Some in Seattle would like to one-up Oregon's "Visit But Don't Stay" campaign
"Neighborhood groups seek car limit for new 520 bridge"
Seattle neighborhood and environmental groups want to change the design of the future Highway 520 bridge lanes in hopes of limiting cars that enter the city.I think they mean "... in hopes of limiting potential residents, shoppers, nightlife seekers, tourists and employers that enter the city".
For what it's worth, Mrs. Gregoire and several non-anti-people legislators are not favorably impressed.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 01, 2010 08:23 PM | Email ThisTake a lesson Seattle, from Tacoma. Take a lesson, King County from Pierce county.
Posted by: Seabecker on February 1, 2010 08:45 PMTraffic flows great on the narrows because its tolled. Too much of the general fund of my tax dollars are wasted on unsupportable road infrastructure. The reason all these mega projects are coming at once is 20 years of Slade Gordon passing the buck on planning.
Posted by: Meanie on February 1, 2010 09:10 PMJust the ones who arrive in cars. Really, you folks need to get out more; preferably on foot, bicycle, or mass transit.
Posted by: tensor on February 1, 2010 09:22 PMThe densities that are required for many of the mass transit systems to function in an unsubsidized manner do not exist in this area and probably won't in the next 100 or 200 years. Even then the costs of these systems will generally outweight the benefits.
Posted by: ducttape2 on February 1, 2010 09:39 PMIf you don't want to drive a car, don't. If you don't think other people should drive cars, take it up with your therapist.
Posted by: jvon on February 2, 2010 01:16 AMPlease, feel free to do that. Just without Seattle's tax money. I'm sure you won't mind the large increase in your tax burden, right? Or, do you want we, who are Seattle's taxpayers, to subsidize your fun? Socialist!
Posted by: tensor on February 2, 2010 01:57 AMHow about we take the money Seattle is forcing us to pay for the choo-choo and apply that instead to the roads? If you want the choo-choo, pay for it yourself Seattle.
Where's the plan to remove the I-5 chokehold in downtown Seattle?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 2, 2010 06:13 AMSpoken like a true illogical lefty. Traffic flows great because it is tolled!!????? Hee hee. ROFLMAO!
Traffic flows great because of added capacity. Period. The east-bound toll booths hinder traffic flow for those without G2G passes, but is still an overall improvement.
We already did. It's called "sub-area equity". Feel free to educate yourself on that.
Sorry, pal, but cars offer a lot of freedom for the users, and economic opportunities for the areas they travel to.
Which "freedom" was heavily subsidized, by taxpayers who'll never ever see, let alone use, the highways paved with their money. I know you love your socialism...
NO THANKS! I will drive my car, and you can rest assured that I will do my best to avoid running over you.
So, drinking and driving is a great plan? Yea personal responsibility! Take a cab.
Posted by: tensor on February 2, 2010 11:28 PMWhat roads were paid for not with gas taxes? You do know that the vast majority of roads in the city - and pretty much 100% of the highways and interstates - were paid by tolls and gas taxes? Basically use taxes?
How about tolls and use taxes covering, say, 80% of the operational costs of the train? How about even covering 50% of the construction costs?
And you know that you benefit immensely from the existence of roads, even if you don't drive - how else does the police or fire department get to your place, your groceries delivered to your local QFC, or your shoes to your local department store? Heck, ever ride a bus?
I guess you'd like the fire department, Medic One, and police to respond on bikes, Metro, or Link Light Rail, right?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 2, 2010 11:44 PMToo bad your own retort is simply name calling. So sad. I guess when you have nothing to say you stoop to the level of a child. But what to expect from you...
And you're woefully ignorant as well, because the 2008 SDOT Annual Report shows my statement is correct: a total of $23.7 million spent on road maintenance, and gas taxes alone (not including vehicle excise taxes, parking receipts, etc) were $14.2 million, meaning that 60% of the funds spent on roads came from gas taxes alone. Add in the millions paid by cars for parking and tabs and other city-based excise taxes and you'll find that 70% of the road maintenance budget is paid by user fees of cars.
So how much of bus and light rail costs are paid by user fees? Is it even beyond 20%?
Go away mike, until you have a clue...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 3, 2010 02:23 PMYou show your ignorance. Where did I say 100%? Apparently you fail basic reading comprehension...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 3, 2010 10:57 PMAbout 70% of the construction and maintenance costs of highways in the U.S. are covered through user fees (net of collection costs), primarily gasoline taxes collected by the federal government and state and local governments, and to a much lesser extent tolls collected on toll roads and bridges.
What portion of public transit - buses and trains - are covered by user fees? Care to answer that? Or will you and your fellow leftists continue screaming about the subsidy of our roads (primarily paid for by user fees) and ignore the subsidies of public transit (overwhelmingly paid for by general taxes)?
Does it hurt to be that ignorant and hypocritical? Can you really see your tonsils from below?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 4, 2010 11:19 AMThe SDOT does a lot more than just road maintenance (they cover seawall maintenance, for example). The gas tax brings in 60% of the funds spent on roads, meaning roads are mainly funded by user fees.
And user fees cover 57% of the costs of highways, even though 1/6th is diverted to other programs. Do the math - add that 1/6th back in and you have 68% of the funding needed for highways. Again, a pretty big majority of the funding, if it wasn't diverted.
And how about answering the question I've asked and is always ignored: how much of the cost of transit is covered by user fees? Care to answer that? Or do you join the chorus of other leftists here about the evil "subsidies" of roads and ignore the massively larger subsidies of mass transit?
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 5, 2010 10:48 PMwhat do you bet he keeps pushing for it (at kemper's 'request')anyway, only to waste our tax dollars?
Posted by: mike on February 8, 2010 10:41 PM