5:43: It’s just started, and Tom Rasmussen his speaking and I think I’ve already fallen asleep. Since it’s what journalist do: I’ll note that Nick Licata and Jean Godden couldn’t be bothered to show up.
5:54: 4 speakers, all for putting transit on the ballot but it’s been from $40 to $80.
5:56: Nobody likes the funding mechanism. I’d also rather it be progressive. But compared to the sales tax, well at least people who can’t afford a car don’t have to pay for it. If the legislature ever decides to let locals have a progressive income tax, I’ll support that more.
6:02: I feel like I used to go to more of these things until I was a more regular writer at HA. Now when I see one I think I have to grab my laptop and take it with me to do a post like this. So then I’m too lazy to go at all. This is a neurosis, I think.
6:11: First person wanting sidewalks. It’s still been overwhelmingly pro putting something on the ballot. John Fox was the only one opposed.
6:16: I should have mentioned but Jean Godden came in a while ago. Nick Licata still couldn’t be bothered to even show up to his job.
6:21: A lot of people talking about how this might be the only opportunity for a long time.
6:24: Also, a lot of mention that Seattle voters have been willing to support transit in the past.
6:27: Of course there’s a large difference between the $40 package with all or mostly roads and the $60 or $80 that has public transit, pedestrian, and bike funding.
6:38: A woman from the Low Income Housing Institute (I didn’t catch her name) speaking in favor of the full $80 is the first person of color speaking in the hour or so. Seattle process, I’m afraid.
6:46: I don’t know if they look down to write or the angle I’m at, but it looks like Jean Godden and Tim Burgess are nodding off.
6:50: There’s a baby outside the council chambers. Hi baby. Hi.
7:00: Overwhelmingly pro putting something on the ballot and overwhelmingly pro that being transit.
7:05: A lot of people mentioning that the higher package means that we have better projects. And better projects will sell the package better than a lower price tag.
7:13: Does more applause mean we take more time? Because I’ve been applauding most people, but I guess I don’t have anywhere else to go after the meeting.
7:24: A lot of people who own cars making a point of it, and of their willingness to pay. It’s something I’ve made a point of in the past.
7:27: Also, people made the point that we’re in competition with other cities. The ability to get around is a selling point for attracting people to work here, to go to school here, etc.
7:40: We’re done. Here’s my recap of the testimony: Most people want the full $80. The funding mechanism is bad, but perhaps there are ways to mitigate it. In terms of priority, I’d say transit was the most, then sidewalks, and fewer people spoke in favor of bike and road infrastructure, but I don’t think there’s opposition to those things.
Is this sort of thing helpful in a world where we have The Seattle Chanel, etc?
Sidewalks and bike lanes are a socialist plot to overthrow the American Way of Life® and indoctrinate our children into an altruistic slave state where even poor people are considered “citizens”.
I blame the Jews and the Unions and George Soros.
@1 I blame Trotsky. This was all his idea! He’s dead but his bile lives on in the personhood of Leo Strauss.* (*Yes, I know Strauss is dead, but he lives on in the persons of neo-conservatives.)
Screw sidewalks and bike lanes, make it 30 bucks and put it all into transit.
The problem with supporting “transit” is that the projects the city has jurisdiction over don’t include Metro (buses) or South Transit (buses, light and commuter rail). In the Rasmussen and O’Brien proposals “transit” only means “streetcars,” which is downtown Seattlespeak for more projects like the SLUT: useless transitty appendanges nobody rides that are designed mostly to improve property values. They are not transportation solutions in any meaningful sense.
The same automatons who will automatically support anything with “transit” in it are also lining up to hate on Godden’s proposal because it’s “mostly cars.” It’s not. It’s mostly roads, which cars and buses and bikes all use, and of which there’s a huge backlog of unfunded maintenance projects. Roads in much of Seattle, especially the south end, are in terrible shape.
Given that bike lanes and sidewalks are already getting a lot of love, and given that a more expensive proposal also makes it likelier that voters will turn down both the city money and the $20 the county wants to avoid devastating bus service cuts, Godden (I never thought I’d say this) actually makes a lot of sense. Since it makes the county measure likelier to pass, Godden’s plan does more for “transit,” that is the kind people actually use, than either of the others. But it doesn’t fund as many more bike lanes, so her plan will be ignored.
Putting that abortion of a tax on the ballot may drown the Metro bus tax because some people do not like thinking before they vote, so they will vote no on both.
The reason I call it an abortion is Seattle can spend it on anything they want after the vote. It is a flim flam tax unless specific projects are promised.
How about Seattle promising to put concrete, not asphalt, streets down on the right lane of major bus routes in the city? A smoother ride for the citizens. It is said Metro replaces an axle a month on most buses due to the atrocious quality of city streets. On the #48 one day, they lost 4 buses due to air bag failure. Metro is keeping buses going by cannibalizing other buses. I saw 15 buses in the maintenance lanes the other day. That is 10% of the fleet out of service.
So, get ready for serious bus service cuts.
This isn’t bullshit. This is happening. But, at least the gold plated choo choo to the airport is still running. Because Sound Transit has money blowing out of their ass while Seattle bus riders stand on their bus routes getting their teeth loosened from the vibrations and rattles.
I might be nodding too. I go to the occasional planning commission meet. Seriously dull.
Pete and busdriver mike: the city can actually spend money on a number of things to help transit:
1. Paying Metro for additional service hours for important transit corridors
2. Creating bus lanes.
3. Transit singnal priority and queue jumps.
4. Adding bus bulbs
5. Prioritizing transit corridors for re-paving work.
From what I understand all except #5 would come from the “transit” portion of the funds.
As for streetcars, yes some of the transit money would go for streetcars. However the planned network is hardly “useless” and as I understand it would be more like MAX in Portland and less like SLUT.
FWiW polling shows that even an $80 fee passes as long as it has a significant portion going to transit and sidewalks. If the measure is mostly for roads it fails even at the more modest $40 level. Polling also shows the $20 fee for Metro passing if it goes to the ballot. I’m not sure if anyone ha polled the two fees together though.
Holy cow, I thought my regular posts were typo heavy.
@3 & 4,
We’re going to have a mixed system for as long as we can see into the future. So I have no problem with Seattle doing streetcars (and the SLUT is fine for what it is, and more people are using it). If King County hadn’t underfunded Seattle with 40-40-20, etc. Seattle wouldn’t have to add its own things. And $40, $60, or $80 is going to have road repairs.
@5,
I was more riffing on the first update that I’d fallen asleep than picking on either of them.
@7
Yeah, I figured. I was agreeing. This sort of stuff is really important. It’s too bad the meetings are so yawn inducing.
Interesting that the meeting Carl attended doesn’t seem to bear any resemblance to what KING-TV reported afterwards. Their piece consisted almost entirely of selected citizens hollering “No new taxes”.
@4 Sound Transit is “rolling in loot”? Well, maybe in grants to build stuff, but not necessarily to operate it. I’m expecting that about the time Metro cuts back, ST will also announce a pile of reductions and route cancellations, and it’s a pretty safe bet that service to the Eastside will take a gigantic hit if Microsoft decides they’d rather pull their subsidies and put the money into running their employees’ precious little butts around in their own gold-plated private bus system.
@9,
I just watched it, LOL. John Fox was the only non-elected who was at the meeting who they played. I can assure you he was not representative of turnout. Also, they had like 5 different ways to say 80 (or 80 and 20) more dollars but only a quick summary of what it might buy. Also too, the intro that drivers had a chance to weigh in: while I mentioned that a lot of people who are drivers said they were glad to pay, everyone was allowed to speak if they were a driver or not.