New Tacoma Link Stop (Atomic Taco)

This is an open thread.

67 Replies to “News Roundup: Flat Since 1999”

    1. The Stranger makes great points. In my opinion it’s critical that moving forward a broad base of elected, transportation advocates AND more importantly safety, healthcare and community groups outside of the normal sphere come together to push aside the rhetoric and hysteria that has been propagated over the last year or two and refocus on the paramount purpose of pedestrian and bike projects, safety.

      Just like the shooting of Gabriell Giffords and the massacre in Olso, horrible events like these need to be seized upon to ground ourselves, and once again affirming the importance of human life above some disagreement of opinion.

      1. Yesterday a silver Jaguar (license plate starting with 264) nearly hit my wife, intentionally, who had biked in front of him while stopped at a red light (he took off, swerving into oncoming traffic, nearly hitting an oncoming cement truck, and swerved back into their lane almost into her).

        Brewing bike hate in people with deadly vehicles is at least unethical, and could end up killing people like my wife. Grow up, Seattle Times.

      2. Certainly, the police should be able to track this car down and arrest the driver for attempted murder. Please tell me that is happening.

  2. I am really getting sick of the NIMBY people who have no concern at all for other people. Especially the Lakewood people trying to stop high speed rail. Its not even high speed rail! Its normal passenger rail. I cant understand why people think that many deaths are going to happen because 79mph trains will run though lakewood. Those trains run through plenty of other neighborhoods already on the route and people dont get hit by trains very often. I bet you could do a comparison to say that if those people who would take the train drive instead, they would kill far more people in traffic accidents than the train would ever.

    1. Indeed, this guy in Lakewood and his buddies are just nutters. 80 mph trains are no more dangerous than the 60 mph cars which rampage through Lakewood on a constant basis — less so, in fact, since trains stay on the tracks.

      Hopefully they’ll be ignored.

  3. I like how Tim Harris laid out the math that passing the VLF could save him far more money per year than killing the additional $60 annual tab would.

    He’s dead right: The perfect is the enemy of the good. Killing the VLF provides zero more dollars for sidewalks, bus service, or filling potholes. I just don’t see the city council coming back with a different package if this one fails.

    As for John Fox, nothing will satisfy him short of taking every penny of transit capital investment out of the package. What Prop 1 opponents are saying is out of balance is that too much is being invested in transit improvements. So, I’m voting Hell YES on Proposition 1.

    It’s a bonus gift that, for once, we aren’t being asked to fund a revenue increase from a MORE REGRESSIVE SALES TAX.

    1. This $60 car tab tax is far more regressive than a sales tax.

      Sales tax on a new $50,000 car: about $5,000
      Sales tax on a used, $500 beater car: about $50

      Car tab tax on a new $50,000 car: $60
      Car tab tax on a used, $500 beater car: $60

      Do you even understand the concept of a “regressive” tax?

      1. Yes and No. I mostly agree with you — but, for the sake of argument, you could also view the VLF more as a luxury tax since owning a car is, strictly speaking, a luxury.

      2. The regressivity of a tax is usually calculated in terms of the income of the person being taxed, not the value of the item being taxed.

        So let’s recalculate this. A household with an income of $30,000 and one car (because that’s all they can afford) is paying a 0.2% under the proposition. A household with an income of $100,000 and three cars (have to have one for the kids!) is paying a 0.18% tax. While it’s probably regressive in quite a few specific cases, the proposed $60 VLF is (a) pretty small in comparison to the other costs of owning a car (it’s at worst a couple tanks of gas), and (b) likely going to cost those with more vehicles (and more ability to afford a tax) more than those with less, and (c) small in comparison to the benefits in better bus service, better surfaces and more sidewalks.

        I honestly would have preferred other ways to pay for Seattle transportation needs. Being a homeowner, I would gladly pay more property tax. Similarly, I would gladly pay an income tax if the state would then disburse a portion to the city for transportation purposes. But neither of these is on the table (and won’t be any time soon). Seattle has poor — and getting worse — transportation infrastructure for all modes and this is the only near term funding source for any improvements.

      3. Thank you, Rachael, for pointing out what should be obvious. Rich people are way more likely to have multiple vehicles than poor people. “Regressive” gets thrown around a lot without much thought. Even the sales tax, which everyone assumes is always regressive, is not that regressive when essentials are exempted. For example, back in Iowa where I’m from both food and clothing are exempt from sales tax. Once you cut out the essentials, it really is personal choice if you want to buy more stuff.

      4. zef,

        The reason people say that the sales tax is regressive is because it is.

        The Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy published a report on the regressivity of tax systems in all 50 states. Washington State, with its strong reliance on sales tax, scored the most regressive of all 50.

        Across the country, sales and excise taxes represented an average of 7.1% of the income of the bottom 20% of earners, compared to 0.9% for the top 1%. General individual sales tax (included in that number) was 3.3% for the poorest 20%, 0.5% for the richest 1%.

        In Washington State, the poorest 20% paid 13.1% of their income in sales & excise taxes (4.4% for general sales tax), while the richest 1% paid 1.8% of their income in sales & excise taxes (0.7% for general sales tax).

        The basic explanation for why this is true is simply that, even if you exempt essentials, poor people spend a *far* higher percentage of their income than rich people do. Many people in the poorest income brackets actually spend *more* than they earn, because of credit cards/loans, or the EITC, or gifts, or expenditures from savings. Conversely, most people in the highest income brackets save a significant portion of their income, which in Washington State is not subject to any tax. And there’s a continuum in between.

        Saying that buying stuff is “personal choice” is simply not a reasonable way of looking at things. Should poor people never buy furniture, never go out for dinner, never go to the movies? Never even buy a book (which I don’t believe to be exempt from the sales tax)? Do you really want to say that poor people aren’t allowed to have any luxuries at all?

        I’m exaggerating, but only slightly. My monthly taxable expenses are approximately 25% of my gross income. For someone in the lowest income bracket, in which the average income (for WA state) is $11,000, they would have to spend no more than $230 a month in taxable expenses to even be paying a *flat* tax compared to me. And yet my marginal federal tax rate is 3x higher than theirs (and my effective tax rate is probably 10x higher).

        Compared to an income tax, any form of sales tax is unbelievably regressive. That’s simply a fact.

        but the fact is that, for the sales tax to even be a *flat* tax,

      5. Having said that, I am still voting for the $60 fee, because I feel the benefits are worth the cost, especially for low-income households (who are more likely to use transit, regardless of whether or not they own any cars). Rejecting the fee because no better funding source is available is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

      6. I can hardly wait to vote against the $60 increase. Even more, I am eagerly anticipating the pitiful whining from the losers. It’ll surely match the whining from the Republicans when Gregoire beat Dino Rossi. Political whining is soooooooo fun!

        I can just hear it now: “How could they? How could they spit in our faces and tell us, ‘Blank you and the horse you rode in on?’ We are good people. We are nice people. We care so much about the environment! Just look at my Volvo and my jacket from R.E.I.! How could they obey us?”

      8. Aleks, I understand that the sales tax is technically regressive. What I am saying that there is a level of choice involved that is not shared by other tax systems. A poor person in Oregon has no choice but to pay the (also flat) payroll taxes, while a poor person in Washington at least has the option to pay less. That said, I would always favor progressive taxes like property and income tax.

        Your point about luxuries is way off the mark. I have been low-income many times in my life, and I have coped by using the library for books and movies (pretty amazing selection, actually), craigslist and thrift stores for furniture and household items, cheap pay-go phones for cell service, and public transit for transportation. Many poor households in the US choose to buy into the consumer mindset, but that is in fact a choice. Society has a responsibility to make sure that people can get the basic necessities like food, health care, and shelter, but for luxuries you really need to have the money to pay for it. That’s why they are called luxuries.

        Most economists agree that the most efficient tax would be a high national consumption tax paired with a progressive tax rebate based on income, and this is in fact what most other Western countries use as a major source of revenue. Over-consumption overall is a major problem in the US, and higher prices across the board would lead to more efficient use of resources.

    2. Just out of curiosity, Norman: What kind of tax to support transportation infrastructure would you find to be progressive, and support?

  4. One thing I don’t completely understand is why pro-transit should mean pro-bicyclist. Are all bicyclists pro-transit? I remember them getting their knickers in a twist over streetcars.

    I’m obviously pro-bicycle if that’s your thing, and certainly don’t want anyone to die, and I’d love it if they’d be happy and all that. But I don’t see why just because I like transit I should be an advocate for bicycling, too.

    1. I suppose it goes back to the reason you’re pro-transit. If you are advocating for the disabled, are trying to improve your own commute, or just like that new bus smell, (I’m sure other non-connected reasons) then public transit and bikes aren’t very central to your goal. If you’re trying to build a well-connected, well-functioning city, or trying to reduce human impact on the planet, or if you’re trying to plan out a complete transit system, then bicycles become important.

      Personally, I’m the following: pro-density, pro-pedestrian, pro-transit, and pro-biking. In that order. And all for the same reasons.

      2. “If you’re trying to build a well-connected, well-functioning city…”

        This assumes the definition of a well-functioning city is one where bicycles are… well, something. I’m not convinced of that, especially when the something isn’t stated.

        Also, I don’t think that advocating for bicylcing is anything like an effective way to reduce human impact on the planet.

      3. This might be worth a seperate post, but I’ll expand a bit. My ideal high-functioning, well connected city would work like this: tall buildings, density, and highly-walkable areas where everyone can walk to work, school, retail. However, for large city sizes, we can only approach this ideal, and that’s where transit comes in – to easily and quickly connect people to jobs, school, retail.

        Now, how do we get from our current state of built-for-cars world to built-for-feet world? The middle step isn’t just transit – buses roaming suburban areas will never come with enough frequency or enough speed to replace car trips, and we need to remove the need for cars if we’re ever going to be able to build densely (not to mention peak oil may get rid of most cars for us anyway). The middle ground is perfect for bikes and buses. Buses for predictable routeine trips (commute, school), bikes for everything else. Suburban town centers that grow over time, and good bike routes to reach them from the surrounding single family homes. Frequent transit from the town centers to the city, with plenty of bike parking. You can wait the half hour for your suburban bus, or be on transit in 5 minutes after riding to your town center.

        Anyway, that’s my current vision on where bikes fit in best. We built our world for individual vehicles, and it’s not a simple trick to keep this world connected without individual vehicles. Bikes can be car-replacement until we can rebuild our cities.

      4. If you’re trying to build a well-connected, well-functioning city, or trying to reduce human impact on the planet, or if you’re trying to plan out a complete transit system, then bicycles become important

        Did I ever tell you that I own a one-ton pickup, and that I put a heavy brick against the accelerator all night? Seattle’s weather has been cold for the last few years, so I doing my part to warm up the atmosphere so I can grow some #$%@$&* tomatoes. Organic tomatoes!

    2. Well one reason is because the type of the built environment that is critical for real transit, creates the demand for trips that are perfectly suited for bikes. Also bikes extend the influence area of HCT stations. For example, when I lived in Stockholm I would ride my bike to the 2nd nearest station so that I didn’t have to transfer.

      1. This means that if you like bicycles that you should advocate for transit, but doesn’t actually say the reverse, at least not until you get the HCT stations. Personally, I’d love to spend time advocating for HCT (obviously), I’m just not convinced why I advocate for bicyclists.

        Obviously I care, just not enough to do anything.

      2. Another reason I would add is bikes are very good for the types of trips that transit usually isn’t good at, short local trips. A strong bike modes share helps you focus transit service on longer distance and faster regional transit which can be competitive with auto trips.

    3. I would say that walking, biking, and transit should be lumped together as one single “mode” of transportation. Most people who rely on cars use their car for everything, rarely even walking anywhere. People who are not car-dependent usually use a combination of walking/biking, walking/transit, or walking/biking/transit. When we talk about an “urban village” or a “20-minute neighborhood,” what we mean is a place where pretty much every daily transportation need can be met by walking, biking, and transit. These can be seen as concentric circles of range, with walking perfect for short trips, biking for medium trips, and transit for long trips. Walking and/or biking are also used on both ends of transit trips.

      Anyway, I often notice some animosity or competition between the walking/biking folks and the walking/transit folks, when really their goals should be the same. Some people will always prefer riding their bike everywhere and never taking the bus, others would never ride a bike and always take the bus, and others are fine with all three. They all advance the cause of sustainability and great neighborhoods.

      1. Your split doesn’t describe me at all. I take the bus to work most days, I walk to do most shopping, and I drive to run most errands. In terms of time, I spend more time on the bus, but in terms of trips, it’s probably a 30/60/10 split.

      2. What I’m saying is that we should think about transportation in terms of auto and non-auto modes, then work to steadily decrease the auto portion and increase the non-auto portion. Instead I see a lot of arguments that come down to whether we should spend money on pedestrian or bike or transit projects. It is infighting among what should be natural allies, and it just benefits the auto lobby.

    4. Actually, I’m convinced. Bicycles are part of the same goal of a built environment where cars aren’t the only things that matter.

    5. Bicycles are also healthy for traffic because they (should) make cars slow down
      I guess I am just sore about streetcar opposition.

      3. Ah, yes, the old myth about idling cars. It might be true for old beaters from the 1980’s, but modern cars have very low emissions at idle and as hybrids and electric cars increase that will go to zero. Plus cars pollute less the slower they go, so if you actually cared about emissions you would support traffic-calming and a general lowering of speed limits.

      4. Cyclists aren’t generally opposed to streetcars, just incompetently laid out streetcar systems.

        If Seattle had followed the recommendations of its own consultants when the South Lake Union line was built, it wouldn’t have been designed to injure cyclists and wheelchair users.

        Indications are the city has learned from its mistakes, but it will take time to win back the trust of skinny-tired transportation users.

      5. Idling still emits masses of gunk. Once we all switch to electric cars that will end… but right now electric cars are *expensive*.

      6. Of course, I realize I missed the previous commenters’ point: right now with modern cars, idling cars emit less than moving cars.

        They’re just not moving while they do so, so it’s wasteful on a per-passenger-mile basis. :-)

    6. Both bicycling and transit challenge the paradigm that car-oriented travel is the only viable form of travel. We do have similar goals.

    7. I am pro-bicycle because it’s the most efficient way to handle short trips and I’m also pro-transit because the transit+bicycle combination is the most efficient way to handle long trips.

      2. Ah, but what percentage of transit-users can be bicyclists before the system can’t handle it?

        Bicycles do take up a fair amount of room, about the volume of 3 suitcases.

  5. The government seems to act as if trains are “so 19th Century.” That’s a shame, and it is also untrue. In an analytical Op/Ed piece I’d written, I would say that there would come a time when passenger rail in the US would be privatized once again. In response, some people agreed with me, but only major high-speed corridors would most likely be privatized–long distance trains not so much.

    In any case, Amtrak has to survive somehow otherwise passenger rail would be extinct in North America.

  6. Would this rubbish trying to block Amtrak affect Sounder as well?

    I do ride Sounder to Tac Dome then connect with two more buses. The Lakewood extension would (happily) eliminate one transfer, so that’s why I’m wondering

    Now, about that Sounder extension to DuPont (would be nice – easiest way to/from home) or Centennial Station (I can dream can’t I)…

    1. The Point Defiance bypass is further down the line from Lakewood. The EIS etc. for the Sounder extension was in the bag years ago and ST is already hip-deep in construction for that, so there’s no worry there.

      1. The nuts in Lakewood are all a-panic because Amtrak proposes to run faster trains on existing tracks. With upgraded warning systems. Apparently, the nuts really like slow trains on tracks in poor condition, blocking crossings, blowing horns…. there’s a reason I’m calling them nuts.

      3. The sounder runs at 80 MPH too, so if they object to amtrak they theoretically object to sounder since its exactly the same… But fortunately they can’t stop sounder.

  7. Always funny to hear about trains,streetcars, and bicycles being “nineteenth century”. Historically, by the same reasoning, so are automobiles and airplanes.

    Also, contemporary sources from the actual nineteenth century all shared a conviction that their particular century represented the pinnacle of technical success.

    Especially funny in view of current controversies: at the time automobiles started appearing, main force for improved pavement was…bicyclists.

    Some great reading: “Horatio’s Drive”, also a public TV special, about a businessman who bet against all the odds he could drive a car across the United States in 1903, and “American Road”, about a post WWI military truck convoy that wouldn’t have made it if they hadn’t taken along a giant caterpillar tractor.

    Sort of where transit is in America now. So a hundred years from now, if we do good, matter transmitter proponents will be rolling their eyes about bullet trains being “so 21st century!”

    Incidentally, since open threads don’t have to be on-subject: since the modes were respectively invented, bicycle and automobile users were expected to have the maturity to handle mechanical devices in society.

    Horse-drawn travel didn’t require so much of this, since a horse grown-up enough to carry a rider or pull a carriage could be relied upon to get humans home in any state of inebriation or other distress.

    Mark Dublin

    1. What the 21st brings is self-guided transit and transportation.

      It’s here now in the form of airplane auto-pilots which have been managing most plane rides for nearly 20 years now. (An article recently said that pilots have nearly lost all skills for flying commercial planes as its managed entirely by automation!).

      Marshall McLuhan often said that the future is in the present…we just refuse to see it.

      http://marshallmcluhanspeaks.com/prophecies/1968-the-future-of-the-future-is-the-present.php

  8. I note that with this study “Nationwide, rail increases property values from 6 to 50%.” that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are patrons. Given the history of those two organizations in promoting things that benefit them I would certainly wonder about the quality of the report.

    1. The study’s solid. It is by an organization which promotes *house building*, but neither it, nor Fannie, nor Freddie, have no particular preference as to where they build their houses. With a question as to where to build ’em, you can expect it to be objective.

      1. Too many negatives. Correction: “neither it, nor Fannie, nor Freddie, have any particular preference as to where they build their houses”

  9. The reason I like car tabs as a method of taxation is that it is one of our rare green taxes: It taxes something we want to see less of (car ownership), rather than something that has far fewer negative externalities (property ownership), or something we want to see more of (commerce).

    One could argue that fines, tolls, and parking tickets are also regressive.

    To those who say they’d rather see a different revenue source, I’d like you to name that revenue source, and explain what you have done to get it.

    To those who think there are items covered by the VLF that they do not want to see funded, name those items.

    To those insinuating that the city council is being fast and loose with its promise to develop a mitigation program for poor drivers, I ask you to spell out the details of how you think such a program should work.

    1. One could argue that fines, tolls, and parking tickets are also regressive.

      And one would be largely correct.

      In Scandinavia, parking fines are a percentage of income, rather than a fixed amount. I’ve always thought this was a great system.

      1. Again, why is the concept of choice not included in declaring something regressive? If a fine is easily avoided, how is it regressive? Even tolls can be reduced by carpooling, which most people could do but don’t. I do think when possible taxes should be based on income, but it would be creepy to have a system where we use means-testing for everything. It would be easier to have flat fees but then do rebates based on income once a year rather than try to tailor every fee to income.

      2. Actually, it appears that the Scandanavian system of having all fines be percentages of income is remarkably simple and effective.

        It avoids the problem of rich scofflaws “just paying the fine” which we have in the US, as well as avoiding the problem of throwing the already poor into further destitution over a minor issue.

        I wouldn’t say EVERYTHING should be like this, but monetary penalties which are supposed to be PUNITIVE should be a percentage of income. Otherwise they’re simply more punitive to the poor than to the rich.

    2. I’ll say that in conversations with Council members I think they’re taking the regressivity issue very seriously. If folks have ideas on how to help with the impact from the VLF on the very poor, Council would love to hear from you.

      1. Well, I suggested going for the full $80 would make it easier to budget for the mitigation, but the council didn’t buy that.

        I’d suggest that the council go for the last $20 in the spring, make it a longer timeline, and dedicate a portion of it to the mitigation (up to $80 in ORCA e-purse — not tickets — to those below a certain income?), while upping the amount for sidewalks. That is, *if* the current package passes.

        David Miller is right that we need more money for sidewalks than is in the current package. He is just flat-out naive that we are going to get more by defeating this package. We also need more money for catching up bridge and road maintenance, catching supply of bus service up with demand, and building more HCT to meet future demand, so we need to be able to go back to the lege with demonstrated support for such programs in hand.

      2. Oh, and the best way to help with the VLF’s effect on the very poor is to pass it. ;) Better transit means more access to jobs, and less “need” to own a car.

      3. David Miller is right, but he has no more idea than anyone else how to raise more money for sidewalks. The needs in Seattle are enormous, and as I think is pretty clear not passing the VLF isn’t going to magically equate to a new sidewalk funding package anytime in the near future. If we couldn’t do it when we had money, we sure as hell aren’t gonna do it when we don’t.

        Part of the challenge will be keeping SDOT focused on high-impact sidewalks: safe routes to school, access to transit, arterials. Part of it will probably be looking again at non-curb-and-gutter solutions where they are financially viable and don’t require enormous drainage expenses. Part of it will hopefully be working with SPU to maximize their efforts. There’s no single silver bullet answer.

        And I completely agree with you that not having the VLF isn’t going to magically make it easier for very poor folks to get around. That’s a story that needs to keep getting told.

  11. New 520:

    1. Make the new 520 the first LINK corridor into the Eastside.

    2. Make 520 bus, LINK and taxi only.

    3. Keep it at 2 lanes instead of 3.

    4. Regular cars go to I-90 or an enhanced 405 around Renton.

    5. Encourage more people who work Eastside, to live Eastside.

    6. Realign the central core of the region south to Renton and East to Bellevue-Redmond-Issquah…encourage some density in these areas to counter balance the inaccessible Seattle down town.

    1. #1-3. What is your plan for getting voters and governments to agree to this? It’s late in the day when ST2 (Link on I-90) is already voter-approved and they’re about to start construction on 520. Also, the bridges are too far apart to make one car-only and the other non-car only. How will you explain to Kirkland and Redmond residents why they should agree to drive to I-90?

      #4. Where will the money for this 405 enhancement come from, whatever it is?

      #5. Cities are already doing this. What more can they do? For people who do cross the lake to work on the Eastside, the only thing that would make them move there would be to build a Capitol Hill or a Fremont or a U-district on the Eastside. (Downtown Bellevue mallish bling doesn’t cut it.)

      #6. This would turn Renton-Bellevue-Redmond-Issaquah into the main city? (1) These cities are already densifying their downtowns and will continue to do so. (Maybe less so for Issaquah?) (2) It’s far easier to increase density in places that are already dense, doubly so if they have a pre-1940s layout. Conveniently, there’s a nearby place that has both: Seattle. (3) While some Eastside cities have tiny old cores, 90% of their area is built to automobile-scale (superblocks, large-lot houses, etc). This is incompatible with density, and the residents will resist change. (4) How is downtown inaccessible? It’s easily accessible on Sounder, as you know. It will soon be easily accessible on East Link. It’s accessible by car if you avoid peak hours and ballgame times. At the same times it’s hard to drive downtown during the day, it’s also hard to drive from Kennydale to Kirkland on 405.

      1. #5. Cities are already doing this. What more can they do? For people who do cross the lake to work on the Eastside, the only thing that would make them move there would be to build a Capitol Hill or a Fremont or a U-district on the Eastside. (Downtown Bellevue mallish bling doesn’t cut it.)

        That’s not quite true. Some people who live in Seattle and commute to Microsoft live in outlying neighborhoods, and some of them might choose to move if the commute became sufficiently annoying. (Others might choose to switch jobs.)

        In general, if you make it harder to travel between two places, then you will reduce the number of people who travel between those two places. For any individual person, this is unlikely to be the tipping point, but in aggregate, such a change would have an impact (if small).

Comments are closed.