As I dive into the mayor’s proposed 2012 budget, one thing is clear: We need to pass Prop. 1.
We are looking at $300,000 in cuts to bicycle and pedestrian spot improvements, and it is unclear how long SDOT will leave Gina Coffman’s vacated position within the bicycle program unfilled (passing her work onto an already overworked staff). Coffman, who was in charge of projects like marking signed bike routes and more, left months ago for personal reasons.
Proposition 1 will restore this funding and then some. It will pump millions of dollars per year into pools that can be used for neighborhood traffic calming, the creation of neighborhood greenways and projects that will update our city’s streets to designs that have proven to save lives for all road users, whether they are in a car, on foot or on a bike.
It will restore bicycle and pedestrian spot improvements that make our city safer and ensure that when you get to your destination, you will have somewhere secure to lock your bike that does not block pedestrian or ADA access to our precious sidewalk space.
Ideas of what transit improvements could come from Prop. 1 are also developing in really exciting ways. For example: Imagine Metro’s 48 as an electric trolley bus from Mount Baker station to the UW. Now, imagine that it actually runs on time (it’s called the forty-late for a reason). For anyone who uses that bus (the most popular route in King County), that’s an inspiring vision (see more on that idea from Bruce Nourish at Seattle Transit Blog).
The investments in transit efficiency are permanent. You speed up a route once using infrastructure, and you save that time and those operating hours forever.
These investments make transit and biking more useful and more of a viable alternative to driving for more trips in our city. They are investments in a healthier and more lively Seattle.
The best argument against the Proposition is that a vehicle license fee is a regressive tax. This is true. Unfortunately, the state has unwisely taken away funding options that are more fair, such as a vehicle excise tax based on the car’s value. The council is working on a rebate program for low-income residents who will be hit disproportionately by a flat-rate fee. I hope they can create a program that will work.
But we are only talking about the cost of one and a half tanks of gas (one if you have a big SUV) per year per vehicle in Seattle. Instead of investing $60 in something to be burned in a few days, this plan will make investments that save lives and forever increase transit efficiency in our city.
Show your support by endorsing Prop. 1 online.
But if you feel even more strongly, Streets for All Seattle is working hard to gather a team of volunteers to spread the message of transit efficiency and safe streets to people all over Seattle. They need your help. Even if it is just three hours a week, it will make a huge difference in the campaign.
You can simply show up to any of the volunteer opportunities below. If you want to make your arguments stronger, the volunteer training is a useful opportunity to learn how to tell your story, but it is not required. Email Max Hepp-Buchanan at [email protected] to RSVP or if you have any questions about volunteering.
From Streets for All:
We are hosting phone banks four nights a week (Monday through Thursday) from 5:30pm to 8:30pm at the Futurewise office (814 2nd Ave, Suite 500) from now until Election Day. Anybody is welcome to attend and refreshments are provided.
We also have available shifts to pass out Prop 1 fliers at transit stops across the city with a team of people. We typically do this Monday through Thursday from about 4pm to 6pm and meet in Marion Court at the corner of 3rd Ave and Marion St at 3:30pm. Again, anybody is welcome to come help out.
*Special event this week: Volunteer training on Thursday, September 29, from 5:30pm to 7:30pm at the SvR Design office (1205 Second Avenue, Suite 200 Seattle). This is a great opportunity to learn how to effectively tell your story about why approving Prop 1 and funding transportation improvements are important to you.
*Special event this week: Volunteer happy hour at Fado Irish Pub (801 1st Ave) Friday, September 30 from 4:30pm to 6:30pm. Come check in about the campaign, share stories, and blow off steam. Everybody is welcome, including those that haven’t yet volunteered. This is a good opportunity to get involved and meet others that are working hard for a better transportation future for Seattle.
Comments
31 responses to “Volunteer to help pass Proposition 1”
What’s the date on that Happy Hour at Fado?
Oops. It’s Friday (Sept 30). I’ll add. Thanks!
Why would I support prop 1? As the various bike hater blogs point out this prop has no direction as to where the funds would go if passed. Their complaint its that mayor mcschwinn would blow it all on bike lanes.
My concern is the opposite. There is no provisions to prevent the council from redirecting the funds to say the tunnel.
Prop 1 is a bad fix, its a blank check like a school levy, it doesn’t solve the actual problem, it just proposes to throw cash into the general fund so maybe they might fix something. History in this city shows is this rarely works.
Sorry this isn’t a good solution, and it makes a lot of people angry.
I think the best answer to that is that we have plans (Pedestrian, Bicycle, Transit and, soon, Freight Master Plans) that clearly spell out where the city needs to make improvements. Those plans have already or will soon go through the City Council and mayor’s office for approval.
The reason our streets are not being made safer is not the lack of a plan, it’s the lack of funding for the plans we have worked years to carefully craft. Money is why there are still dangerous points in the bicycle network. Lack of funding prevents us from fixing the south end of the Ballard Bridge (and the Ballard Bridge in general), for example. We have ideas of how to do it, we just don’t have the money.
So no, I don’t buy the argument that there is no plan. The disjointed anti-Prop 1 campaigns are pushing this “no plan” idea, but it’s clearly not true. We live in Seattle. We have a stack of unfunded plans a mile high. That’s what we do. We make plans, then try to find funding.
This is our opportunity to do just that – fund our solid, well researched plans to improve transit, fix deteriorated roadways and prevent injury and death on our streets.
If we do indeed have plans, why not tie Prop 1 specifically to those plans, so we can all be sure that the funds won’t be reappropriated?
The way it is now, this all stinks of another Bridging the Gap round, and I think we all know how that went down.
Doesn’t the proposition say exactly what percentage of the funding must go to each type of use? (As I recall, something like 51% transit, 29% roads, 20% bike/ped.) Did that change, or is there some other concern that these allocation guidelines/requirements may not be heeded?
I didn’t READ the thing! Does it say that?
Davey (and meanie),
I read the content of Proposition 1 here: http://www.seattle.gov/stbd/documents/resolution_5.pdf.
It does appear that the Seattle Transportation Benefit District Board has the ability to alter the percent allocations, but given their bias toward non-car projects, it seems very unlikely that they would do something like meanie is suggesting.
On page 4 it says:
”
Conditioned upon voter approval of the ballot proposition submitted by this resolution, proceeds from the $60 Vehicle License Fee shall be allocated on a cumulative basis during the ten-year period (“Percentage Allocations”) as follows:
A. Approximately twenty-nine percent (29%) will be allocated for Transportation System Repair, Maintenance and Safety […]
B. Approximately forty-nine percent (49%) will be allocated for implementing Transit Speed, Reliability and Access Improvements projects and programs included in the Seattle Transit Plan […]
C. Approximately twenty-two percent (22%) will be allocated for implementing Pedestrian, Bicycle and Freight Mobility Projects […]
”
Then, to address meanie’s concerns, page 6 says the following:
”
Section 8. The STBD anticipates that the City of Seattle’s Department of Transportation (SDOT) will submit a proposed spending plan each year for STBD’s review and approval in adopting an annual budget. SDOT’s proposed annual spending plan shall:
(a) Adhere to the Percentage Allocations identified in this Resolution; and
(b) Support and implement the goals of the City of Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Initiative.
”
The remainder of the pdf discusses how those Percentage Allocations might be changed, but it is completely dependent upon a majority vote of the Seattle Transportation Benefit District Board (STBD) – a decidedly pro-transit, bike, and pedestrian group if I’m not mistaken – during a public meeting thereof.
Not one penny allocated for street repair. Prop. 1 is dead on arrival.
Not one penny? Where did you hear that? 30% of the funds go to general street repair and safety, $4,000,000 annually specifically to paving. That’s 400,000,000 pennies every year.
Yeah, you guys really need to actually read the proposition. It takes like 5 minutes.
http://www.seattle.gov/stbd/documents/resolution_5.pdf
On the last page it shows where the money is allocated in broad categories. Over the 10 year life of the fee, $40 million dollars is allocated to “Road Preservation” and another $20 million is allocated to “Traffic Safety.”
That’s what the 29% for “Transportation System Repair, Maintenance and Safety” goes toward. All of it.
Frankly, vague percentages and dollar amounts given to general concepts like “Road Preservation” are not good enough. That’s the sort of thing they can save for general budgeting, if they want.
If they are asking us for additional money above and beyond what they already collect, they should have a list of projects they want to complete using these funds, and they should list them out and give us some sort of “guarantee” that they can be completed using funds generated from the proposition. Otherwise it’s just going to be some money hole akin to BtG.
I ask this sincerely because maybe I’m out of the loop: what went wrong with Bridging the Gap? I just looked at their latest annual report (2010) and it seems like they’re required to spend the money brought into that program on specific things, and 67% of it is required to be spent on road maintenance. How do you come to the conclusion that money can be saved for general budgeting (I’m assuming you mean non-transportation spending)?
Although it seems a bit unrealistic to make a list of all the small-to-medium improvements they will ultimately make, I understand the desire to have a better idea of specifically what they’ll spend the money on, but that’s a very different concern than thinking they’ll spend the money on something else entirely.
Shane: My point about general budgeting is more a quibble about language. They can use vague terms in general budgeting, I suppose, because it is indeed more complicated than a levy. However, when they ask for something above and beyond the norm, they should be able to back it up with a list of specific reasons.
Seattle PI had an article on BTG recently:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/transportation/2011/08/15/sdot-bridging-the-gap-was-never-supposed-to-fill-the-gap/
Bridging the Gap was advertised as an initiative to address the backlog of maintenance projects. In actual fact, it was never intended to do that, at least not to the extent that was described. To put it bluntly, we misled, if not outright lied to.
They say that part of the problem is increased construction costs. That is understandable, to a point, but it amounts to them simply saying “we did some projects that we thought were necessary, but some unspecified list of projects never began; too bad, so sad”.
Now they’re coming to us again to ask for yet more money for an unspecified list of projects. What are the odds that 5 years from now we’ll find out this Prop 1 money was somehow insufficient to meet their goals, and that we need another levy?
All I’m asking for is some transparency. Some solid, specific goals. Something that they can point to and say “Look at this, we asked for your vote and your money to provide X Y and Z and we accomplished it.” At least then when they come asking for more money (as is inevitable) they’ll have some solid results to point to.
But Bridging the Gap has completed tons of vital projects, including all of the bridges promised to voters. In fact, because they completed those bridge projects so quickly, they are now looking to do three extra bridges. Here’s the press release from yesterday (Sept 28):
In the story you quote, I don’t think there is any evidence people were really lied to. It does say that they had originally thought their mainteneace backlog was $600M and, after using BTG funds to get a better idea, now they think it’s more like $1.8B. But that doesn’t mean the money people voted for have not accomplished a huge amount. So, sorry the backlog was worse than they thought, but that hardly seems like a reason to vote against more road funding.
Also noted in that story is the decline in gas tax revenue to help with the budget, meaning we are relying more and more on general funding sources (such as property taxes). Wouldn’t it seem fair to put a little more of the road maintenance burden on people who causing more damage to the roads in the first place? That’s what Prop 1 will do.
I think it’s a very fair package, and the funding direction has been decided by a citizen’s committee (CTAC III), not some backroom at City Hall.
I don’t think there is any evidence people were really lied to. It does say that they had originally thought their mainteneace backlog was $600M and, after using BTG funds to get a better idea, now they think it’s more like $1.8B.
When the estimate is tripled, I think it’s fair to assume that original one was a lie. The alternative is that the backers of “Bridging the Gap” were massively incompetent, even stupid. Either way, I can’t see much reason to trust the same group again.
[…] Safe Streets Social September 24 ← Volunteer to help pass Proposition 1 […]
Not one penny? Where did you hear that? 30% of the funds go to general street repair and safety, $4,000,000 annually specifically to paving. That’s 400,000,000 pennies every year.
You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Do what any elementary-level student is expected to do, and read the proposition. Not one penny is dedicated to street repair. That is why it will be defeated in November.
1. Continued culling of population (at rates 60% higher than in other modern industrialized nations) perhaps due to largely untrained drivers operating on unsafe public roadways.
2. Continued exposure of population to toxic vehicle exhaust and attendant lung development changes, heart attacks, stroke, cancer risk, etc.
3. Continued lack of exercise of population largely sedenting behind car wheels.
4. Continued decline of infrastructure already largely unmaintained.
America! ____ Yeah!
Why not just ban automobiles if you hate them so much? But wait, then you wouldn’t have any tax revenue for bike paths and street cars. Maybe all that toxic waste isn’t so bad after all?
Two legs bad, four legs good!
Four legs good, two legs better!
Two legs good, four legs bad!
Wow, did you just quote Animal Farm?
Let’s think about that metaphor for a second… So the people riding bikes are the ones who control the whole farm through oppression? People riding bikes are working the poor car drivers to the bone while we feast in the big house?
That makes no sense.
Yes, the toxicity of cars is undeniably bad. I don’t think there is much debate about that. It affects people driving, too, who breathe exhaust fumes every day from sitting in traffic.
You don’t seem very interested in finding a solution to any of the problems caused by car dependence. Have we said anything about a ban on automobiles? No. We’re talking about the equivalent cost of a tank and a half of gas per year to help pay for a backlog of road maintenance issues and increase our investment in healthier, more efficient transportation choices.
Yup, I quoted Animal Farm. I had to read it when I was in grade school, but I am wondering whether it’s still taught. It’s a wonderful parable about the hypocrisy and power lust behind so many “movement” types. It ought to be required reading, along with Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.”
The applicability here is that you’ve got some extremists among the bicycle lobby who excoriate cars and motorists at every opportunity, except when they want to raise money. Then, it’s all about how much we can get from them.
Those of us who drive motor vehicles and have a bicycle aren’t real amused with this stuff. Not only is it terrible politics to insult people who drive motor vehicles (seen Mayor McGinn’s popularity ratings lately?), but your arguments are so vastly overwrought that it’s hard to take you seriously.
All of that would be o.k., I guess — you know, just part of the amusing craziness that has always been politics in America — but I do worry that the incessant needling of drivers by the self-appointed guardians of bicycle morality will make things worse on the streets.
I’ll never be able to prove that, given that the plural of anecdote is not data. But there are so many better ways to go about making things better for cycling that what you’re doing. You’re being unreasonable, and over time that doesn’t fly around here.
Find one sentence anywhere on this blog where I in any way insult people for driving cars. I don’t do it. I drove a car for years. I know what it’s like and why people do it.
I also know that choosing to stop driving is probably the best decision I have ever made. I’m happier and healthier than ever, and I think people should give it a try. I also think encouraging a diversity of transportation options is better for public health, public happiness, efficiency and the future of the city. It’s a smart civic investment.
It’s not an insult to drivers to say that car exhaust is harmful to public health. It’s simply true. It’s also harmful to the health of people driving.
It’s also not an insult to drivers to advocate for safer streets. The people who benefit most from safe streets are people in motor vehicles: http://seattlebikeblog.com/2011/09/30/mayor-announces-date-of-first-road-safety-summit-meeting/
We are all in this together. You seem to have some preconceived notions about me, and I’m guessing you don’t read this blog very often.
If you want a better response to the things you say on the site’s comments, try being a little less aggressive/antagonistic. You’ll find that there’s a healthy community of people who read the site who are interested in having a productive conversation about how we can increase safety and efficiency on our streets.
We’re all in this together? Fine words, but they don’t match what’s regularly on the Seattle Bike Blog. Why do you single out my comments, rather than the extremist rhetoric I responded to? One sentence, you say? Did you even read the inane comment I responded to?
Continued culling of population (at rates 60% higher than in other modern industrialized nations) perhaps due to largely untrained drivers operating on unsafe public roadways.
and
Continued lack of exercise of population largely sedenting behind car wheels.
Really: “Culling the herd,” and telling drivers that theyr are “sedenting behind car wheels?”
This kind of stuff bothers me, even more so when you not only let it go unchallenged but then essentially take the side of that kind of thing by scolding someone who objects to it.
Tom, your website is full of insults toward drivers. The most charitable thing I can say is that maybe you’ve grown so accustomed to this kind of rhetoric that you no longer even notice it. But I guarantee you that drivers do, and they really resent it.
I don’t think it’s smart politics, and I don’t think extremism in the defense of either liberty (Barry Goldwater) or bicycling (you?) is justified or justifiable.
Did I say that? No. I started responding to you because you specifically challenged a point in the story (which is great, debate is part of the value of these comments). I don’t respond to every comment. That would be a full time job.
Anyway, we have gone far off-topic which I told myself I was going to stop doing. This conversation can’t go anywhere productive.
Don’t take menresponding as an attack. I thought our conversation abt BTG was good, even if we don’t agree. Same with the conversation about spending allocations. Definitely had to freshen up on the bill’s language.
Also, thanks for comparing me to Barry Goldwater. That’s definitely a first.
You need to read Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer.” Left wing and right wing matter much less than those people think they do. What counts is the extremist temperament, and the stout refusal to see the other’s viewpoint.
I’ll take you at face value here and credit you for being well-intentioned, but the level of self-righteousness from too many bicyclists is too high. And it’s a cop-out to tell me that you can’t respond to every comment. You found mine, and scolded me for having a bad attitude, while letting one of the extremists off the hook.
I think if you took an honest look around at the postings on your own blog, you’d find a bunch of this kind of thing. You’ve got to stop and think a second. The confrontational, we’re-morally-superior attitude (me too, when I see the prototypical, um, fat person chowing down on a McMeal in an SUV) might make some of us feel great about ourselves, but it doesn’t play well.
Have you ever been to France? It’s not that the French are any ruder. In fact, I think they’re actually in general much more gracious than many other Europeans. But boy oh boy, when they’re rude you remember it. The French style of rudeness galls Americans like crazy. I think it’s because they just ignore you, and Americans truly hate to be ignored.
Well, there are a bunch of things some bicyclists do that drive motorists around the bend. Even though I have a bike, I find myself truly angry at times. One of those things is that pose that says, “We’re better than you are.” That sort of thing, especially coming from someone who just ran a red light in front of someone and then flipped him the bird when he slammed on the brakes and honked his horn, is poison.
It’s also poison here on your blog. Not as potent, but it still doesn’t play well. If bicyclists really want to “just get along,” we’ve got to take a look in the mirror too. If, as you declare, we are all in this together, then let’s not act as if everything is the fault of evil people driving evil cars. Even if that’s what you think, it’s probably not real smart to project the attitude.
Teacher, we have quoted you the numbers as decided by the citizen members of CTAC III and as approved by the TBD board (AKA, City Council). Would a picture of it help?
http://seattlebikeblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Prop-1-Investment-Breakdown.pdf
Tom, do you know what “CTAC” stands for? Apparently not, so I will tell you. The italics are mine: Citizens Transit Advisory Committee. Do you know what “advisory” means? Apparently not, so I will tell you. From Websters:
Advisory: “Having or exercising power to advise.”
Advise: “To give a recommendation as to what should be done.”
If you actually read Prop. 1 — using the skills you ought to have learned in grade school — you will find no mention of the CTAC report, much less any commitment to follow its recommendations.
The text of Prop. 1 does not even mention street repair. Bicyclists, take note: Horribly maintained streets are more of a danger to bicycles than to motorcycles, cars, or trucks. For the “Seattle Bike Blog” to be endorsing a new tax that won’t even fix the streets, and if the CTAC recommendations are actually implemented, would spend the large majority of the money on street cars and light rail, neither of which benefit cyclists, is very strange.
To top it off, for Tom to keep trying to misrepresent the text of the proposition, well, that’s suspicious. Someone’s got an agenda here, and in my opinion it is not one that has the interests of bicyclists at heart. At the very least, Tom, you should read the proposition; discuss it forthrightly; and lay your cards face up on the table as to who you really represent.
I gotta say I would support this if there were more specifics about what was being repaired or improved, but unlike Bridging the Gap, there are few specifics. The pie chart linked above doesn’t cut it. BTG made some very needed improvements, but also missed a few that were promised such as the Magnolia Bridge and Lander. No one seemed to notice. As a cyclist, I would love to see some real money dedicated to retrofitting the Ballard Bridge to make this a viable choice even though I would rarely ride this on my commute, but sadly, this $60 license fee has no specifics on that. Transit? As much as I love seeing increased bus service, commuter rail service, light rail service, and passenger ferry service, the City of Seattle simply isn’t the operating agency for any of those. What exactly are they going to do for transit? Displace the #70-#73 series bus with a streetcar making life a nightmare for cyclists?
Seattle Transit Blog is much better at explaining those improvements. Here’s a start: http://seattletransitblog.com/2011/09/24/no-bus-hours-from-the-vlf/
But basically, if you can improve the road conditions so that buses more more quickly (bus bulbs that allow buses to stop in lane and load passengers more quickly, new trolley wire to allow for better trolley bus routing, rechanelizations that create bus-only lanes on congested streets, etc), then those time gains will be made forever. If a bus route cuts 2 minutes for every trip (for example), then those minutes add up to hours of service saved that can be reinvested. Plus your bus trip is now two minutes shorter.
It’s not a very sexy sell, but city investment in road conditions is one of the most cost-effective ways (especially in the long-term) to increase transit speed and service.
BJ Bikes, the text of Prop 1 is so vague as to be nearly meaningless. It doesn’t even mention what’s probably the #1 issue to cyclists, as practical matter: Fixing the rotten streets here. Go check it out. Nothing there! And anyone who’s spent time on a bike knows that one pothole can ruin your whole day, in more ways than one.
We’re being asked to trust the same people who told us that the “Bridging the Gap” referendum would address a need for $600 million in repairs, only to be told a few years later that, oops, we checked again and now it’s $1.8 billion — triple the original estimate.
Were they lying with the original estimate, or are they truly that incompetent? Either way, I’m not very inclined to trust the backers of this thing. Money is tighter and tighter. Easy to say that $60 won’t matter when the money wolf isn’t at your door.