We face a crisis in funding for our bus service.

King County Metro estimates that 17% of current service will need to be cut, beginning next year, without additional funding.

The problem is not new. Since 2008, King County Metro has faced a funding shortfall that they have addressed through a variety of efficiencies. Decline in sales tax revenue from the economic downturn was a key reason; in addition, counties in Washington state have significantly fewer tax revenue options than cities.

The problem is worsened by two upcoming issues. First of all, state mitigation funding for Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement will expire in June of 2014.

Secondly, authority to issue a $20 vehicle license fee will expire at the end of 2013. In 2011, the state legislature allowed King County to approve a $20 vehicle license fee knows as the Congestion Relief charge, but only for 2012 and 2013.

In 2009, an agreement between Seattle, King County and the State proposed an MVET to provide permanent funding, but the fee approved by the legislature was vetoed by the former Governor.

The City Council will hold a briefing on Monday, April 29 at the Council Briefing meeting, where King County Metro will present their Metro Transit Service Guidelines Report. An earlier presentation from February is available here.

Resolving this depends on action by the state legislature, and it’s unclear what will happen there; the City Council unanimously approved the state legislative agenda calling for sustainable funding for transit operations.

Should no new revenue source be approved by the state legislature, reductions will be made according to the service guidelines adopted in 2012. 65routes (30%) will be deleted, and 86 routes (40%) will be revised or reduced. Only 66 routes will not be reduced, but they are sure to become more crowded and less reliable. Overall, this will result in more car trips, and additional congestion on city streets. You can see where the cuts are by geographic area at Metro’s website or in the Monday’s presentation.  No part of Seattle would be left unaffected.

You may have noticed the small white and blue vehicles that started appearing in some Seattle neighborhoods beginning in January. The vehicles are part of Car2Go, a car-sharing company that allows members to drive the vehicles one way, and park on city streets. It’s proven to be a popular service during its short time here, and provides a different option for people who usually take public transportation, bike, or walk.

Over 18,000 people have signed up in the first three months, the fastest-growing launch in any US city. Car2Go has requested additional permits to expand their coverage area to include parts of West Seattle, as well as Beacon Hill, Columbia City, and Georgetown, to a southern boundary of Michigan and South Orcas (see this map).

In December of last year, the Council approved Ordinance 124063, which made the program possible, by allowing for free-floating car sharing. Annual permits are $1330 per vehicle to park on city streets.  The ordinance allowed for SDOT to issue permits for up to 350 vehicles.

This Monday the Council will consider Council Bill 117733, which will allow up to 500 free-floating car share permits, sponsored by Councilmember Rasmussen, chair of the Transportation Committee.

The permits generate revenue for the City; the fiscal note for the December ordinance estimated Seattle would receive $332,500 in revenue in 2013, based on 250 vehicles, although the legislation allowed up to 350 to be permitted; 330 permits were issued. This council bill would produce estimated revenues of just under $100,000 to the City in 2013.

Car sharing legislation was first adopted in 2008 in Seattle, and allowed for designated on-street car-sharing zones.

WSDOT 520 Bridge Replacement website

On Monday, February 4 the Council will meet as the 520 Project Committee to consider Resolution 31427 re: the Seattle portion of the 520 replacement project.

The resolution is sponsored by Councilmember Conlin, and reflects detailed work made possible by collaboration with WSDOT, and good relations built over time.

It recommends actions by the City and State resulting from the Seattle Community Design Process, which the City and WSDOT committed to in an agreement passed by the Council in 2011.

Work on the design process included working with the Seattle Design Commission, Seattle Bicycle Advisory Board, Seattle Pedestrian Advisory Board, and City neighborhood groups. Residents from Laurelhurst, Montlake, Madison Park, Ravenna-Bryant, and Roanoke/Portage Bay, University District were involved, along with Forterra and the Cascade Bicycle Club.

The resolution endorses the general vision in the Seattle Community Design Process final report, and concurs with specific recommendations, including:

• Shifting the bridge to the north of the position in the EIS preferred alternative, while working (included in an amendment) with the Queen City Yacht Club to ensure any effects are addressed;
• A bicycle and pedestrian path across I-5, and
• Buffering along East Lake Washington Boulevard

It also states that the City and State should continue to develop options on issues raised in the report, including:

• A statement of support for providing a bicycle and pedestrian path on the Portage Bay Bridge, while minimizing the width of the bridge, and seeking to preserve a reliable transit pathway across the bridge to and from I-5;
• A wider range of options for the Montlake lid, and how best to support connections for transit, pedestrian and bike users;
• An amendment includes pursuing improvements in bicycle and pedestrian connections for people of all ages and abilities throughout the project area; you can view my comments thanking Conlin for this language here, in particular the importance of the language regarding people of all ages and abilities.

Finally, the resolution designates the Design Commission as a coordinating voice across City departments.

I support providing a bike and pedestrian trail on the Portage Bay portion of the replacement bridge, with minimal expansion of the size of the bridge. I am pleased the resolution supports developing options to accomplish these goals.  I also support improving bicycle and pedestrian connections, accessibility and safety in the Montlake area, and adjacent neighborhoods.

I look forward to supporting the resolution.

Currently, there is a funding shortfall of approximately $1.4 billion for the Seattle portion of the 520 project.  WSDOT is studying tolling on I-90 as a possible funding source; the Council received an update on I-90 tolling at the January 28 Council Briefing meeting. The Environmental Assessment of I-90 tolling required by the state legislature is underway. Findings are anticipated for early 2014; the state legislature would need to authorize tolls.

The bus provides free service for low or no-income people to access health and human services in the Downtown area. It runs Monday through Friday for nine hours, every 30 minutes.

The circulator is designed to replace the service formerly provided by the Free Ride Area, which King County Metro discontinued on September 29. Background on this is available at by blog post last April.

In April, I wrote a letter to County Councilmember Larry Phillips, chair of the Transportation, Economy and Environment Committee, noting how the elimination of the Ride Free Area would affect those with few resources, and could place an additional burden on human services providers. I encouraged support for a free shuttle service in the Downtown core with stops near important local service areas, including Harborview Medical Center, to allow those with few resources to access services.  I’m glad to see this has been realized, with City negotiations handled by the Mayor and Councilmember Rasmussen.

Information about the circulator can be found at the Solid Ground website, which includes a route map, the location the seven bus stops and what services are available nearby, and contact information if you would like additional information.

The service is funded by the City of Seattle, and contracted through King County Metro. It costs $400,000 per year, and is funded through the end of 2013. Seattle paid $400,000 annually for the Ride Free Area (the actual cost was over $2 million), and is dedicating the $400,000 formerly provided for the Ride Free Area for this service.

Aside from my philosophical belief that government should generally avoid the use of public resources to augment private investments, my practical concerns with this proposal, as with other similar proposals in the past, has been to minimize the risk of a financial loss to Seattle’s budget, which could affect our ability to provide other services to our citizens.

THIS CAN HAPPEN IN 3 WAYS

First, if the public debt incurred to finance this project is not covered by the Arena’s revenue stream; this could be triggered either by bankruptcy or the team moving.

Second, if the general business climate is negatively impacted, and thus less revenue to the city as a whole. This would be most evident if the Port, manufacturing and freight mobility are constrained in doing business and providing jobs.

Third, if the city is burdened with additional costs for maintaining the Seattle Center due to the elimination of operation of Key Arena as a profitable venue.

Let me go further in describing how each has been addressed in the MOU.

THE FIRST WAY – REVENUE FALTERS

With regards to the possibility of bankruptcy, the personal financial guarantee of Chris Hansen is groundbreaking and perhaps unique. In checking with Neil DeMause of the Field of Schemes website, and economist Roger Noll of Stanford University, both of whom are experts in stadium funding, neither have heard of any owner providing such a guarantee.

We need to make sure that financial guarantees cover both the basketball and hockey teams. In the last 40 years no NBA team has gone bankrupt; however, over half of all professional sport team bankruptcies have involved hockey teams. I want to make sure we are covered for that possibility as well and it appears that the final version of the MOU took that possibility into account by rolling it into the obligation of the Parent Company that will have responsibility over the entire operation.

We have to prepare for all events. We cannot count on the past as fixed guide to the future. There is always a first time; for instance, our own Seattle Pilots in 1970 were the first major league team to file for bankruptcy.

With regards to the team moving, I believe we have strong guarantees in place with a requirement for a 30-year non-relocation agreement, which past lease agreements with the Sonics did not include. The duration of the agreement coincides with the length of bond payments; a 5-year discrepancy between the duration of bond payments and the lease for the Sonics at Key Arena was problematic. The Mariners have a similar requirement, though it is not strictly non-relocation; they are required to play games at Safeco Field. The arena MOU includes this requirement as well.

THE SECOND WAY – OTHER BUSINESSES ARE HURT

This issue comes down to location. In essence, will our manufacturing, maritime and warehouse businesses be restrained from growing and providing jobs for our citizens and income to our public treasury? The creation of the SODO Transportation Fund is an innovative and hopefully an effective tool in addressing this concern. It will allow—and to be most effective will need—other governments to contribute, including  state and regional funds, King County, and hopefully the Port of Seattle—although the Port notes it doesn’t have uncommitted transportation funds, given its planned $300 million contribution for the viaduct replacement.

The $40 million Transportation Fund must be used as an effective tool in sustaining SODO as a manufacturing and maritime zone, if Seattle is to remain a profitable and vibrant port for world trade. Currently the Port of Seattle is in negotiations with the Korean shipping company Hanjin, which accounts for 1/3 of the Port’s maritime operations. From my reading of the MOU, even with the Transportation Fund, there is still a need for strong assurances that the new arena will not hinder the Port’s ability to do business, and that our truck routes through SODO will not become more congested. I will be talking to those representing working and operating manufacturing businesses in SODO to seek out what options could be pursued.

And we should note that we must also consider the impact to the Mariners operations. The public has invested over $300 million in their facility; we do not want our investment endangered.

THE THIRD WAY – KEY ARENA BECOMES A BURDEN TO THE CITY

I struggle with how we can justify making public investments in one private facility while appearing to be prepared to abandon another public one. No one has come up with a proposal that will save the Key Arena as a facility for either sports or entertainment. And while including it in the SEPA process is admirable, is there anyone that believes it will be chosen as the best location for a new arena? And if it was, who would renovate or build a new one there? Chris Hansen, who is the only player in town, will not do so. Even the MOU recognizes this when it opens the door for the City and County to pursue Hansen’s project if there are no other bidders for building an arena elsewhere.

This is the city’s most immediate problem. By steering five million of the seven million in the Key Arena fund away from the Key Arena to the new arena, to accommodate the women’s professional basketball team, the Storm, we have essentially sentenced Key Arena to be demolished. The city, using public funding, must decide what will replace it. Something must be in that location that can provide more pedestrian activity in the Seattle Center than what has been provided in the past by the Key Arena, and something that can support itself financially and hopefully contribute to the Seattle Center’s financial bottom line.

Of the three ways that Seattle has a negative financial exposure, this one appears to be the one least addressed in the MOU. It is difficult to see how the Seattle Center will gain from this new basketball arena; it is much easier to see how it will suffer. And, that could negatively impact our general budget. Seattle Center’s welfare must be taken into account in a manner that goes beyond this MOU.

SUMMARY

Aside from my concern with how the new arena may negatively impact our general fund, I believe that the public deserved more time to assess its strengths and weaknesses. And I too wished to dig deeper into this document that was only completed 48 hours before the Committee vote. For that reason, I abstained on the vote and had asked our Council President Sally Clark to delay the final council vote until Monday Sept. 24^th, which she did with the concurrence of the Committee Chair Tim Burgess.

N. 57th Street mural photo courtesy PhinneyWood.com

Such is the case for two popular murals in the north end of Seattle: the one in the Aurora Avenue underpass at North 63rd Street and the mural at North 57th Street & Phinney Avenue North, near the zoo. Each will be painted over by the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDoT) next Monday, with grudging approval by those neighborhoods’ respective community councils. Ironically, SPU mistakenly painted over the 57th Street mural in 2008, then quickly moved to restore it. Originally painted in 1994, it occupies both of the 50 feet wide and 13 feet high underpass walls and depicts a collection of really big, colorful and friendly-looking animals.

Phinney Ridge Community Council (PRCC) President Diane Duthweiler said that in response to letting her neighbors know about the City’s plan to paint over the 57th Street mural, she was happy to hear from several interested in maintaining it or painting a new one. Her smiles turned to frowns, however, when she learned about SDoT’s revised mural permit requirements. They require annual permit fees and impose fines when graffiti isn’t removed quickly enough from a mural. Reasonable enough, perhaps, but none of the neighborhood residents felt they could afford the expense or risk being fined.

Queen Anne Murals’ 2010 Aurora & Dexter underpass mural painted by Urban ArtWorks w/50 community volunteers

Rob Mattson, the Neighborhood District Coordinator for the City of Seattle, reports that Urban Artworks is one organization that seems to consistently succeed in creating and maintaining murals throughout the city. Urban Artworks’ Emily Taibleson believes that nowadays street art has more potential for being embraced by communities as mural art. She reasons that graffiti artists live in all neighborhoods and if invited to apply their work to an organized mural project, it’s more likely such murals will receive less tagging.

Could partnerships with Urban Artworks return murals to the soon-to-be-blank walls at North 57th & Phinney and at North 63rd & Aurora? I’m not sure, but Diane Duthweiler said she would share my idea with her neighborhood and discuss this partnership possibility for the North 57th Street mural at their next PRCC meeting.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email.
• To Unsubscribe, send a blank email (No message needed in the body of the emails you send).
• Subscribe to my blog.
• Like me on Facebook.
• Follow me on Twitter.

Some of you may remember in 2007, as Council President, I created a Special Council Committee on Pedestrian Safety and led the Council in passing the Pedestrian Safety Resolution (Resolution 30951), to establish a citizens advisory group for developing a Pedestrian Master Plan.  In 2009, the Council passed the Pedestrian Master Plan that was a requirement of the 2007 Resolution 30951.  The Council Special Committee on Pedestrian Safety operated from 2007-2008.  The goal of the plan was to invest $10 million a year in implementing the recommendations.  Thanks to the Bridging the Gap Levy, $60 million for pedestrian improvements are planned from 2009-2014. This includes funding for new infrastructure like sidewalks, curb ramps, and signals as well as maintenance like sidewalk repair and crosswalk re-striping.

photo credit goes to the Low Income Housing Institute

But sometimes when we are focused on the big master plans, we forget to celebrate the small victories that can occur when we – as elected officials – support the efforts of individual residents trying to make the the places that they walk safer.   In February this year, I learned that the low-income and disabled senior residents of the Bart Harvey Apartments in South Lake Union had been waiting for more than two years for SDOT to put stop signs and traffic calming devices in front of The Bart Harvey.  Many residents are frail, in their 70’s and 80’s, and have problems with mobility. The seniors use canes and walkers; some get around in wheelchairs.

SDOT completed a traffic warrant study in 2011 demonstrating a safety hazard for pedestrians.  Finally, due to the persistence and patience of a lot of people, last month, the crosswalks were installed.  ADA curb ramps will be coming to this intersection as well but this work is not yet scheduled.   Many thanks go to the Seattle Department of Transportation, the residents of the Bart Harvey Apartments, the Low Income Housing Institute, and the Mayor’s Office.

I’d like the City to work towards a broader policy objective in instances like the Bart Harvey Apartments – when the City is funding a housing development that we know will create a need for new pedestrian improvements – of  the Office of Housing working closely with the Department of Transportation coordinating in advance so these improvements can be planned before a new building receiving city funding is open.  If we can plan for these investments in advance, perhaps in the future folks like the residents of the Bart Harvey won’t have to wait.

Finally, I’d like to remind readers of Critical Crossings.  Critical Crossings is a place where you can send me your snapshots of intersections and street crossings you feel might be dangerous.

"Magic Carpet" free ride area, 1975 (Seattle Municipal Archives)

The Ride Fee Area was established in 1973 as a partnership between Metro and the City of Seattle. It was originally called the “Magic Carpet” ride free area (see photo).

The end of the Free Ride Area creates a challenge for people with little or no income, who use the Free Ride Area to access service such as healthcare and food banks. Some of these services are located in part due to the existence of the Free Ride Area. Seattle and King County are working with human services agencies on how best to address these needs.

I wrote King County with a request that they support providing a free shuttle service in the core of Downtown Seattle with stops near important local service areas.

I noted that eliminating the Ride Free Area will affect those with few resources, and could place an additional burden on human services providers. I encouraged support for a free shuttle service in the core of Downtown Seattle with stops near important local service areas, including Harborview Medical Center, and a 20-minute operation schedule.

Additional background information on the Ride Free Area, and the Congestion Relief Fee, is listed below.

In 2011, the King County Council passed legislation to implement a $20 vehicle license fee for two years, referred to as the Congestion Relief charge. This allowed King County Metro to avoid cutting 17% of bus service in King County. However, the authorizing legislation passed by the state legislature required a 2/3 majority vote for the Council to pass the fee. Consequently, in order to pass, a deal was required to eliminate the Free Ride Zone. Seattle was paying $400,000 for the cost of the operations, below King County Metro’s $2.2 million operating cost.

On a broader level, the Congestion Relief charge was authorized for two years, until the end of 2013, so unless the state legislature takes action in 2013, the prospect of deep cuts still exists. I supported finding a permanent solution in the state legislature this session, but efforts were unsuccessful.

Click here for information on changes to riding buses downtown such as a changeover to a pay-on-entry system at all times. Metro will ask passengers to enter through the front door and exit via the rear door, to reduce the amount of time buses spend at each stop.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics blog by clicking on this RSS feed.
• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email to urbanpolitics-subscribe@speakeasy.net. (no message needed in the body of your email)

Seawall in 1917 at Columbia Street (Seattle Municipal Archives)

Under the terms of the City- State agreement to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle is responsible for replacing the nearly 100-year old seawall. The bored tunnel to replace the viaduct is planned for early 2016, and the seawall must be completed on the same timeline, and before the Viaduct can come down.

On Monday the Council will consider Resolution 31731, which lays out a process for determining the final amount for a bond measure on the November ballot. The work would be completed by July 2. Included is a review the City’s overall financial capacity, what other funding could be available, remaining risks in estimated project costs, environmental permitting, and construction approaches. The resolution calls for a June public hearing, and a review of a bond measure in the context of the City’s debt capacity limits and other capital priorities.

Seattle Municipal Archives

The most recent cost estimate, at 35% design, is $325 million. The King County Flood Control District has committed $30 million, and the City has spent funds on design. An estimated $178 million would go toward soil stabilization, needed to stabilize the portion of the waterfront adjacent to Puget Sound.

Because Seattle is responsible for funding replacement of the seawall, if a ballot measure does not pass, then seawall replacement would need to be funded through general government revenues, which would require a reduction in other services.

The Presentation on Elliott Bay Seawall on Monday’s agenda has additional information.

The seawall has two portions. The first portion, needed for Viaduct replacement, is planned for City funding. Federal funding is targeted for the second portion, in the north end of Downtown.

In March, when I was in Washington, DC I met with senator Cantwell, and staff from Senator Murray’s office, and emphasized the importance of federal involvement in funding the second phase. This city/federal split in funding would be in line with usual local/federal division for funding seawall projects.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics blog by clicking on this RSS feed.
• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email to urbanpolitics-subscribe@speakeasy.net. (no message needed in the body of your email)

The Transit Master Plan is intended to guide SDOT for the next 10-20 years.

The legislation the Council will consider requires SDOT to provide annual status updates, and that the plan will be updated every five years.

The Transportation Committee, chaired by Councilmember Rasmussen, added a section requiring that SDOT keep the Council appraised of efforts involving the prioritization, planning, design and development of high-capacity projects.

The plan lists six priority strategies:

1. Continue Implementation of Priority Bus Corridors
2. Develop Center City Transit to Support Downtown Growth and Vitality
3. Plan, Fund, and Build Priority High Capacity Transit Projects
4. Enhance Walk-Bike-Ride Access where Needs are Greatest
5. Improve Transit Legibility
6. Pursue Funding to Enhance Transit Service and Facilities

Additional background information is available on SDOT’s Transit Master Plan website.

Implementation would require extensive cooperation with outside agencies, as King County Metro operates bus service, and Sound Transit operates light rail and regional bus routes. The state legislature would need to authorize any additional funding mechanisms.

Keep in touch…

• Subscribe to my Urban Politics blog by clicking on this RSS feed.
• Subscribe to my Urban Politics email newsletter by sending a blank email to urbanpolitics-subscribe@speakeasy.net. (no message needed in the body of your email)