Seattle’s transportation needs: What would you pay for & how much?

If you missed Monday night’s Citizen Transportation Advisory Committee workshop in West Seattle, the last of three planned around the city is tonight, at Washington Middle School (2101 South Jackson; map). The question posed here on Monday was two-fold: What are your transportation priorities, and how would you pay for them – would you support new taxes and fees, and if so, how much?

During the forum attended by about 20 people at the Southwest Library, the message delivered through boards and PowerPoint presentations – which are all linked here – was clear: Seattle’s transportation system is currently hanging by its financial fingertips, so if you want anything more than bare-bones progress, the city says, you will need to be further taxed, or tolled.

West Seattle-residing City Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, who lives in West Seattle and chairs the council’s Transportation Committee, spoke briefly as the gathering began. More ahead:

But it wasn’t a council meeting – it was officially hosted by CTAC, which had three members on hand, including co-chair Kate Joncas (making it clear she’s involved as a “citizen volunteer,” though she is best known for her work with the Downtown Seattle Association): “Our committee’s been struggling – there are many more needs than we have money for.” They’re a 14-member committee, working since January, with one of their tasks to help the city determine which of those needs are a priority for the $20 license-plate fee that recently kicked in, as a result of the council voting to form a Transportation Benefit District. The Bridging the Gap levy from a few years back isn’t enough to close the gap. And they’re trying to determine whether West Seattleites might support another levy or other type of fee – for example, the Transportation Benefit District can ask citizens for up to $80 more per year, if that passes a vote of the people.

So what are all those needs?

Lots of numbers were tossed around, particularly the fact that the city has two major transportation master plans – Pedestrian and Bicycle – but has been able to spend only a tiny fraction of what the plans suggest needs to be spent.

Maintaining what the city has already makes up the bulk of CTAC’s recommendations so far – from potholes to pedestrian safety. (Their recommendations so far are on page 7 here.) SDOT director Peter Hahn noted that the city’s transportation system has $13 billion worth of assets already, much of it falling apart. (The slides accompanying his remarks are the “State of Transportation” presentation you can see here.) Yet voices from the crowd suggested additions and changes, such as more transit-only lanes.

That made Hahn smile. “I like it.”

So why doesn’t it happen? asked the attendee.

Hahn took that occasion to mention the controversies that have arisen in Luna Park (WSB coverage here) and the Triangle (WSB coverage here) over transit lanes reducing parking in business districts once West Seattle’s RapidRide bus line starts up. “We’ve had pressure, and it’s been tough to maintain the vision … hard to (work toward) ‘Bus Rapid Transit’ and not have it be ‘Bus Slow Transit’.”

At that point, someone asked about a transit lane on Columbia, approaching the Alaskan Way Viaduct downtown. Hahn said that had been considered, but there were “some operational issues.” A subsequent question about park-and-rides was answered with an acknowledgment from Councilmember Rasmussen that they are “very important to suburban communities,” but no interest in building more in the city.

From there, the participants were split into two groups for further discussion – with the request that Alaskan Way Viaduct-related (inference: tunnel) discussion be avoided “because there’s nothing we can do about it,” as the CTAC committee members put it. Joncas and Barbara Wright were with one group, Paulo Nuñes-Ueno with the other.

In the Joncas/Wright group, public safety emerged as a major issue. One person mentioned riding the bus late at night when a fight broke out, and worrying about the lack of security.

Another brought up a long-running issue – the shortage of east-west connection transit routes.

And what about bicyclist/driver conflicts? asked another, suggesting a public-information campaign to defuse the tensions. That led to the question of whether bicycle ridership is on the rise. SDOT’s Tracy Burrows said the department is now doing “regular bicycle counts on a quarterly basis.”

Ultimately, the transportation priorities that emerged in the group we monitored were led by “sustainability” – both environmentally and financially – and reliability. Also winning support, safety, productivity, and “moving people and goods quickly.”

So how to pay for transportation improvements, if it was determined there was no way to get them but to raise more money from “users”? The idea of a sales-tax increase got thumbs down. License-plate fees drew some support. One person suggested putting pressure on the federal government to stop the current wars, and “bring the money home.” Joncas replied, “That’s outside the purview of our committee.”

Her final point: That committee has a “huge decision” to make, so if you can help, make sure and share your opinion. If you can’t make it to tonight’s third and final workshop (Washington Middle School, as mentioned above with map, open house at 5:30 pm, presentation at 6 pm, small-group discussions at 6:30 pm), there’s an online survey – take it here.

17 Replies to "Seattle's transportation needs: What would you pay for & how much?"

  • carole stuhlman May 26, 2011 (12:43 pm)

    Is it possible that leadership of those handling the money for Washington State have the problem. With many more drivers and car ownership in the State-that money alone is substancial. Raising sales tax has always been the way the state has gone,and why our State is #6 as the highest sales tax in the U.S. I think working on rapid bus transit is a good way to go. If people can get a bus without waiting for an hour, and it gets you downtown in 15 minutes, that would solve alot of transportation problems.

  • Mike May 26, 2011 (1:28 pm)

    Rapid ride is the fancy way of saying “Express Bus”, which we already have plenty of…

    The problem is these plans for West Seattle (Rapid Ride, etc.) are all road-based fixes, and have the same problems of getting stuck in further viaduct, construction, or weather-snarled traffic.

    Light rail from the Sodo station up through the Junction and beyond to the Fauntleroy Ferry Terminal would be a nice line.

    I don’t mind raising sales tax to do it either. I’ve been voting for similar projects every time, but somehow Sound Transit runs out of money before the projects even break ground.

  • Mike May 26, 2011 (1:30 pm)

    Fix the roads we have, don’t do temp pothole fixes… FIX them.

  • metrognome May 26, 2011 (1:39 pm)

    Carole — the state has gone with raising the sales tax because this state does not have an income tax … Every time a gov’t tries to use the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax or license plate fees instead, Eyman floats another initiative to repeal it … and voters outside King County agree with him, so it becomes law. Unfortunately, the fact that King County voters don’t support his initiatives doesn’t matter.

  • CandrewB May 26, 2011 (2:24 pm)

    After our household was jacked for about $2500 in monorail taxes (which we were happy to pay at the time BTW), all for naught, they can stick it.

  • seattle transplant May 26, 2011 (2:42 pm)

    I would rather have a repaved Delridge which sees 1000’s of cars per day, than a Skate Park for 200 kids per month. Or a fixed I-5 rather than a ton of signs that tell me the speed limit is 40 in gridlock…decisions, decisions, decisions…

  • visitor May 26, 2011 (2:56 pm)

    if the bus came more often than once every half hour, I would take it. Take a look at the transportation infrastructure in some European cities where most people travel via mass transit, and it’s faster than trying to drive. It’s just folly to expect people here to rely on our bus system that is slow, infrequent, and inefficient. Most trips require a transfer and a long wait, usually downtown.

  • foy boy May 26, 2011 (3:42 pm)

    Can you say park an ride on one of the empty lots in the middle of town. I can,t understand why none of our city leaders and want to be future leaders never through this out at these fourms.

  • JAT May 26, 2011 (3:58 pm)

    Elsewhere in the world Bus Rapid Transit means slightly more than express buses (of which I agree we have plenty) BRT also involved dedicated busways (such as we have currently at 5th Ave S between the end of the tunnel and Spokane St (though I don’t believe that busway serves any current or contemplated West Seattle routes.) Such busways take BRT busses out of the congestion but are more flexibly and less expensively implemented than rail transit. Given our existing built environment though, they would tend to require taking away a lane used by cars and you can imagine how unpopular that would be, likewise, where BRT-like facilities have been tried here they tend to be hamstrung by odd compromises: The Bus Only lanes through Interbay allow the buses to fly past bumper to bumper traffic, until they come to a slower moving bicycle (which – and I love bikes – have foolishly been authorized to use the bus lane). Hemmed in by barely moving automobile traffic on the left, it is very difficult for the bus operator to get around a cyclist. That’s how Seattle rolls. In Adelaide, South Australia they have BRT that uses dedicated roads that run parallel to a bike and pedestrian trail… through the middle of a park. The park is a little less pleasant but people can get to the suburbs quickly.

  • mcbride May 26, 2011 (4:04 pm)

    Keep in mind that Metro is a King County institution, of which Seattle is only a facet of, but pays the most into (as a single contributor). And, Metro is struggling financially, to put it mildly.
    .
    I would be interested in seeing the numbers on Seattle’s contribution vs. opting out of the program and going back to municipal transport.
    .
    Maybe it’s a terrible idea, maybe it isn’t even possible. But there is some disparity in what we pay in and what we recieve in terms of ridership and service levels. That alone is a viable topic of discussion.

  • Question May 26, 2011 (4:36 pm)

    Why can’t we pay to build light rail from west Seattle to downtown with trains running every 15 minutes and then get rid of all the buses that clog the streets of downtown.

  • metrognome May 26, 2011 (5:07 pm)

    @Question — how would you get to / from light rail stations if you get rid of all the buses in downtown? How much do you want to pay for light rail to WS — $2Billion? $2.5Billion? You have to cross the Duwamish (probably the better part of $500 mil just to do that) and probably tunnel from there because of the steep hill. To serve what part of WS? The Junction? What about the rest of WS, White Center, etc.?
    @McBride — There is a lot of disagreement about equity because so much of Metro’s ridership is between cities rather than within a specific jurisdiction. This topic is frequently discussed at the KC Regional Transit Committee, which includes reps from suburban cities as well as Seattle. Of course, the ‘burbs don’t think they get what they pay for either.
    @CAndrewB — can’t blame the government for the monorail; that was a citizen-run project from start to finish.

  • heather May 26, 2011 (5:48 pm)

    Thanks for posting the link to the survey – I took it.

    Listen, I am willing to pay more for light rail.

    Did you hear that? I…am…willing…to…pay more in vehicle tabs and a modest increase in property taxes to fund light rail to West Seattle looping along 35th and another looping along CA. AND just for fun bring back the trolly looping along CA from Fauntleroy ferry to Alki but make sure it has removable windows so it is still viable in the winter. I also agree with the comment above – build the light rail and cut the bus routes. I for one am ready to ditch my car and take the rail. But I am not willing to throw more money into the money pit of public buses – let’s try to be more forward thinking.

  • heather May 26, 2011 (5:54 pm)

    I think it would be viable to have the primary source of transportation a light rail system, a secondary system would be public buses and a local solution for short local routes, shopping and local fun- ferries, Lincoln park and Alki would be the return of the trolly.
    Transportation is an issue of layers…we all get dressed with one item over another…we can have a decent system of transportation too. It would make Seattle more accessible for everyone.

  • Rosanne May 26, 2011 (10:20 pm)

    Why doesn’t the Vashon ferry go directly into downtown Seattle? Wouldn’t that drastically reduce the amount of cars in west Seattle?

  • redblack May 27, 2011 (5:39 am)

    rosanne, i’ve wondered about that, too. but the population of vashon island is only about 11,000. and, yeah, at times it seems like every one of them gets in a car and drives through west seattle. but their contribution to our traffic woes is relatively minor. besides, i think the ferries they’re using only hold about 150 cars at once.
    .
    i don’t know what the ridership numbers are for southworth-to-fauntleroy, though. i would think that people in port orchard would exercise other options to get here.

  • Yardark May 27, 2011 (7:34 am)

    Why are we looking at such massive investments when there are still so many empty seats in the thousands of cars that commute everyday?
    Why can’t we pay the owners of those commuting cars to fill those empty seats with either people or cargo?
    Let’s use the resources we have to their fullest before chucking money at more.

Sorry, comment time is over.