Although MAP-21, the reauthorization of the federal transportation bill, doesn’t paint the prettiest picture for sustainable transportation modes, the ball is now squarely in the State’s court to do more for walking, bicycling, and transit.  So far, the Legislature has proven absolutely inept in delivering any kind of substantive support; luckily, allocation of federal funding through MAP-21 is still up in the air.

The Transportation 4 Washington (T4WA) campaign is responding en masse, pressuring Governor Gregoire to fairly allocate the dollars so that ped/bike/transit isn’t left with the short end of the stick while a lopsided amount is spent on roads.  The Governor is currently forming a stakeholder advisory group and expected to make a decision on the allocation of the funds by the first of September.

As part of its advocacy efforts, T4WA is soliciting thousands of petition signatures to deliver to Olympia prior to the September 1 deadline.  Additionally, the campaign is also looking at gathering a thousand “photo-petitions,” which will portray the many faces of transit and ped/bike supporters.  T4WA will host a press conference in mid-August to present the petitions to the Governor.

While there’s not much help coming out of both Olympia and the other Washington these days, T4WA’s advocacy effort allows us to make the most out of MAP-21.  If you want to take part, click here to sign the petition.  Those interested in getting in submitting photo-petitions can also print out T4WA’s ‘I<3PedBikeTransit’ sign (PDF) to pose with (or create their own), and send the pictures along to Brock Howell, the campaign’s field director, at

44 Replies to “T4WA to Governor: Don’t Ignore Peds, Bikes, and Transit”

  1. Shot Idea: On the Mezanne of Pioneer Square Station, during rush hour, with Link on one side and Busses on the other. University St. would work well too, probably better, since it’s more crowded. Hmm…

  2. Thanks for the photo idea. I’ve been told lately that pictures really register with officials bombarded with messages in words. Wonder if Governor’s e-mail will handle cell-phone or point-and-shoot movie files?

    Mark Dublin

  3. Thanks for this information, so I can let her know that I want all the money used for motoring purposes. As soon as bicycles pay dedicated vehicle taxes, I’ll consider changing my mind. Until then, I will consider bicyclists to be parasites and traffic obstacles.

      1. Lack, that’s not good enough, because some people will go barefoot! We have to tax those parasites!

    1. (A) Almost all bicyclists pay car & gas taxes/fees — because they own cars.
      (b) Bicycle plates/licenses have proven administratively difficult with minimal/negative net revenue.
      (C) Bicyclists started the Better Roads Movement to pave roads, and then cars pushed bicyclists off the roads.
      (D) A bicyclist is one less car on the freeway/highway, which means one less obstacle in stop & go congestion.
      (E) Please don’t hit obstacles. Thanks.

      1. (F)Bicyclists generally do a great job at stopping at stop signs. But only when they slam into said stop sign.

    2. Well they may be traffic obstacles, but they make our streets safer for all users and reduce your congestion. Whine all you like, but the facts aren’t on your side. Most roads money comes from sales tax and property tax, something in effect all bicyclists pay. Plus, most own cars and pay tabs + gas tax. Your beef is entirely irrational and selfish (i.e. you want all the benefit and none of the responsibility). Grow up.

      1. I don’t know if you know this, but the smallest Vespa weighs more than 200 pounds, roughly 10 times what a typical bicycle weighs. The larger ones are in excess of 300 pounds and top out at 80mph. I’d say it’s much more important for someone driving one of these to be tested and licensed than it is for a cyclist. I will leave the twisting, weaving, and lying up to you, Not Fan.

    3. Ah, another case of ignorant bliss. Where exactly do counties and cities get the money to fund their transportation budgets? Hint, not a dime comes from the “gas tax”. But if your really want to be fair I’d happily sign up to get my bicycle rebate based on road repair dollars I save the tax payers.

      1. Yep. This is especially relevant when you consider that it’s almost entirely property tax funded roads that bicycles can use!

  4. Road infrastructure, like signs, striping, and lane width, for 5 decades have been designed for cars. It’s no surprise that bicyclists don’t find car signage that helpful/useful for their bicycling.

    I see plenty of cars violate basic traffic laws, including rolling through stop signs and blowing through red lights — especially when they think it’s safe to do so, much as bicyclists do too.

    1. Yep, and when a car does it, it’s a threat to others. When a bicycle does it, it isn’t.

      1. When a bicyclist does it, that counts as a threat as well. Fortunately albeit much smaller and hopefully with less ramifications. The biggest point I think many her are trying to make is that when cars break rules, the impact it can have is vastly greater that most bikes could ever achieve.

  5. Your message will be stronger in Olympia if you are informed about how transportation dollars are actually allocated. I’ve posted this here before, but nobody every reads it. This is from the region’s adopted transportation plan Transportation 2040, page 44, figure 22, available at Transportation revenues under current law in the Puget Sound region, extended out for the next 30 years, are distributed as follows:

    7% – Counties
    16% – Cities
    36% – Local Transit
    26% – Sound Transit
    4% – State ferries
    11% – State highways

    That’s 62% of the funding going to transit. That doesn’t mean transit doesn’t need or merit more than that (though transit needs funding stability most of all, and legislators are increasingly concerned about deterioration of I-5 and their ability to do basic operation and maintenance). I just think if you want to convince lawmakers, you need to understand the context they’re looking at this from.

    1. That’s how PSRC allocates its dollars, not how WashDOT allocates dollars across the state.

      1. No that’s not correct. PSRC does not allocate current law dollars. That is how much money current;y authorized transportation taxes will raise over the next 30 years in the region.

      2. And WSDOT does not allocate dollars between governments – that’s the legislature. PSRC has some dollars to allocate, but they’re a very small portion of total funding.

    2. Thanks for the post Rob.
      Voters and lawmakers can just as easily be convinced that our crumbling road system is the new ‘Top Priority’ in future years as they did in the 90’s to build a mass transit system.
      Transit MUST have measurable benefits from spending the lions share of all transportation taxes over the last several decades, other than a better, faster trip for a select few riders between some activity centers. So far, 15 years into ST1/2 hasn’t even made a ripple in the number of trips taken on transit compared to motor vehicles.
      I fear the Puget Sound is pissing away a golden opportunity of support for transit with our desire to invest billions into tunnels to Northgate, fancy stations, and far flung commuter rail lines that serve few, yet cost many times what a bus could do it for.
      Our fascination with rail ‘at any price’ will be our downfall.

      1. 10 years after ST1, transit increased their household trips from 3.3% to 4.1% or less than 1% – that’s the ripple.
        Meanwhile, SOV’s and HOV’s still carried 21 times more trips than transit on roadways.
        Transit will have a tough time convincing anyone that their 62% of the pie has been well spent with those kinds of numbers.

      2. mic, considering voters vote strongly against highway funding and strongly for transit funding, I’m pretty sure you’re totally off base. :)

      3. I’m looking at the out years of ST1/2. After 20 years of Sound Move passed in 1996, ST will have a rail line going from just south of the airport to Husky Stadium. In 2016, with all the ribbon cutting and glad handing speeches behind us, ST will plop on 2 more cars to most trains, make 2 additional stops and add 26,000 daily riders, or double today, with no change in frequency (ref ST 2012 SIP).
        This is not the mass transit system most of those voters thought they were getting in the early ’90s.
        20 years is a long time. Voters are fickle, and can just as easily decide all this mass transit was just a big waste of time and money. That’s all I’m saying.

    3. I just renewed my “Thirty dollar” car tabs. $78 out of $121.75, 64%, is ear marked for transit. There was no step in the online renewal to request the transit vouchers promised with the Congestion reduction charge Metro transit bailout so I guess I’ll just wait and see if they show up in the mail. The other toppings on the $30 car tabs are the $10 Weight base fee, $3 Filing fee + $0.75 License service fee. I guess I should just be thankful I don’t live in Seattle!

      1. I renewed online to get the registration by mail, and I received the request for vouchers in the mail later. IIRC, it was included with the mail with the registration and sticker.

  6. Clearly people want this, but really, if we hadn’t spent $5 billion plus for 20 miles of light rail, when the going rate is $30 million a mile, we could have done so much more for this area which would include real regional (not Seattle centric) transit, bikeways, walkways and also the needed exurbian highways that were never built and whose absence is the real cause of most of the transportation problems around here.

    I doubt if any of this will change with the 75 year regime continuing in power…as lip service will be paid to the actual doing, but the costs will go sky high with little or no accomplishment over the timeline (and here LINK is a case in point).

    1. John, $30 million a mile is what surface only light rail in old rail rights of way cost in 1990 – 20 years ago. Get over it.

      1. So, for about $1.5 billion we could have had a commuter rail system connecting Renton, Bellevue, Kirkland and Woodinville/Bothell to Snohomish with a spur into Redmond. Oh yeah, nobody was going to ride it as evidenced by 405 and 522 being virtual devoid of traffic during commute hours.

      2. The sad thing is, WSDOT is waiting in the wings for adding 2 more lanes in each direction, while ST has plopped their Hospital Stn smack in the middle of the ROW. That pretty much seals the fate of any transit along the corridor after cutting the Willburton Tunnel off.
        We might as well tear down the old wooden trestle as a safety hazard and eyesore next.
        Yeah, no demand in that corridor. Ha!

      3. “while ST has plopped their Hospital Stn smack in the middle of the ROW. That pretty much seals the fate of any transit along the corridor”

        And the non sequitor of the week goes to mic!

      4. Well Zed, I wouldn’t like to argue with a Roman. BTW, how did that society work out for you?
        When U-Link opens it will add about 26,000 daily riders to the system, most of whom came from buses (43,49, 70’s). That’s about 1/4 million miles traveled per day on transit.
        Now the reality check. There are about 85 million miles traveled daily in autos in the Puget Sound, so the ‘ripple’ here is less than 1/3 of 1 percent of our travel needs met for another 2 Bil spent.
        That’s just not good enough!

    2. The absence of exurban highways is not the “real cause of most transportation problems”. It’s a relief. If you build bigger highways in sparsely-populated exurbs, how do people use them? They use them largely to travel to more densely-populated areas. I’m not claiming that every car that gets on the road in Black Diamond is going to Belltown, but I’m claiming that a huge chunk of those trips are going to built-up areas (largely suburban) that already have significant traffic congestion. I’m saying that if you build bigger highways in Black Diamond and Monroe, that you’ll just make more traffic in Renton and Bellevue and Redmond. Just like how adding more capacity on 520 would increase traffic pressure in the U District and on I-5 through Seattle.

Comments are closed.