As I mentioned yesterday, the state senate’s proposed transportation budget took a knife to light rail across I-90, bike and pedestrian programs, and commute-trip reduction programs. A source at the Downtown Seattle Association, pointed out that the senate transportation budget will disproportionately impact downtown Seattle workers, because it includes $2.5 million in cuts to the Growth and Transportation Efficiency Centers (GTEC) program, which is designed to reduce the number of people commuting alone who work at companies with fewer than 100 employees. Of about 5,000 businesses downtown, the DSA source points out, only 133 have more than 100 workers. GTEC grants fund programs like the DSA’s Commute Seattle project, which helps employers provide things like bus passes, bike racks, carsharing, locker and shower facilities, and other amenities to get people out of their cars.

Even as senators were cutting cost-saving programs like CTR, they found $2.3 million to expand bus service in Island, Skagit, and Whatcom Counties—which senate transportation committee chair Mary Margaret Haugen (D-10) just happens to represent. While buses are unquestionably a better expenditure than general-capacity freeway expansion (for which senators also found plenty of money), it’s hard to see how bus service in Mount Vernon and Stanwood is a higher priority than programs that keep thousands of cars off downtown Seattle streets.

15 replies on “State Cuts Commute Trip Reduction”

  2. Seattle is building pike transit trails so that all taxpapers will be forced to cough up dough to Hizzoner.

    Welcome to the new Seattle of tarriffs, tolls, trolls, and gatekeepers.

  3. Sen. Haugen does not represent Whatcom County in the legislature.
    Erica, you ought to get around a little bit before sneering at places like Stanwood. Once a farm town, it is fast becoming a bedroom community for Snohomish County population centers . . . with lots of folks with long commutes.
    Stanwood is experiencing rush hour traffic jams. The traffic moving off Gen. Mark Clark Bridge from Camano often goes at as slow a pace as Clark’s troops advancing up the Italian “boot” during World War II.
    As well, at least 5,000 people commute off south Whidbey Island onto the mainland each day. I’m one about whom you’ve made typically petty remarks.

  4. Couldn’t we just kill the Billionaires’ Tunnel that Seattle voted against and the Mercer SLU Project that nobody in Seattle actually wants … instead?

    Just saying.

    And then put up traffic islands in Stanwood (which had a great cafe last time I visited)?

  5. There ARE transportation needs outside of Seattle, you know. Why you continually respond to any and all initiatives to improve public transportation outside the city with nothing but abject condescension is beyond me. Yeah, I also live in the city and don’t drive a car, but I’m not acting like that means I’m entitled to priveleges and others who haven’t made the same lifestyle choices are not.

  6. It’s too bad there’s no way to just stagger a few blocks from Capitol Hill to Mt Vernon and Stanwood to find out whether or not the bus service there is better or worse. I hope maybe the Times or somebody like that sends a reporter.

  7. Mt. Vernon and Stanwood actually have quite a large volume of traffic, mostly folks commuting to work in Everett. People outside Seattle need non-automotive ways to get to work, too. And Skagit and Snohomish county have a hell of a lot less transit options right now than Seattle does.

  8. Guys, guys. It’s not that non-Seattle places don’t have transportations needs.

    It’s about the fact that there’s not enough money for everyone and so we need to prioritize!

    So, spend a little money to reduce a lot of trips? Or spend a lot of money to reduce fewer trips?

  9. Yeah, but… people going to downtown already have options at their fingertips (bus, bike lanes, walk, vanpool, Sounder, greater chances of carpooling). So, at least in theory, those potential “thousands of car trips” can still be saved. Businesses or employees may have to kick in a bit more for a bus pass, but that’s life. Those in Stanwood or Mount Vernon do not have any of those non-driving options–and those who live out there drive more miles to go anywhere, meaning that one trip saved for a Stanwood resident likely reduces more total miles than his/her Seattle counterpart.

  10. @9 Exactly! Are we more interested in reducing 60 mile round-trip commutes, or 7-10 mile round-trip commutes in areas where people already have other transportation options?

    Reality: suburbs (and their associated populations) are here to stay. Stop trying to de-incentivize suburban living and start working to mitigate the effects of suburban commuting on the environment and transportation infrastructure development.

  11. the state’s GTECH money is provided to seven major cities, not just Seattle. It goes to employer who have employees that live all across the Puget Sound region, not just within the city where their job is (so it does impact long trips). So the choices are to spend $2.5 million in a biennium to get thousands of people out of their cars (and the cars out of congestion which induces more CO2 emissions) in our major employment centers or to spend $2.5 million to on a bus route connecting Whatcom, Skagit and Island Counties.

  13. Proof positive that Seattle’s legislative delegation is about as lame and disorganized as possible. Are they doing anything?

Comments are closed.