Friends of Seattle's picture

Poll Shows Voters Want Streets for All, Now Let's Party (on Thursday 7/29)

A poll released today by Friends of Seattle shows that voters strongly support the allocation of transportation resources, including funding and road space, for walking, biking, and transit.

So now seems like a good time to remind you that the Streets For All Seattle Kickoff Party and Fundraiser is tomorrow (Thursday), July 29th, 7pm, at Nectar Lounge in Fremont. Details here

Streets For All Seattle is a new coalition of community, labor, social justice, business and environmental groups, including Friends of Seattle, campaigning for more public funds for walking, biking, and transit. Our goal is $30 million dollars in annual dedicated funding. Your support would be invaluable, because as many voices as possible need to be actively engaged in the public debate.

Already, Streets For All Seattle has grown in strength and size: over sixty organizations have endorsed our campaign, we've trained over one hundred volunteers, and thousands of people have signed on in support of our vision. With a lot of hard, rewarding work ahead, Streets For All Seattle is rocking out before the City's budget season begins.

The kickoff will feature:

* Mayor Mike McGinn and members of the City Council
* Streets for All Seattle Jeopardy, featuring members of the Seattle City Council
* Music by:

Hot Bodies in Motion

To the Sea

C-LEB

$10 - $25 - $50 suggested donation

POLL RESULTS

Do you support spending more transportation funds on investments in transit, bicycling and walking?

Yes: 56.8%
No: 27.8%
Not Sure: 15.4%

The results show a solid majority of voters support an increase in funding for walking, biking, and transit. Supporters outnumbered opponents by a ratio of over two to one.

Given limited funds in the city's current transportation budget, would you support greater investment in transit, bicycling and walking if it meant fewer dollars were available for auto-oriented projects?

Support: 49.4%
Oppose: 34.4%
Not Sure: 16.2%

According to the poll, voters are very solid supporters of an increase in funding for walking, biking, and transit, even if car-focused infrastructure becomes a lower priority. Supporters outnumbered opponents by 15 percentage points, which is more than 40% greater than the opposition.

City projects that improve transit efficiency, or make it safer and easier to walk or bicycle, like bus-lanes, pedestrian refuge islands, and bicycle lanes, sometimes require changes in travel lanes or parking on Seattle streets. In general, do you support changes in the configuration of Seattle's streets that make mass transit, walking and bicycling safer and easier?

Support: 62.1%
Oppose: 24.5%
Not Sure: 13.4%

The City of Seattle is re-configuring some of its streets to create bus-priority lanes and make more space for walkers and bikers. The poll results show that voters strongly support these changes.

Compete poll results are available here.

 

Friends of Seattle's picture

Video: A Viaduct Replacement for Everyone, Not Just People Who Can Afford Champagne

This video was created by a member of Friends of Seattle. We now share it with you.

In January 2009, downtown elites and members of the Seattle City Council drank champagne to celebrate the agreement to build a deep bore tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct.

In this agreement (see the PDF) between the City of Seattle, King County, and the State, the State said it would work to get the County the authority it needed for an motor vehicle excise tax (MVET) to raise over $200 million for transit. Two years later, the State has not kept this promise.

We need transit to make the Viaduct replacement work for everyone, not just people who can afford champagne.

Friends of Seattle's picture

Poll: Most Would Reject City Council Members Who Approve Current Tunnel Contract (The Stranger)

Friends of Seattle is in the news.

Dominic Holden, "Poll: Most Would Reject City Council Members Who Approve Current Tunnel Contract," The Stranger (July 21, 2010)

Friends of Seattle released a poll today that shows the majority of Seattle voters would oppose city council members who support a contract with the state that puts tunnel cost overruns on Seattle. Of the 411 people surveyed, 51.6 percent said they would be somewhat or very unlikely to support one of those council members; only 35 percent said they were somewhat or very likely to support one of those candidates. Meanwhile, the poll found that—if the citizens run a referendum on the tunnel, as appears likely—a plurality of voters would reject the current proposed ordinance.

Read the whole thing.

Friends of Seattle's picture

New Poll Shows Tunnel Would Impact Elections; Referendum on Tunnel Could Win (Publicola)

Friends of Seattle is in the news.

Erica C. Barnett, "New Poll Shows Tunnel Would Impact Elections; Referendum on Tunnel Could Win," Publicola (July 21, 2010)

Friends of Seattle has released partial results of a poll about the proposed deep-bore tunnel. The poll asked 411 likely voters how likely they would be to vote for a generic city council member who supports signing a contract with the state that “accept[s] the state law that makes Seattle taxpayers liable for all cost overruns” on the tunnel. . . . Slightly more than half the voters polled, 51.6 percent, said they would be somewhat or very unlikely to support a council member who signed an agreement that didn’t specify that the state, not Seattle taxpayers, is responsible for cost overruns. Just 35.2 percent said they would be somewhat (17.3 percent) or very (34.3 percent) likely to support such a council member. . . . Additionally, the poll shows that a plurality, 48.8 percent, said they would be likely to vote for a referendum overturning the contract with the state if it doesn’t include a clause exempting city taxpayers from cost overruns. Thirty-two and a half percent said they would not support such a referendum, and 18.7 percent weren’t sure how they’d vote.

Read the whole thing.

Call to action: Council meeting on tunnel cost overruns

By the time this month comes to a close, the Seattle City Council intends to approve a contract with the State agreeing to the multi-billion-dollar scheme to build a tunnel beneath Pioneer Square and downtown Seattle. From that point forward, the City will no longer be able to resist the State's efforts to make Seattle taxpayers liable for cost overruns. We need your help.

Together, we to push for three crucial amendments to the contract.

First, Mayor McGinn has proposed contract terms that would make the contract void until the State changes the law that caps the State contribution at $2.4 billion and puts Seattle property owners on the hook for cost overruns. This is a common-sense change to the contract which will protect Seattle's interests.

Second, Councilmember Nick Licata has suggested an amendment to set aside and protect the promised $290 million from the State for viaduct removal and waterfront street replacement, regardless of possible cost escalations elsewhere. He is right; the portions of this project dedicated to local mobility should not be raided to pay for tunnel overruns. The State already reneged on its promise to authorize new money for bus transit after the Viaduct goes down. We cannot afford to let the State break another promise.

Third, Councilmember Mike O'Brien has suggested an escape clause from the contracts that allow the City to opt out if the environmental impact statement reveals harmful impacts -- for instance, ruining Pioneer Square streets or putting too many historic buildings at risk of failure – or if too much risk is shifted to the public in WSDOT’s negotiations with its contractors.

We need to urge City Council and the Mayor to stand together in protecting Seattle.

Please come to the Council Committee at City Hall, Monday afternoon (July 12) at 2:30 PM and give public comment. If you can't make it, please e-mail the councilmembers:

Sally.Bagshaw@seattle.gov
Tim.Burgess@seattle.gov
Sally.Clark@seattle.gov
Richard.Conlin@seattle.gov
Jean.Godden@seattle.gov
Bruce.Harrell@seattle.gov
Nick.Licata@seattle.gov
Mike.OBrien@seattle.gov
Tom.Rasmussen@seattle.gov

Here are some talking points you can use:

* Please protect Seattle from Cost Overruns

* Include the language that approves contracts only when cost overruns have been dealt with, and Seattle is not held responsible for paying

* [Why is this important to you? Social Justice? Climate change? Protecting Seattle's resources? Fiscal responsibility?]

For more info on recent tunnel news, read
here
here

Friends of Seattle's picture

‘Walk Bike Ride’ Forum on Health, Equity Issues

The mayor's new Walk Bike Ride initiative is featuring a public forum entitled "Health, Equity & Transportation," from 6 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Wednesday, May 26, at Yesler Community Center, 917 E. Yesler Way.

The Seattle Channel will offer streaming video, viewable here:

Friends of Seattle's picture

Nine Questions About the Tunnel Project for the Seattle City Council

Before the City Council ratifies an agreement with the State about the tunnel project, the Council must have answers to these nine questions:

  1. Why did the state cap its contribution to the tunnel at $2.4 billion and make Seattle taxpayers responsible to pay for cost overruns?
  2. How can the City Council protect Seattle taxpayers from paying for cost overruns on the project?
  3. How can the city manage a state project to prevent cost overruns?
  4. Given the cap in state law, how would the state legally pay more than $2.4 billion for the project?
  5. Why has the state shifted risk on the performance bonds away from itself and the contractor and onto Seattle?
  6. What is the cause of cost overruns on other megaprojects? Is it as proponents claim due to delay? Are there other causes?
  7. What is the state doing differently here than on other megaprojects to prevent overruns?
  8. What will happen if the tunneling machine gets stuck underground? Who will pay? How will it be resolved?
  9. If Seattle has to pay for cost overruns, how would the city pay for them? What taxes would the City Council raise, or what programs would it cut?

UPDATE: We should point out that we saw these questions on an e-mail circulated by the mayor's office to the media. We agree it is essential that the Council have answers to these questions, and so we're asking them here.

Friends of Seattle's picture

WSDOT Announces Oversight Committee for Deep Bore Tunnel

In WSDOT's most recent email update about the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement project, WSDOT notes that the Governor is forming an oversight committee for the deep bore tunnel. The members will be state and local elected officials, as well as the CEO of the Port of Seattle:

Governor Gregoire recently announced the formation of an oversight committee to review the projects to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, including the proposed bored tunnel, and serve as a single point of accountability for cost, schedule and scope issues. The committee will receive updates from state, city and county departments of transportation, as well as Port of Seattle staff, on delivery of the projects, including major milestones, contracting approach, risk management and expenditures.

Oversight committee meetings will be held quarterly, beginning this spring, and information provided to the committee will be made available to the public to ensure public accountability and transparency. The members of the committee include Governor Christine Gregoire, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, Rep. Judy Clibborn, Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn, Seattle Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, King County Executive Dow Constantine, King County Councilmember Larry Phillips, Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant, and Port of Seattle CEO Tay Yoshitani.

It's a good step, but we're not very impressed. Mayor McGinn is the only committee member who has expressed realism about the project. The others have offered the deep-bore tunnel their full support. They have not questioned the feasibility of the project, and they all seem to brush aside concerns about projects costs and overruns. We wish there was more balance to the committee.

Here is the governor's original announcement.

Multifamily Housing Design in Seattle: Community Meeting this Weekend

The Seattle City Council plans to change the laws regulating townhouses, apartments, condominiums, and duplexes. This weekend, a council committee is hosting a community meeting to discuss proposed revisions to the multifamily housing zoning code. Our friends at Great City sent an informative message about the issue and the upcoming meeting, and we are now sharing the message with you:

 

As many of you know, Seattle City Council has been updating the Multifamily Housing Code for the past year. While the Mid- and High-Rise zoning components were updated in late-2009, the Committee of Built Environment has dedicated much of its time to finishing the updates on L-Zones this year.

To that end, there is an important community meeting this Saturday, 10 am, at Taproot Theater in Greenwood (204 N 85th St). We hope you can attend.

There are a number of great features in the current version of the multi-family update. The work of the council and other groups such as CORA (Congress of Residential Architects) thus far will help produce housing with better street frontage, more useful open space, and of overall higher design quality. But today's version of the legislation doesn't go far enough.

The council needs to here from you, the citizens of Seattle, to help push this legislation through to the end. Great City encourages you to attend this weekend’s meeting to do just this. Looking for something to say? Here are two issues that CORA and Great City think need more work:

Currently, Seattle has strict density limits in place in all of the L-zones. These limits essentially dictate the minimum size of housing unit in a given zone. As a result the average townhouse in Central Seattle is about 1500 s.f. in size and sells for around $450,000. The limits were created in an era when a single family home was affordable for people with median income and the most pressing concern of our city was fighting density. Twenty years later, the playing field has changed. Single family housing is no longer affordable, while the city recognizes that density is actually a core strategy for more livable neighborhoods.

Parking requirements also act as a form of density limit. Current code requires one off-street parking space for each unit. While this might be a sensible requirement for some neighborhoods and certain types of development, for many of our denser urban neighborhoods, this prevents us from doing the kinds of development that best serve our housing needs. The council is currently studying the idea of reducing or eliminating parking requirements in Urban Centers and Urban Villages - our densest and best transit served neighborhoods (see map) While developers will still have the ability to include as much parking as the market (or banks) require, reducing the parking requirements will allow small innovat! ions to take place. An old home might be split into three flats without turning the yard into a parking lot, or a conventional townhouse project might include a unit or two with small apartments instead of three story townhomes.

In the long run, reducing/eliminating density limits and parking requirements in dense neighborhoods allows for increased affordability while also facilitating a longer term shift to less auto-centric development as our transit catches up with demand. We urge you to attend the meeting this Saturday to support councilmembers in making these changes.

Friends of Seattle's picture

Richard Conlin Justifies the Repeal of the Head Tax

Although we vociferously opposed the City Council's proposal to repeal the commuter tax (aka head tax), we did not prevail, and the Council voted 8-1 to repeal the tax. Below is Richard Conlin's response to our most recent lobbying email about the topic.

Thank you for your message about the repeal of Seattle’s Employee Hours Tax (‘Head Tax’).  The Council approved this repeal by a vote of 8 to 1 on Monday, November 23, Councilmember McIver voting no.  The tax was repealed for four reasons:

1.      While it was originally designed to complement the parking tax in raising funds for major transportation projects under the Bridging the Gap program, the parking tax is generating more income than had been anticipated, and the planned Bridging the Gap investments are fully funded using the parking tax alone.

2.      Seattle is the only jurisdiction in Washington that requires businesses to calculate three different taxes (gross receipts, square footage, and employee hours).  The first two generate more than 95% of the business tax revenue.

3.      During the Council’s deliberations on economic recovery, repeal of this tax was singled out by the business community as a high priority.  They consider having a tax on employees the wrong signal to send when we are hoping to put people back to work.

4.      Numerous organizations also noted that the paperwork is painful for very modest results, especially for organizations that have many part-time employees and many employees who use alternative modes of transportation.  The President of Antioch University Seattle, for example,  wrote in support of repeal, noting that it took about two weeks of employee time to survey staff and calculate the tax exemptions – for a tax payment of $866.

The repeal of the head tax will not have any impact on planned pedestrian and bicycle improvements.  These funds are not dedicated to bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and in fact this tax was intended primarily to support larger projects, although a small portion has been used for ped/bike projects.  While it could be used for more such projects in the future, there is no guarantee of that, and it was neither in the design or the arguments for the tax.

No pedestrian or bicycle improvements that are planned for the period 2009 to 2014 will be affected by the repeal of the tax, and I would not support it if it would put those projects in jeopardy.
Projects which could be funded from the head tax are fully funded by the parking tax revenue, which is bringing in more revenue than projected, and more than enough to make up for the loss of the head tax revenue.

I sponsored the amendment that exempted employees who used other than SOV's.  It was cosmetic -- to provide a defensible rationalization rather than any expectation that it would impact modes of travel.  This was not part of the original legislation, and there is no evidence that it has any impact -- it is not a large enough amount to make it worthwhile for the employer to subsidize alternative modes, and does not go directly to the employee to encourage them to use alternative modes.

There are numerous options for funding future ped/bike improvements, and this is a small and not ideal possible source of funds.  Something more directly connected to transportation would be much better.  Councilmembers are looking for the appropriate funding mechanism, and we will work with the new administration to design one that will provide the appropriate funding.

Council President Richard Conlin

Seattle City Hall

600 Fourth Avenue, Floor 2

PO Box 34025

Seattle, WA 98124-4025


(206) 684-8805

 

My email newsletter is a great way to keep informed about issues and join me in making things work for a better Seattle.

 

To subscribe to Making It Work, please go to www.mailermailer.com/x?oid=33062p and follow the prompts

Syndicate content