Finding a catchy motto to encourage people to approve Proposition 1 is nearly impossible—”Faster Transit, Safer Streets” is so vague and (some would argue) nonthreatening that one week before the November 8 general election, many people still have no idea how the fuck Seattle’s Prop 1 would actually improve transit (but they’re acutely aware of the $60 bump it would bring to their car tab fee).
Luckily, while Goldy quietly threatens to poison your children, Seattle City Council Member Mike O’Brien calmly lays out the reasons why you should vote for Prop 1 on Seattle Transit Blog:
* Transit Signal Priority. The [Transit Master Plan] calls out 14 traffic lights to be modified for transit priority in this corridor. Buses are given priority at a light when an approaching bus signals to the traffic light, causing the light to stay green if it is currently green until the bus passes, or switching to green earlier if the light is red. It is estimated that these changes will save up to 10% of wait time at each signal. This means more time saved for bus riders, and more service hours for the system.
* Queue Jump Lanes. Four queue jump locations are identified in the TMP for this corridor. These are implemented at busy intersections and allow the bus to clear the intersection ahead of other vehicle traffic. Queue jumps can save up to 25% of travel time at these intersections. While riding the Route 5, at 85th and Greenwood, my bus missed a complete light cycle. A queue jump would have allowed the fifty of us riding the bus to get through that light swiftly and in advance of other vehicle traffic.
O’Brien notes that the transit improvements funded by Prop 1 would amount to “a 20 percent time savings on each corridor upgraded.”
So far Washington has spent more than $25 billion since 1993 to create the 10 miles of LINK.
Has it reduced congestion?
Do you guys like Amy Rolph?
Hilarious video:
http://blog.seattlepi.com/thebigblog/201…
I voted yes on Prop 1 but I’d hate to say it…I think we’re gonna lose this one. The $60 bump in car tabs I don’t see going over with the electorate.
A 20% time savings (which is a theoretical best case scenario highly unlikely to actually ever materialize, everyone knows that whether they admit it or not) means that your 60-minute bus ride would instead take only 48 minutes. Whoop-de-do.
That’s not fixing what ails us.
Vote no on Prop. 1.
@1 Amy Rolph links to other people’s content and makes the occasional snarky comment. She produces nothing.
And those smarmy guys in that video are more revolting than anything Starbucks every produced.
This argument for prop 1 actually reinforces my no vote. First of all, they keep changing their mind about how the money is going to be spent so, even after this new rvalation, I don’t really know where my money would be going. Secondly, what a HUGE waste of money when there are so many more urgent issues to address. I’ll give the city more momey to spend on transportation when they demonstrate that they know how to prioritize.
So many typos *shakesheadinshame*
As someone who doesnt own a car, this wouldnt impact me in any way, but I still voted no. My wife (also never owned a car) also voted no, my sister voted no as well (she owns a car), everyone I know at the tailgate are voting no, even friends who bike to the games.
Your heart’s in the right place, but I don’t think you’re helping, Cienna. I can already hear the struggling masses, lifting their voices to the air in unison, a thunderous refrain calling out,
“WHAT?? You want $60 from everyone so the traffic lights will turn green faster?!? FUCK OFF AND DIEI
(p.s. I voted yes, btw)
The only thing they forgot to mention is that congestion and commute time are already going to be so much worse thanks to the Tolled Tunnel of Doom that it still ends up taking longer, if you’re not a millionaire or billionaire riding in your tax-exempt “green” limo (which uses 5x the energy of a 60 mpg car) to get from your tax-exempt foundation to your tax-exempt foundation plane at Boeing Field.
Oh, wait, too soon?
And, fwiw, I voted Yes on 1 too.
This is why I love living in Lynnwood.
@12, does Lynnwood even have bus service these days?
well, at least the Councilmember’s bus line will get funding. i’m sure of that…
@13 Honestly I don’t know, I have my license so I drive a car.
@11 haha, it is so cute that you think cyclists and public transit users don’t have cars (we do, and we pay allll the taxes you do). I just want to pinch your cute little cheek, kiss you on the forehead and slap you across the face to wake you up from your adorable delusions.
As much as I love supporting transit & bikes, I voted no for the simple fact that it’s ridiculously regressive. As usual, the poorest would be hit hardest.
@17: You mean the same “poorest” who are less likely to own cars, less likely to have a license, more likely to depend on transit, and more likely to ride their bicycles? Or the “poorest” straw men who opponents of this measure are suddenly concerned about?
@18 It’s so cute that you don’t think any poor people have cars. FYI: A lot of them do. Shitty cars, in most cases…but cars no less.
When I was a poor single mother in Seattle, I tried to live without a car and was basically forced to get one because the Seattle School District assigned my oldest son to a school 10 miles away from our house and, because he was in marching band, the school busses couldn’t accomodate his transportation to and from school (due to zero period band and after school practices). Metro (before the funding crisis!) would have required that he take 3 different busses and it would have taken him about 1hr 40 minutes EACH WAY to get to and from school thus making it impossible for him to have time to sleep well and do homework if he remained in marching band. I did what any supportive mother would do and scrimped and saved to get a shitty car so that I could drive my son to school and back because the Seattle School District refused to reassign him to a school nearer to our house because “lack of transportation does not equal a financial hardship” even though “the district is not responsible for transportation for extracurricular activities”.
Anyway, I wasn’t trying to turn this into a school district debate (particularly since they are finally kind of fixing the issue that created my particular problem). I just wanted to demonstrate a situation in which a poor person might own a car. There are many, many other scenarios that could also apply here.
@19: Oh, dear. Please point out where I said that no poor people have any cars. Wait, never mind, I didn’t. I get it: you disagree, but you don’t have to change what I’m saying to do that.
I agree, it’s regressive, and people are forced into transportation choices by stupid decisions at all levels of government. We have a stupid 2/3 majority rule, for example, that hamstrings a lot of the tools we COULD use to fix this progressively, and no income tax to get more from those who should pay more. As much as I think a better referendum would be to turn all that around, perfect is the enemy of good.
Honestly, you’ll never see that $60 go to transportation improvements, it will go into the general fund. 4 years later, they’ll ask for more money to do the same.