Just saw on KOMO4 news, starting in May, price of car tabs are going up another $20.

Didn't we vote once before to have inexpensive car tabs? How did we get back to the rising cost of tabs? They are slowly nickel and diming us back to the high costs that they once were.

It's easy to see the temptation since every $20 the govt brings in, they get to spend $50...

That is such effing bull$hit!!!

Hmm, hadn't heard this one yet....

Keith

Perhaps it's just Seattle area?

http://www.publicola.net/2010/10/25/city-adopts-20-car-license-fee/

wonder want would happen if you got a post office box in say elma

I heard City of Seattle residents only.

Gotta pay for those bike paths

Oh they check that crap. Due to King Co. residents dodging taxes GH ( and others ) has to verify we live here so they can not dodge the taxes.

Seems they love to vote the taxes in but hate to pay them. Gotta love the PC world.

Almost forgot. GH residents ( and other counties ) get to pay for this little jewel of added expenses in their counties to catch out of county folks dodging but not the big three whose residents are dodging the taxes. Rather nice of them don't you think?

Yes it is Seattle, the Transportation Benefit District board( Seattle City Counil) voted it in. But remember the Transportation Benefit District board didn't have the authority to vote this in, so what did they do..... They voted to give themselves the power, to vote this in.

Something seems very wrong with that.

Left the jungle almost three years ago and damn glad I did.

How about those who wish to ride their fairy wheelers to work adorned in a neon spandex jumpsuit start registering said fairy wheelers for $100/pop?

That is, if they want to share the roads without me intentially swerving at them

McGinn should change his first name to Bike....

That's a lot like asking why don't those who drive cars pay for their own damn roads? It's a myth that fuel and motor vehicle taxes fully fund our road systems. While kids who ride bikes don't pay many taxes, adults who ride bikes do. So how do you figure that bike riders aren't paying for bike paths?

Sg

SW,

When you intentionally swerve at me, don't bitch about getting "keyed" with the carbide tipped antenna piece I ride with for that purpose. After all, you're breaking the law and asking for it by not keeping a "safe" distance between us.

Sg

All tounge in cheek Salmo,.... I would never, and never have intentionally swerved at anybody

I do however take issue with bike riders who take exorbinant risks by riding on highways and other dangerous roads, sometimes during adverse weather and light conditions. They pose a risk to themselves and to motorists. Additionally, these risks are not risks that are mandatory for the rider to take. They do so because they enjoy doing so.

I say this because I have two relatives who have had their lives turned upside down after hitting and killing two riders who were taking particularly extreme risks. One t-boned his bike into my step-father's vehicle while he was turning into his driveway while doing over 50mph down a residential hill in low-light/dusk conditions with zero reflective gear. He's dead. The other was traveling on a narrow, windy highway in a terrential downpour. He was hit and killed by another relative. The particulars of the latter situation are unclear and trial pending, but one thing that is clear is that both parties were at fault.

That said I don't think your comparison to road and highway funding holds water. Sure there are user groups who pay for roads who may not directly benefit from their use, but who are they?

Society as a whole benefits from having the ability to travel from one place to another without a lot of hassle.

Bike paths and trails however are generally utilized by a specific user group, bike riders. Also perhaps some walkers, joggers, roller bladers, and stay-at-home starbucks mothers pushing strollers.

Trust me, I'm no fan of having the gov't register, police, and charge for the registration of a frigging bike, roller skates, strollers, what have you. On the flip side I think there should be a more equitable solution to the funding of something that is only utilized by a small, easily defined user group.

AM, no offense,....... but you might as well place a picture of your new avatar right (here) in regards to that response.

If you seriously believe that the numbers of bike riders in the Puget Sound area (or any area for that matter) actually amount to any negligible difference in traffic congestion and air quality,..........then I've got a bridge to sell ya.

C'mon.

"we all benefit because bike lanes and paths generally remove a car from roads and hiways, (less congestion) and there is a reduction in nasty smog. (less lung/breathing problems)"

I'd like to see someone prove that. The majority of people that work in the downtown Seattle core live no where near close enough to make riding a bike an option. Seattle has been hell bent on making it miserable to drive a car in the downtown area since mayor Rice.

For once dude,......... we agree.

Actually some do, Volvos have a PermAir catalyst coating on the radiator, which turns ground level ozone into oxygen.

SW,

A whole lot of the money that pays for roads and similar infrastructure improvements and maintenance is via federal funds, payed for by everyone who pays federal taxes, which includes those spandex clad cyclists. So my point is that they too are paying for roads and bike paths. BTW, most bike paths aren't that. They are what are called "multi-use" paths, used by cyclists, roller bladers, skaters, joggers, walkers, dog walkers, and I don't know who else. It would be a serious error in judgement to single out cyclists as the user group that should pay for bike paths that in fact are shared with a broader range of users. Users who are not quite so easily pigeon-holed.

As for cyclists who ride dangerously, they are the flip side of drivers who drive dangerously. Only the cyclists run the greater risk of injury or death. That is actually a separate issue, since neither bad driving or riding should be encouraged or tolerated.

Sorry about your relatives. No one wants to be on either end of a traffic fatality.

Stlhead,

Indeed it is a small percentage, but you don't have to be real bright to figure out that each commuter cyclist is ONE less car on the road. Is the reduction in congestion and pollution measurable? I don't know, and I wouldn't be surprised in the least if it isn't measurable. But proving that it equals that many fewer cars on the road is pretty much self-evident.

Chuck S.,

You might as well say that cars, as numerous as they are, don't justify the truly insane expense it takes to accomodate them (and I'm one of them). A freeway interchange may accomodate thousands of cars per day, but I'm astonished when I read how much one of those pieces of concrete costs.

FP,

Go ahead, but you figure wrong. Maybe you'd like all paths and roads to be paid for by their unique user groups, but that's not how it works.

BTW, there's over 30 miles of multi-use path in Thurston Co. paid for by a variety of public funding sources. As a taxpayer, consider yourself screwed too, just like King Co. citizens.

I ride my bikes mainly on public roads. But I pay gas taxes too and a shitload of other taxes as well, so I don't feel like my road use is being subsidized by you and others.

Sg

My daily commute has already been effect by one bike lane addition.
Looks like a second one is planned as well. In over 15 years of driving this route twice daily, I can't say I've ever seen anyone riding their bike up the big ass hill to 15th Ave NE.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012625760_125thstreet15m.html

On this with you I will disagree.

While statistically most riders who do battle with a two ton automobile have the greatest risk of injury or death. It does not mean that riders are the only party at risk.

If I have to swerve to avoid a rider coming around a blind corner who is riding at night, in the rain, and 5ft on the wrong side of the white line. Then I now run the risk of flying off the road or colliding with another vehicle.

We can agree though, there are dangerous drivers and riders.

It shows a great disregard for human safety and reflects a deeply selfish individual.

They both piss me off.

"each commuter cyclist is ONE less car on the road."

This is assuming a cyclist owns a car and would drive it if not commuting by bike. My assumption is that a commuter cyclist lives close enough to their work that they have other options to riding a bike or driving a car like walking. Also, clogged freeways are the congestion issue not clogged neighborhood streets. A commuter cyclist if he chose to drive would not typically be using the freeway as his driving distance is not great. To me it's a pie in the sky idea of utopia akin to taking away bathrooms and assuming people will pee less. Although I don't live in Seattle or even King County I get tired of my tax dollars being used against me. If Seattle were truly on their game they would encourage businesses to not locate downtown. Hypocrisy.

I also assume that a commuter cyclist is going to be a commuter cyclist with or without bike lanes.

Spoken like a true teabagger!!!

125th is an arterial if I'm not mistaken. Adding a bike lane probably makes sense, but not at the expense of removing a motor vehicle lane. I avoid riding on a lot of major urban arterial streets specifically because I think it's hazardous to bike there, usually because speed, traffic volume, and layout makes it less likely that drivers will see me.

Stlhead,

Some who commute on bikes don't own cars, but surveys in many areas (Seattle, Oly) show that they do. I can drive to work in 15 minutes, bike in 30 minutes, take the bus in an hour and 15 minutes, or walk in 2 hours. With options like that, driving and biking are reasonable. A bus in Seattle is probably more feasible than where I live, but this gives a range. Bike lanes make a difference if you consider my comments about riding on arterial streets.

And if businesses don't locate downtown, what alternative is there but to add to urban sprawl? And everyone complains about how sprawl degrades the environment and generally adds to overall traffic congestion.

It seems like the real issue is what are the feasible transportation alternatives with a rapidly increasing human population and densely populated areas? Transportation engineers finally figured out that single occupant cars and trucks are not on the short list of feasible alternatives; yet that is exactly what a majority of people appear to want, a choice that no longer belongs on the menu.

Sg

SG,
You are correct, 125th is an arterial. The best two options for getting to LC way are either 125th or 145th. Taking away a lane of traffic will likely shift more cars to 145th, increase congestion there.
Adding a bike lane to 125th is a foolish decision IMHO.

They recently did the same thing on westbound 130th between Aurora and Greenwood. In the afternoon, the place is a complete cluster. One lane now ends abruptly, replaced by a bike lane. Folks are now forced to turn right or get over quickly into the now single through lane. I've seen several accidents and many near misses since they put in the bike lane.
I find it hard to see the benefit of removing an arterial lane of traffic for a bike lane that is about a total of about eight blocks long.....

The mayor and everyone else pushing bikes and mass transit are doing all of us a favor. The days of everyone driving cars everywhere , big 4 x4's, 5th wheels and gas hog boats are numbered and economically extinct.

So we've learned that SG is a tweaker riding a stolen bike and dodging cars that are trying to take him out. Do you have a bell and basket? Pee Wee Herman road a bike every where..... just saying.

Even cramming people onto buses ceases to be a solution if we are reducing lanes. Until they fix the true problem which is the I-5 bottle neck and on/off ramps on both sides of the freeway there is no solution other than feel good stuff.

Really?
I'm sure my customers will be glad to wait for me while I take the bus or ride my bike from Kirkland to Seattle to see them.

Hey, I resent that remark! I've never used meth, and none of my bikes are stolen. Nor do I have a bell or basket, but I do have panniers for my mountain bike for a stealth steelheading trip I've been planning. Nor do I dodge many cars, believing as I do that effective cycling means riding responsibly by following traffic laws.

No argument that I-5 has a vicious bottleneck, but thinking it's possible to build our way out of urban traffic congestion strongly indicates that you're not up to speed on the subject. WA could raise the state gas tax by $1.00 a gallon, and it wouldn't be enough additional money to eliminate traffic congestion. You could take the Click & Clack approach and advocate completely paving America, so that you can ostensibly drive anywhere, anytime, ala Fish Prince, but if everything is paved, then there is no where to go that is worth going. Just saying . . .

Sg