals to you, though… but, I’m sure, you love your smooth paved roads on Seattle city streets.

  • Anonymous

    Gas tax revenues are down.  State funding for local roads is down.  Federal funding for local roads is down. State Eyman initiatives have hamstrung the State to raise revenues through targeted taxes to cover these losses of revenue.  It’s come down to local county/city governments to fill in the gap. That’s why the “fee” is being suggested.  Seattle can’t raise gas taxes.  It can’t increase State funding or Federal funding.  

    Next idea?

  • Anonymous

    I have an idea… make Seattle a 100% transit only City.  Eliminate all cars (put parking garages at the city limits, cheaper to maintain!)… eliminate most roads (maintain only green strips and one-lane roads fit for bicycles, walking, horses, US postal service and emergency vehicle access only)…. maintain major arterials only for trucks and busses… cut all these pesky infrastructure costs substantially!  Oh, wait, no one will ever go for that…

    $80 more a year? Seems reasonable to me for the privilege of having a car and being able to drive pretty much anywhere around the city on nice paved roads at cost-to-me of less than $1/day (gas and vehicle ownership costs excluded)… when the economy turns around and some creative economists come up with new ways to fund things, we can repeal the fee.

  • http://profiles.google.com/zef.wagner Zef Wagner

    It would be great if people who drive realized that helping make transit and biking and walking easier helps everyone have more choices and reduces the number of people who need to drive. It makes sense to tax the thing (personal vehicle) that is causing the most wear and tear on the roads. I would love to see a more balanced mix of taxes, but the Transportation Benefit District doesn’t give a whole lot of options. Nobody’s going to support property or sales tax for this, so the car tab fee is going to have to be it.

  • http://profiles.google.com/zef.wagner Zef Wagner

    Excellent point about the Ride Free Area. Portland has switched to a Free Rail Zone rather than a Free Bus Zone. So people who just want to get around downtown can take the streetcar or MAX, and the buses can do their job of getting people to and from downtown without dealing with “pay as you leave” nonsense. To do this in Seattle we should not only have the streetcar connection but we should also convince Sound Transit to make Link free in the downtown tunnel.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    It isn’t the math, but the map.
    Get a map.
    The same neighborhoods get more multimodal options, where many of those options already exist.
    You can not encourage people to get out of their cars into non-existent buses and onto invisible sidewalks.

  • http://profiles.google.com/zef.wagner Zef Wagner

    This is so inane. Most people who walk also own a car. Most people who bike also own a car. Most people who use transit also own a car. Most people have multiple ways of getting around. People might use a car to get groceries and drive to the mountains, but sensibly use transit to go downtown or to go to concerts or movies where parking is an issue.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    Ya, that will happen.

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    Yes, that is the difference, cost of living.
    Other than that, the subway system, and a billion other things, but ya, cost of living is still lower here.

    It is also still cooler than the surface of the sun.

  • Seattlevictororian

    BS they ignored the roads when the economy was good! The greenest building is the one that is standing. Spare us your ignorant prolixity

  • http://manywordsforrain.blogspot.com/ Mr Baker

    The fee will never get repealed.

  • eddieofthesea

    Why not finish providing percentages for each element?  I can do the math, but if you do it for a few parts of the program, why not all?  Ashamed of the percentages for non-driving components?  We need not be.  Finish your work!

  • Anonymous

    Traditional heating/cooling of a building is fairly costly.  Traditional electric lighting used more electricity than tapping into natural lighting and florescent lights.  Use of traditional toilets uses thousands of gallons more of water per year in public buildings than low-flow toilets.  Typical tarred roofs create more dirty runoff and raise temperatures inside and above the building, leading to higher costs for cooling. The building will be standing for a long time. The annual operating costs for the building are lower.  Your ignorance is showing through your comments. 

  • Monster

    funny the state democrats have been pretty good about doing all that

  • repete

    I had no idea you can’t install efficient toilets, white
    roofs, or efficient lighting without tearing down a building.  You are a credulous sucker 

  • Norge

    I wouldn’t mind the fee except that the last time voted on the “pot hole levy” money was to be used in neighborhoods.  I’ve been trying to get information from the city since March of 2010 as to where the money from that recent (and still ongoing levy) has been spent.  The City apparently spends the money in big chunks to the contractor so they can’t provide you with the amount of money it cost say to redo 15th and Elliott south of the Ballard Bridge nor can they tell me how much was spent on Stone Way in Wallingford/Fremont area.  I live in Ballard and work downtown — from what I have seen is the money has been spent repaving virtually all of the streets in the downtown core and very little spent in the neighborhoods.  What I also remember from this last levy was that none of the money was to be spent on the “Mercer mess” because the public was fed up with money virtually given to Paul Allen for his Vulcan neighborhood, the SLUT, etc.  As I understand it now, money from that levy is being used for the “Mercer mess” project. 

    So I want to know where this money will actually be spent before I vote on any tax or fee. 

  • Norge

    I wouldn’t mind the fee except that the last time voted on the “pot hole levy” money was to be used in neighborhoods.  I’ve been trying to get information from the city since March of 2010 as to where the money from that recent (and still ongoing levy) has been spent.  The City apparently spends the money in big chunks to the contractor so they can’t provide you with the amount of money it cost say to redo 15th and Elliott south of the Ballard Bridge nor can they tell me how much was spent on Stone Way in Wallingford/Fremont area.  I live in Ballard and work downtown — from what I have seen is the money has been spent repaving virtually all of the streets in the downtown core and very little spent in the neighborhoods.  What I also remember from this last levy was that none of the money was to be spent on the “Mercer mess” because the public was fed up with money virtually given to Paul Allen for his Vulcan neighborhood, the SLUT, etc.  As I understand it now, money from that levy is being used for the “Mercer mess” project. 

    So I want to know where this money will actually be spent before I vote on any tax or fee. 

  • Anonymous

    Because it’s the only way to get in-city improvements out of Metro.

  • Anonymous

    > implying that reduced traffic from bus riders does not benefit drivers

    > implying that no one who keeps a car registered also uses transit

  • Anonymous

    If everyone’s so desperate to leave Seattle, rental prices must be through the floor!

  • Anonymous

    > implying BTG and the massive citywide repaving plan weren’t kicked off a year before the recession

  • Anonymous

    Use google much?  You must not have been looking very hard over the past 15 months!

    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm

    Broken down street-by-street:
    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/pave/9-yr%20AAC%20Paving%20Plan%202011.03.29%20EXTERNAL.pdf

  • Anonymous

    Use google much?  You must not have been looking very hard over the past 15 months!

    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm

    Broken down street-by-street:
    http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/pave/9-yr%20AAC%20Paving%20Plan%202011.03.29%20EXTERNAL.pdf

  • Anonymous

    If you scrolled up just a little you would see:
    20 percent: Pavement
    28 percent: General Safety Improvements (car, bicycle and pedestrian)
    47 percent: Traffic Improvements (transit improvements)
    5 percent: Neighborhood Directed Safety Improvements 

  • Norge

    LackThereof — Actually I started with Tom Rasmussen who passed me of to his staff person Brian Hawksford who passed me off to Krista Brunch a SDOT employee, none of whom could answer my question.  Thank you for the 2011 information you provided.

  • Monster

    hey AL_Nemisis how does it feel to be nothing more then a cum dumpster for “liberals” who sell out to the lowest bidder… 

  • Monster

    hey AL_Nemisis how does it feel to be nothing more then a cum dumpster for “liberals” who sell out to the lowest bidder… 

  • Anonymous

    No problem.  I’d be inclined to disbelieve you, but I’ve heard the same thing from other people before.

    There’s obviously some serious information management issues in the City.  Someone at SDOT went to the trouble to make a comprehensive writeup of the levy projects, and keep a bunch of documentation on the web, but then no city official seems familiar with it.  I’m especially surprised that Krista couldn’t find it.

    Also – 2007-2010 info:  http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/btg_accomplishments.htm

    I think people really need to see where the levy money is going.  They need to see because I don’t think many voters understand how extremely expensive road construction is.  We have necessary paving projects in the pipeline – like Northgate Way in 2013 or 23rd Ave in 2015 – that will each need SDOT’s entire yearly paving budget, just to redo a couple of miles.  

    During the years where SDOT is tied up on one big paving project, to the casual observer it looks like they’re doing nothing, and all that levy money is just disappearing.

  • Anonymous

    No problem.  I’d be inclined to disbelieve you, but I’ve heard the same thing from other people before.

    There’s obviously some serious information management issues in the City.  Someone at SDOT went to the trouble to make a comprehensive writeup of the levy projects, and keep a bunch of documentation on the web, but then no city official seems familiar with it.  I’m especially surprised that Krista couldn’t find it.

    Also – 2007-2010 info:  http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/btg_accomplishments.htm

    I think people really need to see where the levy money is going.  They need to see because I don’t think many voters understand how extremely expensive road construction is.  We have necessary paving projects in the pipeline – like Northgate Way in 2013 or 23rd Ave in 2015 – that will each need SDOT’s entire yearly paving budget, just to redo a couple of miles.  

    During the years where SDOT is tied up on one big paving project, to the casual observer it looks like they’re doing nothing, and all that levy money is just disappearing.

  • Anonymous

    Hey, monster, how does it feel to not be able to carry on a rational conversation or debate other than for name-calling or mud-slinging?  Pretty darn good, probably, because the ignorant are not aware that they don’t know any better.

  • Anonymous

    don’t feed the monster troll

  • Anonymous

    This is a lot like voting for Medic One. 

    The government spends our tax dollars on things the voters would not support and then want special taxes for things the voters will support.

  • repete

    my feelings exactly

  • Anonymous

    But, otherwise, the troll with starve!  And that’s not very Christian or Socialist to allow that to happen!  We have to take care of even those who live in the darkest, dampest and dumped on places!!!!

  • Johns

    Sightline responded to this tired meme a while ago. Families with young children (under 5) like Seattle. Speaking from the Central District, that’s entirely true – SPS’ Central Cluster has more kids under 5 than any other part of the city.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3CLQQP4RJOCVCFSMCW4KZ4ACWU DH

    Why not a bike tax for bike lanes and increase transit fees? And car taxes go for roads? It seems more appropriate.

  • chainsaw

    Give them more money and they will spend it and ask for more.I will vote NO on any additional taxes. It’s time to cut THEM off.