Solution to Seattle traffic (condo, house, dorms)

[Ira500]

90% of the bus cost is paid by taxes
Nope. it's about 25%. If people didn't have the option of taking the bus, many of them would drive and make traffic worse....And if taxes shouldn't subsidize transit, then taxes shouldn't be used to maintain roads. Maybe each driver ought to be taxed on how many miles they drive or how much damage they do to the roads.

[jenlion]

Originally Posted by Ira500

Maybe each driver ought to be taxed on how many miles they drive or how much damage they do to the roads.

But each driver IS taxed that way. Every time we buy gas. You buy more gas, unless you're driving a prius/low-mileage car, you're paying those taxes for how much more you're driving and using the roads.

Not perfect -- our realtor told us some people drive all winter on snow tires and beat up the roads pretty badly and its some people's pet peeve -- but it's a pretty good approximation.

Maybe if we need better funding to improve the roads.... we should.... increase the gas tax?????????? :

[Ira500]

We do need better funding to improve the roads. right now, roads are funded by a combination of federal money, gas tax, sales tax, motor vehicle excise tax, and license tabs.
License tab costs used to be based on the value of the vehicle, but the voters threw that out in passing Eyman's initiative 695, dramatically reducing the revenue going towards roads. Federal money has been cut, sales tax revenue is down, and the voters turned down the roads and transit initiative last year, all told resulting in Washington having one of the largest shortfalls of any state in transportation needs and transportation funding. Maybe it shouldn't be left to the voters. They want all the services, but don't want to pay for it.

[seattlerain]

Originally Posted by Ira500

We do need better funding to improve the roads. right now, roads are funded by a combination of federal money, gas tax, sales tax, motor vehicle excise tax, and license tabs.
License tab costs used to be based on the value of the vehicle, but the voters threw that out in passing Eyman's initiative 695, dramatically reducing the revenue going towards roads. Federal money has been cut, sales tax revenue is down, and the voters turned down the roads and transit initiative last year, all told resulting in Washington having one of the largest shortfalls of any state in transportation needs and transportation funding. Maybe it shouldn't be left to the voters. They want all the services, but don't want to pay for it.

My thoughts as well...

[jwb123]

Live near public transportation. Do not move to these far out suburbs and then complain about traffic. Please!!

This is so basic, I can't believe I have to say it - many people can't afford to live anywhere BUT the "far out" suburbs... and many employers are set up in these "far out" suburbs. There is no true "city core" anymore, anywhere. There is no "going to town" for shopping, entertainment, work, etc.

[toughguy]

Originally Posted by Jenbar

This is so basic, I can't believe I have to say it - many people can't afford to live anywhere BUT the "far out" suburbs... and many employers are set up in these "far out" suburbs. There is no true "city core" anymore, anywhere. There is no "going to town" for shopping, entertainment, work, etc.

This is not spread out, wide open Texas. That might be true in Houston or Dallas, but in Seattle the employment centers are still primarily in Seattle, Everett, Renton, and Bellevue/Redmond/Kirkland. All of these places are within 20 miles of each other, other than Everett. There certainly is still a city core (possibly now 2 with the emergence of downtown Bellevue). The vast majority of commercial development is still in Seattle and Bellevue. Downtown Seattle and Bellevue Square are still major shopping destinations.

[jwb123]

I don't know anything about Houston or Dallas, and have only been in TX almost 2 yrs. The majority of my adult life experience is ifrom Seattle.

Downtown Seattle and Bellevue Square are still major shopping destinations.

You can live in almost any of the suburbs within a 30 mile radius of Seattle - and never actually have to go to Seattle or Bellevue. No, no "city core". It's all spread out - with employers being all over, people living all over, and people shopping all over. Prior to a few years ago, almost no one lived in downtown Seattle... that's changing now, I know.

All of these places are within 20 miles of each other,

20 miles apart, but how many minutes apart?

Also, unless you bought in several years ago - most families, and people starting out, can't afford to live in many of the cities you mentioned. Many have to go out to whatever "far out" suburbs pwright is talking about, to commute to Redmond/Bellevue and Seattle, and thus is the traffic issue.

There is also the problem of schools. People move to the "far out" suburbs for affordability, but also because of school concerns.

I'm sorry, but in Seattle, you can't just easily cry out "Live where you work!" That's just not a reality for many, even most, people.

[toughguy]

Originally Posted by Jenbar

You can live in almost any of the suburbs within a 30 mile radius of Seattle - and never actually have to go to Seattle or Bellevue. No, no "city core". It's all spread out - with employers being all over, people living all over, and people shopping all over. Prior to a few years ago, almost no one lived in downtown Seattle... that's changing now, I know.



20 miles apart, but how many minutes apart?

Also, unless you bought in several years ago - most families, and people starting out, can't afford to live in many of the cities you mentioned. Many have to go out to whatever "far out" suburbs pwright is talking about, to commute to Redmond/Bellevue and Seattle, and thus is the traffic issue.

There is also the problem of schools. People move to the "far out" suburbs for affordability, but also because of school concerns.

I'm sorry, but in Seattle, you can't just easily cry out "Live where you work!" That's just not a reality for many, even most, people.

You are right, you don't "have" to go into Seattle or Bellevue if you don't want to. That doesn't mean there is no central core. It's an undeniable fact that the vast majority of jobs are centered on Seattle and it's nearest suburbs. Major corporations aren't building their headquarters in Monroe. There are laws on the books right now that actively discourage development in exurban areas, and encourages densification in the core.

[Ira500]

Jenbar wrote " You can live in almost any of the suburbs within a 30 mile radius of Seattle and never actually have to go to Seattle or Bellevue", and then wrote " Many have to go out to whatever " far out" suburbs pwright is talking about, to commute to Redmond/Bellevue and Seattle, and thus is the traffic issue."
I don't get it. Either you never have to go into Seattle/Bellevue, or many have to go out to the suburbs to live and commute to Redmond/Bellevue/Seattle to work and contribute to the traffic issue. So which is it?

[jwb123]

You can live in almost any of the suburbs within a 30 mile radius of Seattle and never actually have to go to Seattle or Bellevue

.... for shopping. "central core" stuff. There is no "going to town" anymore.

However, most people cannot live where they work in the Seattle area - unless you are ready to plop down a huge chunk of change for a home, regardless if you work in the burbs or downtown. Many people are now moving out to Monroe, Marysville, Carnation, and further out for housing... but still having to get into the immediate burbs and city limits for work.

Sorry if I wasn't more clear.