Councilmember Morales proposes +$150M to Seattle Transportation Levy, Totaling $1.7B

35 Replies to “Councilmember Morales proposes +$150M to Seattle Transportation Levy, Totaling $1.7B”

1. This feels a little dead in the water now with Saka’s proposal presented on Friday.

   https://council.seattle.gov/2024/06/28/seattle-councilmember-saka-unveils-fine-tuned-transportation-proposal-that-improves-services-limits-tax-burden/

   1. I think it just helps give the Council a more clear choice to make on Tuesday: a $1.55B Levy, or a $1.7B Levy. The ~9% difference won’t decide whether the Levy will pass in November (it will), so Council votes either way will largely be a values signal.

      Supporters of the $1.7B Levy seem to be Morales, Strauss, and Moore.

      Supporters of the $1.55B Levy seem to be Saka and whoever agrees with the Seattle Chamber of Commerce, which would be Nelson, Woo, and Kettle.

      I’m not sure where Hollingsworth or Rivera are landing on it, so it will be interesting to see how they vote on Tuesday. I think constituents in central and north Seattle have an opportunity to help the Council decide which way this goes.

      1. I agree Nathan. I expect a strong (last minute) push for the larger levy.

      2. I appreciate Nathan’s analysis but think Morales has very little chance of passing anything with this council. They see her as the past.

         However, her proposal to raise the levy to $1.7 billion is helpful to the more conservative majority council members who would like some cover for going over Harrell’s original amount. Now $1.55 billion looks like the reasonable and “conservative” compromise, and that is how Saka is selling it: concern for the taxpayers. It also makes Harrell look good with his conservative base.

         The key is still how much oversight the council retains, and it was Nathan who first raised this issue because it reveals whether and how much of this levy is really backstopping SDOT routine maintenance projects that otherwise would get cut due to the budget deficits. Spotts is way more progressive than this council, and I wonder if Harrell would have hired Spotts if he knew the success he would have in the last council elections, or Nelson would become chair.

         How much of this levy is replacing routine SDOT maintenance and repair that allows the council to balance the budget deficits with fewer or no new taxes. The control the council will have over how the levy is spent tells that story. The more vague the categories the more control the council plans.

         One thing I notice is that as the levy amount increases from Harrell to Saka to Morales it doesn’t really benefit transit more, unless bridges, roads and sidewalks are transit oriented.

         Maybe a good article is how much transit really benefits as the price tag increases for the levy. My back of envelope reading is not much.

      3. > Maybe a good article is how much transit really benefits as the price tag increases for the levy. My back of envelope reading is not much.

         There’s a $115M bucket called “Transit Improvements and Access to Light Rail”, but there are no details on which transit projects from the Seattle Transportation Plan this bucket might fund. There are some safe assumptions, like turning 14th Avenue NW into a transit mall, building the Harrison street transit mall, transit portions of station area improvements around Alaska Junction, and probably projects around Graham street. It’s not much, but it’s also not nothing. Director Spotts has explained that the loudest feedback SDOT got about transit improvement priorities is to improve access to Link, so that’s what we’ll be getting through 2032.

      4. “ There’s a $115M bucket called “Transit Improvements and Access to Light Rail”, but there are no details on which transit projects from the Seattle Transportation Plan this bucket might fund. ”

         Isn’t this a five year program? At the end of the period, the ST3 station areas will be giant construction zones. Some may not even be ready for construction. In any case, spending money in the next five years would be rather wasteful because it’s too early and the improvements would just get messed up or demolished.

      5. > but there are no details on which transit projects from the Seattle Transportation this bucket might fund

         ### Transit Corridors

         & Connections
         It’s on page 20 to 22. https://www.seattle.gov/documents/Departments/SDOT/About/Funding/Levy/SDOT_Levy_Proposal_May2024.pdf#page=22

         Initial transit performance projects
         • SW Oregon St between 44th Ave SW and California Ave SW, along routes 50 and 128
         • MLK Jr Way S between S Myrtle St and S Othello St, along Route 106
         • E Jefferson St between 9th Ave and 12th Ave, along routes 3 and 4
         • W Nickerson St between 3rd Ave W and 4th Ave N, along routes 31 and 32

         High-Ridership Bus Projects
         • Beacon Ave S
         • Denny Way / Olive Way
         • Rainier Ave S
         • RapidRide R Line – Rainier Valley Partnership
         • Aurora Ave N Corridor

         Access to Link Light Rail Projects
         • N 130th St
         • S Henderson St
         • Judkins Park Station Connections

         Advance Partnership Connections to Future Link Stations (Not funded or depends on sound transit):
         • NE 145th St
         • SW Alaska St
         • 4th Ave S
         • S Graham St
         • South Lake Union East-West Transit Connections

         > Maybe a good article is how much transit really benefits as the price tag increases for the levy. My back of envelope reading is not much.

         I tried to calculate the rest last month, but it’s pretty hard. The largest problem is that categories the levy lists are not quite comparable. For “Major street maintenance” with 423 million it seems like it might be most comparable with “Maintain streets” with 250 million last levy. However, it looks more like they merged it together with the previous levy’s subcategory of “Multimodal Improvements”. For instance the actual goal listed for lane miles repaving has dropped from 180 lane miles down to 137 lane miles.

         It very interestingly emphasizes the word “paving” and “reconstruction” a lot, but looking at the description more detailed I’m not sure if the ratio of paving currently proposed versus in the past proposal is actually increasing or if this is just a wordsmithing to cater to more pro car voters.

         Going into the details, for the $423M in major street maintenance they’ve separated it into $67M for “Repave and repair pavement on arterial streets”. While the other $350M for “repave major streets … while also making Complete Street improvements that deliver safety, freight, transit, bike, and people street benefits”

         Though most of them would be more similar to the 23rd avenue street rebuild.

         For instance one project is “N 130th St: 1st Ave NW to I-5” where Includes protected bike lanes, crossing improvements, trees, sidewalk reconstruction, and transit priority. But then the N 130th street corridor is basically under two categories in the levy. Does this mean it’s getting money from both? It sounds like it’s more than just repaying and probably some bat lanes but I can’t tell.

         For the rest (focusing on transit items)
         There’s some improvements for route 3/4 with reconstructing James Street. “James St: 3rd Ave to Broadway” — Street reconstruction to support high-volume traffic and bus service. I’m not sure what they’ll add, a BAT lane or just tsp?

         Rapidride R will get the henderson street and rainier ave rebuild.

         route 36 the beacon ave rebuild and “Street redesign for more reliable Route 36 service” probably some bat lanes as described in the king county proposal

         route 21, the 35th ave will be rebuilt — but the description says “evaluation of transit improvements” so idk.

         route 62 from NE 65th St: 2nd Ave NE to 35th Ave NE just says new bus stops

      6. It could pay for a gondola line to connect the Capitol Hill Station with KP hospital and Belltown to supplement the 8.

      7. Thanks, WL, for the details.

         I wonder if any of the proposed amendments make any changes to that list. Also, as you note, the boundaries between projects seem fuzzy, which is probably intentional.

      8. @Nathan

         Kinda? Well it’s again hard to tell.

         > $30 million for repaving, with specific funding for projects requested by Councilmembers Saka (35th Ave SW and Fauntleroy Way SW) and Strauss (14th Avenue NW)
         > $20 million to connect the Burke Gilman trail via Leary Way NW and NW Market Street, a longtime priority of Dan Strauss.

         I guess the Fauntleroy repaving might benefit rapidride c and the 35th Ave ne might help route 21 though it could also just literally be repaving. The final stretch of the missing bike link if it rebuilds the street can probably add some bus stops.

         I’m not aware of anything else listed in the 150 million extra added that helps transit

      9. Well, the Complete Streets ordinance requires rechannelization when repaving arterials, which could result in improvements that benefit transit.

         But this council is also including reassessment of the implementation of complete streets in the text of the Levy, so maybe they’re hoping to water that down.

2. I talk to many who are frustrated about the state of our streets. That includes people who use Line scooters to get around — as several have sustained recent injuries due to deteriorating streets. If a street is rough, everyone using it suffers — and those on foot or rolling suffer injuries more than a slow-speed driver does due to the terrible street condition.

   At least a third to half of this levy needs to maintain what we have. Without such a commitment, I think there will be pushback on the categories.

   1. There’s $423M in there for street maintenance, which would be a full quarter of the levy directly budgeted for repaving streets. Then there’s funding for repaving associated with transit improvements, new sidewalks and pedestrian pathways, new bike & maintained bike lines, and more.

      Also, tell your friends that if they’re hitting potholes, they should take a photo and submit it to find-it-fix-it. SDOT’s pothole team is actually pretty good and most are filled in a couple days.

   2. Do we have statistics on how many people are being killed or severely injured by potholes, rail tracks, or any other stationary obstacles, and how many are being killed or severely injured by collisions involving vehicles?

      Are the spending decisions being informed by how to bring these numbers down the most?

      1. There is rarely a police report filed when an injury — even if it’s a major injury — happens because of a street obstacle. The best source would be emergency room visits assuming that they make it there are not to a different medical care facility like urgent care. But even then, the incident could easily not reach the traffic safety database.

         And when something happens like a person is surprised by a pothole and suddenly veers into traffic and gets hit by a vehicle, it’s considered a vehicle collision rather than a street pavement condition as the cause.

      2. My guess is the danger to the public when it comes to pot holes is fairly minor. It probably comes up with biking, but rarely is it the main cause of an injury.

         Are the spending decisions being informed by how to bring these numbers down the most?

         I definitely influences the spending, but my guess is they don’t have a fancy model they can use to see how best to spend the money. They are well aware of streets that are more dangerous than others and those streets tend to have a bigger focus. Much of the spending leads to safer streets in general. Spending money on transit makes the city safer. Same goes for bike lanes and sidewalks. Safer routes to schools are, by there very nature, about safety. On the other end of the spectrum you have things like fixing bridges. It doesn’t really add to safety by itself, except as a way to improve transit. But of course it is very important in its own right. Fixing potholes seems similar — the impact on safety is minimal although it is a nice thing in general. Obviously if things get really bad then it could be an issue, but I’m talking generalities here.

      3. “ Are the spending decisions being informed by how to bring these numbers down the most?”

         Curiously, 2/3 active transportation fatalities in King County happen when it’s dark or dusk/dawn. Half of all active transportation fatalities happen when it’s dark but there are street lights.

         https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/active-transportation-user-fatalities/

         About half of all fatalities in the state are due to impaired driving. A fifth are distracted driving (mainly cell phones).

         https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatalities-dashboard/

         These kinds of statistics to me point to spending money on other things.

         1. Seattle mostly ignores tree canopies blocking lighting. Seattle has very few places that have pedestrian lighting, opting instead for street lights on tall polls. Yet the technology of LED casts very different lighting than the old incandescent lighting. Add to that the newer LED vehicle headlights are more blinding to everyone. We demonize pavement choices often but don’t consider that lighting is by far what puts pedestrians and bicyclists most in danger. (It’s ironic that Seattle wants to plant more street trees but not take care of them to make streets safer.)

         2. We continue to ignore impaired driving and distracted driving as problems. We keep blaming pavement rather than traveller behavior.

         To me, all these statistics show that what Morales proposes doesn’t put much of a dent into resolving the biggest underlying factors. Look we’ve spent much of the past decade on trying things and they aren’t reducing accidents. Maybe we should rethink what we’re doing rather do more of the same,

      4. We continue to ignore impaired driving and distracted driving as problems. We keep blaming pavement rather than traveller behavior.

         I’m pretty sure you are the only one blaming pavement. I’m the one saying that better transit keeps drunks off the road (and keeps people off the road in general). Same goes for safer bike paths.

         But that doesn’t mean that the design of a road doesn’t play a part. There is plenty of evidence for this. Roads that are designed for people to go very fast often have people going above the speed limit. The cops can’t catch everyone. I think everyone is well aware of the fact that if you get caught drinking and driving the penalty is severe. The insurance costs go through the roof. Yet people still drink and drive, because the cops can’t catch everyone. On the other hand, we can do things that we know make the roads safer, while giving more people an alternative to driving.

      5. I have massive potholes in the street in front my house. I ran into my council member in the drink line, and she asked me what she could do for me. I said don’t fix my potholes. She laughed.

         It makes people drive slower, possibly saving my animals and kids life. Better than speed bumps. It also allows for spending on important shit.

         Yeah, I have had to have work done on my suspension, and I ride a road bike every day, making things a little dicey, but it is absolutely worth it to have a defacto 15 mph speed limit on my street.

      6. Can, my Facebook feed often has people on motorized scooters and bicycles post photos of their gross injuries when hitting potholes. I’ve injured myself walking across a minor intersection on Capitol Hill with uneven pavement. A lot more people who are pedestrians and bicyclists hit those things and get injured in the process than any car driver does.

         Why do you hate bicyclists and pedestrians so much that you want them injured?

      7. Because I know how to analyze and interpret statistics.

         I’d rather someone recover from a sprained ankle or a loose tooth then get hit by a car going 35 and end up on the slab at the MEs office. The choice is obvious.

3. I think it is silly to worry about the particulars. It is clear that a lot of the project money is flexible — as well it should be. Consider what happened last time. From a transit perspective they had “RapidRide+” projects (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/18/an-introduction-to-rapidride/). These were good goals. The specific projects were very good as well (https://seattletransitblog.com/2015/12/21/rapidride-the-corridors/). It didn’t cover everything, but as it turns out, it didn’t matter. Nor did it really matter what the particulars were. There were some great ideas in there, and some of those were implemented. Others were not. The biggest problem by far — the main reason some areas got a huge improvement and others got basically nothing — was money. Money, money, money. Not planning. Not a list that someone made up years in advance, but money. They basically ran out of money and couldn’t build all of the really good things they had in mind.

   Which is why we should push for the bigger levy. If you care about mobility in the city — including transit — ask your representatives to support the bigger project. Overall this is a good plan. There are no poison pills or tough political trade-offs. This does not include a big highway expansion or something of that nature. The road work that is being done is maintenance or safety oriented. New pavement, new sidewalks, bike lanes and bus lanes without making the street wider. We can quibble about whether more money should go here or there, but it is clear that SDOT is doing the right thing and has been doing the right thing for quite some time now. They just need more money.

   1. A data driven person would recommend actions to reduce accidents between 3 pm and 3 am.

      https://wtsc.wa.gov/dashboards/fatal-crash-dashboard/

      There are more Seattle fatalities (city tab) between 9 pm and 12 midnight than between 6 and 9 pm, and it’s almost equal to fatalities between 3 to 6 pm. Even 12 to 3 am is quite high. Why is that? Since fewer overall trips are made in the evenings, this is clearly where the major safety problem is.

      I use “pavement” ambiguously. However, adding bicycle lanes and transit lanes without widening a road is merely playing with pavement too.

      Lighting positioning and investment, more evening and late night bus service, enforcement of headlights and tail lights on all vehicles including bicycles, foot lighted crosswalks and other visibility improvements look like the best investments for safety.

      1. Right, but we also know that improving transit makes the city safer. We also know that adding bike lanes improves safety. Not just for people riding bikes — for everyone. Likewise adding sidewalks makes the streets safer. There are studies to back all of this up.

         Meanwhile, we also know that left turns are more dangerous than right turns. We know that speeding is very dangerous. We know that drinking and driving is very dangerous. The idea that adding lighting is somehow a much better value than every other safety related project is not clear at all. You know that happens between 12 to 3 AM? The bars close. People who work the night shift are exhausted, and drive home. It is a lot easier to speed. Does that mean we should increase the number of police on the streets to monitor driving? Probably, but that has its own issues. Same thing goes for automatic ticketing of speeders. I’m all for it, but the state has to approve it.

         The thing about things like “safe routes to school” is that they make it safer all day long. Yes, kids who walk to school are less likely to be killed. But even people out walking at 3 AM are less likely to be killed as well. In contrast if we just focus on those who are out late at night we ignore the safety of a huge swath of the population.

   2. It’s this how we got into the sound transit 3 debacle though? just asking for money and not actually planning enough

      1. Not really. In the case of ST3 it is the worst of both worlds. They committed to various projects, but didn’t dig into the details enough to determine if they were worth it. There is no flexibility. They can’t turn around and say:

         Screw it — turns out West Seattle and Ballard Link are way too expensive. Let’s improve the buses there, and see what Ballard to UW costs.

         In contrast, this money is going to be spent on important infrastructure improvements. Some combination of new sidewalks, bus lanes, bike lanes and maintenance (bridges and pavement). Of course there will be people who want more sidewalks and don’t care about transit. There will be people who want to put all the money into bike lanes. Whatever. They will strike a balance, as they always have.

         But unlike WSDOT, they won’t spend billions on a stupid freeway that we don’t need. The days of the Mercer Mess project are over. Seattle is moving in the right direction when it comes to these projects, it just needs more money. For example:

         1) Bus lanes on Rainier Avenue and Westlake. I honestly never thought I would see this in my lifetime. They are taking lanes! Unless you are old (like me) and grew up here, you don’t realize how shocking this is. Holy cow, they took a lane of Aurora and just made it a bike lane. Aurora!

         2) Projects like this: https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/pedestrian-program/pinehurst-way-ne-and-ne-117th-st-intersection-and-sidewalk-project. Sure, this is a minor project in the grand scheme of things, but that is what makes is so damn cool. This sort of thing is happening all over the city (otherwise it sure as hell wouldn’t happen here). Yet the change is dramatic. It may not be obvious what this means. This is what it looked like about six months ago: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ycHKdWjddtTzyYuR6. Drivers would go straight, crossing Pinehurst Way and then 15th. Or they would take a left on Pinehurst Way to head north on 15th. In contrast, it was very dicey if you wanted to walk or bike that way. People did it, but these are the same people who jaywalk across Aurora (I used to do that — pretty exciting when you are 25). Anyway, Google Maps already realizes you can’t drive the way people have driven for a very long time. You have to go around (https://maps.app.goo.gl/GRcaZHHkYNEM3b2q8) unless you are on a bike, on foot or in a wheelchair. It may not be obvious but the starting point of that trip is Hazel Wolf, the elementary school. So not only will kids be able to walk to school without a very big detour (https://maps.app.goo.gl/y2MfQbC5GPSaE8Pp8) but their walk will often be faster than driving. This is huge, but it just one of many little projects around the city that is making driving less attractive, and every other mode much better.

4. Neither SDOT nor the Council seems to have figured out the scarcity of rights of way. The levy focus is on funding. The Seattle Transportation Plan was supposed to meld the several modal plans. But it did not include analysis of the right of way conflicts and how they would be solved. I doubt Seattle objectives will be met if all movement is slowed too far for safety. Several recent PBL projects have been placed on transit arterials and transit flow has been slowed as buses have been left in fewer lanes with the now congested traffic (e.g., Roosevelt Way NE, Broadway, Pine-Pike streets west of 6th Avenue, NE 65th Street). The Route 40 project, in splitting a great transfer point and adding a northbound PBL did not explain the choice. The Strauss BGT option will clearly slow transit on NW Market Street and Leary Avenue NW. It looks like a three-lane North 130th Street would slow transit. SDOT needs to find streets parallel to transit arterial on which to provide bike priority. Only when alternatives are not available should they spend the extra funds to provide shared facilities. There will still be the friction between cyclists and bus patrons going between the bus and the curb. There are arterials with transit service from which SDOT and Metro could delete it allowing it to have bike priority. Do eight to eighty cyclist really want to be next to buses? Note the NE 65th Street vision zero project: the PBL only extend east to 20th Avenue NE so eight to eighty cyclists have to shift to NE 68th Street anyway and transit is slower. The ROW could have been allocated better.

   1. I’ve always disliked how Seattle packages projects into a larger funding referendum category — then turns around and declares that a specific project has been funded so that we have to build it. It’s feels manipulative to not have every project justify itself before it’s eligible for dedicated funds.

      1. Al S. that was extreme in the last one under Murray-Kubly; there were many competing desire lines; some got no funding.

   2. > The Route 40 project, in splitting a great transfer point and adding a northbound PBL did not explain the choice

      I agree with Ross that we should have the north/south bike lanes up Phinney Ave instead.

      But the reason why for the northbound pbl is for the interurban (north) trail that is one of the few sections that doesn’t have a bike lane.

      https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/bike-program/bike-web-map
      https://www.snohomishcountywa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9686/Seattle-to-Everett-Map-Then-and-Now

      1. It is a small section, so the impact on the buses is pretty minimal. But there are alternatives. They could add bike lanes to the west. I can’t easily draw it using Google directions but it is pretty easy to describe:

         1) Start at 100th & 1st Avenue North.
         2) Go south on 100th until 73rd, then go east a block to Palatine.
         3) Go south on Palatine until 67th and again go east a block Greenwood Avenue.
         4) Go south on Greenwood to 40th. Go east one block to Phinney Avenue.
         5) Follow Phinney Avenue all the way to the Burke Gilman.

         That is not perfect, but it is pretty darn close. You have to dogleg four times, but that is over miles and miles (in the case of 73rd you have to turn anyway). For a lot of trips you wouldn’t dogleg at all — it would be a straight shot. More importantly, not once are you on an arterial. 100th is not an arterial, and connects to an excellent east-west Greenway that includes the bridge over the freeway at Northgate. It has some bike lanes, but could use more. If you are coming from the north on the Interurban you could easily cut over at 100th or 83rd (if you wanted to keep going on Fremont Avenue). There are other good east-west crossing routes as well. The route is never on an arterial, and yet it is always very close to the various businesses along the commercial corridor (where the buses run). Biking that last block is no big deal. In contrast, biking along a busy street for miles is just asking for trouble. I’ve known too many people (including my dad) who have been hit by cars. One of my best friends was hit twice, and the second time I saw it happen.

         I’ll admit I don’t bike like I used to you. I mainly just walk places. But lately I’ve been dealing with an injured foot so I’ve been biking more. I’ve been on a bike lane for all of one block and it sucked. That is because it was the one time I was on a busy arterial. It was basically an experiment, and a failed one. They were doing some construction and I ended up biking on the sidewalk, which was actually better. This again is one of things that people often ignore. Worse comes to worse, I can always bike a block or two on the sidewalk. But if I want to bike a mile or two I want a parallel bike path on a quiet side street and if I can’t have that (since they are all too rare) I’ll go with a quiet side street.

      2. > I agree with Ross that we should have the north/south bike lanes up Phinney Ave instead.

         You realize that Phinney from the end of the Greenway at 42nd to N 39th has something like a 15% grade over 1,000 feet, right? Fremont’s 10% grade is already a deterrent to uphill riders.

      3. You realize that Phinney from the end of the Greenway at 42nd to N 39th has something like a 15% grade over 1,000 feet, right?

         Yes. I used to live in Fremont. Years later I worked in Fremont. If you have an electric bike it doesn’t matter. If you don’t, then chances are you are biking down and at worse just walking your bike up the the hill (at least part of the way).

         The rest of the route has fairly minor ups and downs, which are a bigger deal in my opinion. Losing altitude and then having to gain it back really sucks. But in the case of upper to lower Fremont there is really no alternative to going up (or down) a very steel hill, and it is essential that there be a good safe alternative to a busy arterial.

      4. Then you know there are massive waves of bikers going up Fremont Ave. People use in at their daily exercise. Fremont is their Orange Zone.

         Yes l, Seattlites ate nuts.

         Yes, Phiney is rideable. I’ve ridden it. Once. Definitely Red Zone. Most Seattlites aren’t that crazy.

         It i

   3. SDOT needs to find streets parallel to transit arterial on which to provide bike priority. Only when alternatives are not available should they spend the extra funds to provide shared facilities.

      Agreed. Hopefully this will be the trend going forward. It is important to understand that transit improvements are a safety improvement. Travel is clearly made safer when they add bike lanes or other improvements (like this ) parallel to the buses. But if you add bike lanes and slow down the bus, you may end up making things less safe.

Comments are closed.