Home › Forums › Open Discussion › Transportation Levy…. Pros and Cons
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 10, 2015 at 11:49 pm #817660
rwParticipantI consider myself a progressive who has voted in favor of almost every new city levy proposal since I moved to Seattle 20 years ago.
But the Mayor’s new $930 million transportation proposal seems like a nonstarter, even after Nick Licata’s suggestion that the impact be buffered by pushing a portion of the burden onto mid-sized and larger businesses.
It isn’t that I am opposed to funding transportation and infrastructure improvements. We absolutely need them. But the brazenness of believing that property owners will go along with a single proposal that adds “about $275 per year for a $450,000 home” — especially when elected officials already know that there will be more big requests to increase property taxes in every single year into the future.
Does this sound like levy burnout? You bet. It absolutely is.
So candidates running for the District 1 council position need to take note — every dollar that you ask for had better count, and too many projects included in the mayor’s transportation proposal don’t make the grade.
June 11, 2015 at 2:13 am #824848
Michael WaldoParticipantThe last election, measures passed that raised my property taxes. The transportation bill will again raise my taxes. Who the hell is voting for these things? We are thinking of selling out and moving somewhere where the property taxes are not so damn high. This taxes are killing us.
June 11, 2015 at 4:58 am #824849
JoBParticipantwhy not work to change the way taxes are assessed instead?
June 11, 2015 at 5:30 am #824850
acemotelParticipantI am a Democrat. I love taxes, I really do. I believe in the concept that we all contribute to the public good. But I am voting against the transportation levy. And the reason is because I have watched the way SDOT has conducted the Admiral Way road diet “proposal,” without any notice (some of the residents of Admiral Way have still not been notified), without any significant and meaningful study or understanding, in stealth mode, actually. SDOT has a marketing campaign that aims to confuse and obfuscate. “Safety” and “vitality” are stated goals for a street that is not dangerous and not dull. Watching this, I am ashamed of my city government. I would much rather put my tax dollars to Sound Transit (ST3) a proposal that will create REAL solutions to address some of the most congested traffic in the country, something SDOT seems incapable of doing.
June 11, 2015 at 3:51 pm #824851
wakefloodParticipantI’m essentially coming from the same place as you, Ace, and have concerns as well. Mine tend to revolve around two things:
First and foremost, there’s nothing in the levy that helps address WS’s #1 transportation issue and that’s ingress/egress on & off the peninsula. I would very much have liked to see some funds allocated to look at engineering solutions to getting a dedicated bus throughway over the bridge that could be converted should ST 3 come to pass, which is at least 15-20yrs. out.
Secondly, while some improvements to Fauntleroy by the bridge are helpful, I do not like the current design – which I think doesn’t take into account how people really use that stretch of the street.
And then again, the funding exclusively from home owners doesn’t feel right to me either. Surely some of the businesses in Seattle could help. Developers already have a great deal here. If they didn’t you wouldn’t see construction on every block like we do. Time for transpo-infrastructure dedicated developer fees.
There really isn’t much in the levy for WS.
Color me concerned and unconvinced.
June 11, 2015 at 10:20 pm #824852
metrognomeParticipanthere is a link to SDOT’s website:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/LevytoMoveSeattle.htm
The $275 figure is a red herring; the levy would result in a $145 a year increase if you’re in that magical $450,000 median household:
‘The $900 million levy would be paid for through a property tax that would cost the median Seattle household (valued at $450,000) about $275 per year, for nine years. The expiring Bridging the Gap levy costs the median Seattle household about $130 per year.’
The amount collected would be supplemented by state and federal funding that likely not otherwise be available:
‘In addition to the $930 million generated over the life of the levy, the City of Seattle estimates these funds can be used to leverage nearly $2 billion in additional transportation investments.’
Solving the ‘ingress/egress’ problem would cost billions … you can’t add a busway to the existing bridge without substantially reducing vehicular capacity. the bridge isn’t designed to accommodate the weight of light rail, which is why the Monorail was building a separate structure. A new bridge the size of I-90 would be required to provide adequate vehicular capacity as well as room for rail, unless Sound Transit decides a tunnel is better.
June 11, 2015 at 10:46 pm #824853
waynsterParticipantAs Brig. Gen. Anthony McAuliffe, said to the German Army in WWII during the Siege of Bastogne when he was ask to surrender he told them “NUTS!”… and I say to the mayor and city counsel on this transportation levy…. “NUTS” …..!
June 12, 2015 at 3:20 am #824854
JoBParticipantthe question i keep asking myself is whether Seattle road works would be more efficient with less or more money
i can’t see a plan that works for spending what they have..
June 12, 2015 at 5:16 am #824855
wakefloodParticipantMetronome, you’re wrong. The monorail was designed to be elevated over the high bridge. And your estimate that another structure the size of I-90 is required, is also an exaggeration. And while it will potentially cost over a billion, you don’t know with any certainty because nothing has been designed. And nobody thinks that this levy will actually build the solution. It would be prudent to get something designed as a preferred alternative in case ST 3 doesn’t materialize. It would be helpful to have something in place before 2030-35, which is what a best case ST 3 would be.
June 12, 2015 at 7:11 am #824856
metrognomeParticipantwell, I don’t know of a way to look up monorail documents on-line, so I can’t document the specifics. I worked pretty closely on monorail stuff and I recall that the ‘proposed’ crossing of the Duwamish was conceptual only and not yet supported by engineering work; the pros who looked at it got a good laugh. they couldn’t figure out how to cross out of Ballard once they faced the reality of environmental regs, Coast Guard requirements for crossing a navigable waterway, etc., not to mention the cost reality. that’s how the monorail did things. and that’s why it ultimately failed.
I stand by what I said about the size of a new structure/bridge. we currently have 2 lanes in each direction with another partial lane in each direction (I don’t consider the low bridge to be useful, esp. during a.m. rush hour.) if you want to improve ingress/egress in anticipation of growth, you need to double vehicular capacity in a way that connects smoothly w/ I-5; a lot of our current backups are due to space limitations on I-5 rather than WSBridge capacity. A logical solution would be to put the structure in south WS to connect w/ 509, 599, etc.
WSTC is also demanding light rail capacity be included on any ingress/egress solution. This structure would require state and federal $$ and would be subject to their requirements such as HOV lanes. I’m guessing ST will prefer tunneling into WS, esp. if the rail will continue to Burien and points south. And that’s if WS is included in ST3 and if ST3 passes in the tri-county area. And then there’s the issue of where to put this monstrosity; again, the south seems like a good spot, unless your house is in the way.
I’m not for or against the proposed levy at this point. I just think it’s completely impractical to expect the levy to solve the WS ingress/egress problem as the potential solution(s)* are too complex and too long-term. I think the most we should expect is for the city to commit a pot of money to begin a comprehensive planning process that is coordinated with w/ state, feds, ST, PSRC, etc., to identify realistic solutions and funding; there is no quick answer.
Face it, we all chose to move to or stay in a dead-end peninsula with limited ways in and out. we like being a backwater but the growth we are experiencing is causing problems. even with the growth, WS doesn’t have the density or the ridership generator(s) to justify the billions it will cost for light rail alone. There simply aren’t that many people who want to travel to Burien and points south from or via WS. Rt 560 couldn’t generate enough ridership; no reason to think light rail will do better. I will be highly surprised if WS is included in ST3 (other than as a spur to Alaska Junction or maybe Morgan Junction (like the monorail.)
As I think this conversation is a diversion from the OP’s intention, I’m going to step away. If someone wants to start a thread on this specific topic, I’ll be happy to jump in.
* I’ve not actually heard anyone say we have to build a new bridge, but it seems the only logical solution given our geology.
June 12, 2015 at 3:09 pm #824857
wakefloodParticipantFrom your post: ” I think the most we should expect is for the city to commit a pot of money to begin a comprehensive planning process that is coordinated with w/ state, feds, ST, PSRC, etc., to identify realistic solutions and funding; there is no quick answer”
Exactly.
That’s what WSTC is asking for to be added to the Levy. And they are attempting to get those very same entities to a table to discuss this difficult solution(s).
We can agree to agree. :-)
June 12, 2015 at 3:21 pm #824858
JoBParticipantthere are no perfect solutions but there have been plenty of possible partial solutions over the years that have been dismissed as not being perfect…
Instead of perfection.. Seattle gets non-stop gridlock with road works projects that are clearly not coordinated to allow maximum traffic flow.
I don’t know about you.. but it isn’t working much for me.
i now have to allocate an hour to get from the Westwood area to a doctor’s appointment on the hill or U district…
and too often i end up worrying that i will still be late :(
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.