Washington

[stevashe]

I'm skeptical based on how much more even bad of a time I had on 99 from Fremont southward into downtown last year.  99 was certainly way slower than it had been before the dedicated bus lane was put in.  I'm unclear if more traffic was being drawn over though from construction on I-5 at Lake Union.

Late on responding to this, but your experience was very much not the norm due to the construction on I-5. The bus lane was not the main cause of your experience. On a normal day, Aurora is free flowing until just south of the Aurora bridge and then moves at a respectable 20-25 mph in afternoon traffic. (This route was part of my commute home for a few months.)

Note also that there is a lane drop going into the tunnel regardless, so the bus lane really just ends the lane early and there would likely continue to be congestion even if it were to be removed.

[kkt]

That's the rub, I lived in Seattle I'm sure I could ride a bike or do something other than drive.  Problem is as a work visitor I'm kind of stuck with what options I'm given by our travel department.  The trains don't stop in Everett (the auxiliary facilities up near Smokey Point), Whidbey Island or Kitsap so they aren't much use. 

Even as a distance runner, I've only been able to take advantage of it once when I was given a hotel in downtown.  Most of the time I get a hotel near SeaTac or somewhere way north of downtown like Lynnwood.  Yes, Seattle is geographically constrained but it is also way larger than compared to San Francisco (where running is viable anywhere in city).

I'm not trying to be critical per se (aside from reducing capacity on 99).  I just find the situation frustrating when I visit the area knowing that there aren't any decent options for how I'm going to get places.  The ferry system is often my go-to bet more often than not as a bypass of the urban core.

Getting from Seattle to Everett, Lynnwood, and SeaTac are all very doable through a mix of buses and trains (especially for the latter two, which are the termini of the 1 Line). I'm not saying we shouldn't have cars, but it shouldn't be a priority to provide access to Downtown Seattle given the space constraints. For the Aurora corridor, the E Line is struggling in traffic and is the busiest bus route in the Northwest (outside of Vancouver), so it absolutely needs to have its own lane.

As for playing catch up, Seattle has done plenty of that and established a pretty strong culture of riding both the trains and buses (the latter is missing from so many American cities). Combined with the free employee transit passes for large businesses, parking rates in downtown, and relatively good commuter links to most relevant areas, the mode share for downtown commuters was majority non-car in 2019. We're almost back at those levels too.

SeaTac is not a terminus for the 1 Line anymore - it goes to Federal Way now.

Yes, the Link into downtown is faster than car from where I am around NE 65th St. and 15th Ave. NE, if you're going at morning or afternoon rush hour.  I-5 would be very slow, and the city streets you'd be on between the exit and whatever parking garage you were going to would also be very slow.  Sometimes Eastlake would be better, but sometimes it wouldn't.  The Link is generally pretty reliable barring scheduled maintenance.

[jay8g]

Seattle is a funny place when it comes to geography and topography. Add in the insane land values all but preventing buying large amounts of right of way (Sound Transit is having enough issues with that for their light rail lines, which require much less space than a highway project) and it's no surprise that Seattle is way ahead of most other cities in terms of reducing car dependency, despite being way behind in terms of infrastructure. There's a good chance the tunnel project will be the last car-oriented megaproject to ever be built in Seattle, unless the state can eventually scrape together the money for a similar rebuild of I-5 (at this point it seems that they can't even afford basic maintenance, considering the Revive I-5 work keeps getting delayed and trimmed -- they just cut $25 million out of the contract that's already underway).

And for the most part, it seems that people who actually live here are relatively happy with that.

[kkt]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

[Bruce]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

The rub is that these BRT projects are also road projects in disguise. Relocated utilities, new pavement, new sidewalks and intersection treatments...all part of the package because SDOT can charge it to the transit account instead of their own road account.

[Bruce]

The high number of transfers required to get around on Valley Metro was a huge turnoff when I lived in Phoenix.  The annual ridership numbers were around 26,000,000 in 2024 and suspect are some reflective of this issue.  For the most part though, if you want to get around in Phoenix by car there are plenty of options (including a well-planned out street grid).

I want to say King County is almost pulling 90,000,000 riders in recent years.  I tend to think the high King County ridership number is more reflective of how difficult it is to get around metro Seattle rather than speaking to it being optimally efficient.

The ideal system is a basic grid that only requires one transfer at most for the most common trip pairs, and both routes being very frequent and not dependent on timed transfers. Seattle's network has been moving away from the hub-and-spoke system that originally developed (by following streetcars and later trolleybus wires) into something with more crosstown and circular service.

Regional transit ridership was just under 151 million in 2024 (12% increase from 2023) with Metro at 88.6 million and still growing (also by 12%). Prior to the pandemic, Metro had 125 million annual trips alone, but a good portion has shifted to Sound Transit due to rail extensions.

[jay8g]

All they're doing on Eastlake is repaving with some minor upgrades, not even anything as elaborate as the Madison BRT project. Which just goes to show how difficult even basic maintenance is around here these days.

[kkt]

All they're doing on Eastlake is repaving with some minor upgrades, not even anything as elaborate as the Madison BRT project. Which just goes to show how difficult even basic maintenance is around here these days.

Really?  In some places it looks like they've dug 6 or 8 feet down.

[jay8g]

A lot of the time when these big paving projects happen, utilities will want to come in at the same time to upgrade their stuff while the road is torn up. Looks like SPU had a lot of water main work on this project (which is a constant source of bad PR for SDOT's projects).

[stevashe]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

The rub is that these BRT projects are also road projects in disguise. Relocated utilities, new pavement, new sidewalks and intersection treatments...all part of the package because SDOT can charge it to the transit account instead of their own road account.

That's not how the funding works and is also not the reason they add road elements to transit projects. (I'd know since I've worked on multiple SDOT projects myself.)

On funding, if a project contains multiple types of work, each portion will be charged to the corresponding account. Transit funding would only be used for roadway work if the roadway work is required to build the transit specific improvements (for example, ripping up and replacing pavement to move a bus stop). Repaving work that is happening just because the pavement is due to be replaced or utility replacement that wasn't necessitated by a conflict with transit improvements would not count.

As for the reason why significant transit projects in Seattle are including other elements, the simple reason for that is to realize cost savings by getting all the work done at once. If you are already removing the pavement, it's much cheaper to replace pipes at the same time so you don't need to tear up the whole road again later!

[Bruce]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

The rub is that these BRT projects are also road projects in disguise. Relocated utilities, new pavement, new sidewalks and intersection treatments...all part of the package because SDOT can charge it to the transit account instead of their own road account.

That's not how the funding works and is also not the reason they add road elements to transit projects. (I'd know since I've worked on multiple SDOT projects myself.)

On funding, if a project contains multiple types of work, each portion will be charged to the corresponding account. Transit funding would only be used for roadway work if the roadway work is required to build the transit specific improvements (for example, ripping up and replacing pavement to move a bus stop). Repaving work that is happening just because the pavement is due to be replaced or utility replacement that wasn't necessitated by a conflict with transit improvements would not count.

As for the reason why significant transit projects in Seattle are including other elements, the simple reason for that is to realize cost savings by getting all the work done at once. If you are already removing the pavement, it's much cheaper to replace pipes at the same time so you don't need to tear up the whole road again later!

The J Line funding mix makes no mention of funding outside of the Move Seattle levy, federal grants, and contributions from Metro and WSDOT. Even non-transit projects are affected by scope bloat, such as the new bike lanes in downtown.

[stevashe]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

The rub is that these BRT projects are also road projects in disguise. Relocated utilities, new pavement, new sidewalks and intersection treatments...all part of the package because SDOT can charge it to the transit account instead of their own road account.

That's not how the funding works and is also not the reason they add road elements to transit projects. (I'd know since I've worked on multiple SDOT projects myself.)

On funding, if a project contains multiple types of work, each portion will be charged to the corresponding account. Transit funding would only be used for roadway work if the roadway work is required to build the transit specific improvements (for example, ripping up and replacing pavement to move a bus stop). Repaving work that is happening just because the pavement is due to be replaced or utility replacement that wasn't necessitated by a conflict with transit improvements would not count.

As for the reason why significant transit projects in Seattle are including other elements, the simple reason for that is to realize cost savings by getting all the work done at once. If you are already removing the pavement, it's much cheaper to replace pipes at the same time so you don't need to tear up the whole road again later!

The J Line funding mix makes no mention of funding outside of the Move Seattle levy, federal grants, and contributions from Metro and WSDOT. Even non-transit projects are affected by scope bloat, such as the new bike lanes in downtown.

Sure, but the Levy funding is supposed to be used for multiple purposes, so that doesn't really disprove my point. As for "scope boat", I'd still argue it's better to get everything done at one time with a large project than with many smaller ones.

[Rothman]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

The rub is that these BRT projects are also road projects in disguise. Relocated utilities, new pavement, new sidewalks and intersection treatments...all part of the package because SDOT can charge it to the transit account instead of their own road account.

That's not how the funding works and is also not the reason they add road elements to transit projects. (I'd know since I've worked on multiple SDOT projects myself.)

On funding, if a project contains multiple types of work, each portion will be charged to the corresponding account. Transit funding would only be used for roadway work if the roadway work is required to build the transit specific improvements (for example, ripping up and replacing pavement to move a bus stop). Repaving work that is happening just because the pavement is due to be replaced or utility replacement that wasn't necessitated by a conflict with transit improvements would not count.

As for the reason why significant transit projects in Seattle are including other elements, the simple reason for that is to realize cost savings by getting all the work done at once. If you are already removing the pavement, it's much cheaper to replace pipes at the same time so you don't need to tear up the whole road again later!

The J Line funding mix makes no mention of funding outside of the Move Seattle levy, federal grants, and contributions from Metro and WSDOT. Even non-transit projects are affected by scope bloat, such as the new bike lanes in downtown.

Sure, but the Levy funding is supposed to be used for multiple purposes, so that doesn't really disprove my point. As for "scope boat", I'd still argue it's better to get everything done at one time with a large project than with many smaller ones.

From someone in NY, where all transit is operated by public authorities, the fact that SDOT manages whichever streetcar lines sounds messy to me (see also MBTA's overhead electric lines being maintained by whichever utility in Boston rather than MBTA).

For example, Central New York Regional Transit Authority (Centro) has a massive BRT project.  Federal funds either just flow through NYSDOT and are directly administered by FHWA (certain grant funds only -- section 53xx funding) or apportionments are just transferred over to FTA and that's the end of it for NYSDOT, unless a highway work permit is needed for being on state infrastructure.  Can't imagine dealing with the City of Syracuse on a transit project directly...

(personal opinion emphasized)

[stevashe]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

The rub is that these BRT projects are also road projects in disguise. Relocated utilities, new pavement, new sidewalks and intersection treatments...all part of the package because SDOT can charge it to the transit account instead of their own road account.

That's not how the funding works and is also not the reason they add road elements to transit projects. (I'd know since I've worked on multiple SDOT projects myself.)

On funding, if a project contains multiple types of work, each portion will be charged to the corresponding account. Transit funding would only be used for roadway work if the roadway work is required to build the transit specific improvements (for example, ripping up and replacing pavement to move a bus stop). Repaving work that is happening just because the pavement is due to be replaced or utility replacement that wasn't necessitated by a conflict with transit improvements would not count.

As for the reason why significant transit projects in Seattle are including other elements, the simple reason for that is to realize cost savings by getting all the work done at once. If you are already removing the pavement, it's much cheaper to replace pipes at the same time so you don't need to tear up the whole road again later!

The J Line funding mix makes no mention of funding outside of the Move Seattle levy, federal grants, and contributions from Metro and WSDOT. Even non-transit projects are affected by scope bloat, such as the new bike lanes in downtown.

Sure, but the Levy funding is supposed to be used for multiple purposes, so that doesn't really disprove my point. As for "scope boat", I'd still argue it's better to get everything done at one time with a large project than with many smaller ones.

From someone in NY, where all transit is operated by public authorities, the fact that SDOT manages whichever streetcar lines sounds messy to me (see also MBTA's overhead electric lines being maintained by whichever utility in Boston rather than MBTA).

For example, Central New York Regional Transit Authority (Centro) has a massive BRT project.  Federal funds either just flow through NYSDOT and are directly administered by FHWA (certain grant funds only -- section 53xx funding) or apportionments are just transferred over to FTA and that's the end of it for NYSDOT, unless a highway work permit is needed for being on state infrastructure.  Can't imagine dealing with the City of Syracuse on a transit project directly...

(personal opinion emphasized)

The streetcar is definitely a bit weird. However, our transit agency is not completely uninvolved in it. SDOT owns and provides funding for the streetcar, but the actual operations are handled by King County Metro! Confused yet?

[Rothman]

"Ever" is a very long time.  I think most Seattle residents agree with maintaining the freeways we've already got, even as they support money for new transit projects rather than adding new freeways.

Seattle has been busy rebuilding Eastlake it seems like forever.  Just for a surface bus route.  Too bad that while they're digging they aren't putting in a subway, as busses will always be slow due to stopping at intersections.

The rub is that these BRT projects are also road projects in disguise. Relocated utilities, new pavement, new sidewalks and intersection treatments...all part of the package because SDOT can charge it to the transit account instead of their own road account.

That's not how the funding works and is also not the reason they add road elements to transit projects. (I'd know since I've worked on multiple SDOT projects myself.)

On funding, if a project contains multiple types of work, each portion will be charged to the corresponding account. Transit funding would only be used for roadway work if the roadway work is required to build the transit specific improvements (for example, ripping up and replacing pavement to move a bus stop). Repaving work that is happening just because the pavement is due to be replaced or utility replacement that wasn't necessitated by a conflict with transit improvements would not count.

As for the reason why significant transit projects in Seattle are including other elements, the simple reason for that is to realize cost savings by getting all the work done at once. If you are already removing the pavement, it's much cheaper to replace pipes at the same time so you don't need to tear up the whole road again later!

The J Line funding mix makes no mention of funding outside of the Move Seattle levy, federal grants, and contributions from Metro and WSDOT. Even non-transit projects are affected by scope bloat, such as the new bike lanes in downtown.

Sure, but the Levy funding is supposed to be used for multiple purposes, so that doesn't really disprove my point. As for "scope boat", I'd still argue it's better to get everything done at one time with a large project than with many smaller ones.

From someone in NY, where all transit is operated by public authorities, the fact that SDOT manages whichever streetcar lines sounds messy to me (see also MBTA's overhead electric lines being maintained by whichever utility in Boston rather than MBTA).

For example, Central New York Regional Transit Authority (Centro) has a massive BRT project.  Federal funds either just flow through NYSDOT and are directly administered by FHWA (certain grant funds only -- section 53xx funding) or apportionments are just transferred over to FTA and that's the end of it for NYSDOT, unless a highway work permit is needed for being on state infrastructure.  Can't imagine dealing with the City of Syracuse on a transit project directly...

(personal opinion emphasized)

The streetcar is definitely a bit weird. However, our transit agency is not completely uninvolved in it. SDOT owns and provides funding for the streetcar, but the actual operations are handled by King County Metro! Confused yet?

Not confused, just facepalming.

[jay8g]

And then you have Sound Transit, which operates Tacoma Link directly, has the local transit agencies operate most of their other services (except Sounder which is operated by BNSF and maintained by Amtrak), and is going to contract out their new BRT services to a private contractor. Nothing is simple with the transit agencies around here...

[stevashe]

I noticed when coming up to Bremerton last week for the KDDA Season Championship Race / Demo at Thunderbird Stadium that there are now exit number tabs posted at the Wollochet (11), Burnham (14) and Purdy (15 NB / 17 SB) exits that I did not see when I last came up in July for the Whaling Days Race / Demo. There is also a weird EXIT 11 tab stuck above the SPEED LIMIT 60 sign just past the northbound on ramp from Olympic Drive, which can be seen at the 12:50 mark in this video. Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8doUkgGLBU

I noticed those recently too, but haven't gotten pictures. They are being installed as part of the repaving project in the area. There's an Exit 11 tab erroneously placed above an adopt a highway sign in the other direction as well! I also just noticed last night that all the exit tabs are left aligned. I heard from someone at WSDOT that a bunch of paving projects were rushed out the door this summer after the legislature provided extra funding, so I suspect these signing plans may not have been reviewed for errors.

I saw the two peculiar Exit 11 tabs last month and thought, what the heck? Shot photos of each and added them to an update for the Washington State Route 16 guide.

SR 16 westbound:



SR 16 eastbound:



One other issue I noted while adding photos to the site was that the last guide sign for Wollochet Drive has a tab for Exit 10 instead of Exit 11:

Just traveled by this area for the first time in a month. (I normally go by pretty often but haven't been out much since having a newborn in the house!)

Anyway, these signs have all been fixed! Both errant exit tabs have been removed, and all exit tabs for the Wollochet exit are now Exit 12 (which is more accurate than Exit 11 since milepost 12 is just south of the overpass: https://maps.app.goo.gl/AYMEWWprB1Xerpi59?g_st=ac )

[gonealookin]

A 0.05% BAC limit seems unnecessarily low to me.  That would result in citing people who aren't really impaired (while somebody at 0.18% zooms by the law enforcement officer who has a driver pulled over who was doing a few mph over the speed limit with a 0.06%).

OLYMPIA — Senate lawmakers voted to pass legislation Wednesday to lower the legal drinking limit when driving, a move some say will provide more safety on Washington roads.

Sponsored by Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, at the request of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Senate Bill 5067 decreases the blood alcohol content limit statewide from 0.08% to 0.05% when driving or operating watercraft.
...
If passed, Washington would join Utah as the only other state in the country that has a limit that low.

It only passed in the Washington Senate by a 26-23 margin.  The House has to approve it and the Governor sign it to become law.

[Rothman]

A 0.05% BAC limit seems unnecessarily low to me.  That would result in citing people who aren't really impaired (while somebody at 0.18% zooms by the law enforcement officer who has a driver pulled over who was doing a few mph over the speed limit with a 0.06%).

OLYMPIA — Senate lawmakers voted to pass legislation Wednesday to lower the legal drinking limit when driving, a move some say will provide more safety on Washington roads.

Sponsored by Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, at the request of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Senate Bill 5067 decreases the blood alcohol content limit statewide from 0.08% to 0.05% when driving or operating watercraft.
...
If passed, Washington would join Utah as the only other state in the country that has a limit that low.

It only passed in the Washington Senate by a 26-23 margin.  The House has to approve it and the Governor sign it to become law.

Wonder if there's other sources of alcohol besides beverages that could trigger the limit in ingredient doses (e.g., vanilla extract).

[Bruce]

A 0.05% BAC limit seems unnecessarily low to me.  That would result in citing people who aren't really impaired (while somebody at 0.18% zooms by the law enforcement officer who has a driver pulled over who was doing a few mph over the speed limit with a 0.06%).

0.05% is the limit in quite a bit of the European Union (Germany goes as low as 0.03% if there's another offense or incident), so it's not unprecedented.

[kkt]

A 0.05% BAC limit seems unnecessarily low to me.  That would result in citing people who aren't really impaired (while somebody at 0.18% zooms by the law enforcement officer who has a driver pulled over who was doing a few mph over the speed limit with a 0.06%).

OLYMPIA — Senate lawmakers voted to pass legislation Wednesday to lower the legal drinking limit when driving, a move some say will provide more safety on Washington roads.

Sponsored by Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, at the request of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Senate Bill 5067 decreases the blood alcohol content limit statewide from 0.08% to 0.05% when driving or operating watercraft.
...
If passed, Washington would join Utah as the only other state in the country that has a limit that low.

It only passed in the Washington Senate by a 26-23 margin.  The House has to approve it and the Governor sign it to become law.

Wonder if there's other sources of alcohol besides beverages that could trigger the limit in ingredient doses (e.g., vanilla extract).

Pretty doubtful.  Vanilla extract is usually used in things to be baked or cooked, and the alcohol will evaporate quickly leaving some vanilla flavor behind.  And the vanilla is used in pretty small amounts anyway. 

[Rothman]

A 0.05% BAC limit seems unnecessarily low to me.  That would result in citing people who aren't really impaired (while somebody at 0.18% zooms by the law enforcement officer who has a driver pulled over who was doing a few mph over the speed limit with a 0.06%).

OLYMPIA — Senate lawmakers voted to pass legislation Wednesday to lower the legal drinking limit when driving, a move some say will provide more safety on Washington roads.

Sponsored by Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, at the request of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Senate Bill 5067 decreases the blood alcohol content limit statewide from 0.08% to 0.05% when driving or operating watercraft.
...
If passed, Washington would join Utah as the only other state in the country that has a limit that low.

It only passed in the Washington Senate by a 26-23 margin.  The House has to approve it and the Governor sign it to become law.

Wonder if there's other sources of alcohol besides beverages that could trigger the limit in ingredient doses (e.g., vanilla extract).

Pretty doubtful.  Vanilla extract is usually used in things to be baked or cooked, and the alcohol will evaporate quickly leaving some vanilla flavor behind.  And the vanilla is used in pretty small amounts anyway. 

Chocolate frosting.

[kkt]

A 0.05% BAC limit seems unnecessarily low to me.  That would result in citing people who aren't really impaired (while somebody at 0.18% zooms by the law enforcement officer who has a driver pulled over who was doing a few mph over the speed limit with a 0.06%).

OLYMPIA — Senate lawmakers voted to pass legislation Wednesday to lower the legal drinking limit when driving, a move some say will provide more safety on Washington roads.

Sponsored by Sen. John Lovick, D-Mill Creek, at the request of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, Senate Bill 5067 decreases the blood alcohol content limit statewide from 0.08% to 0.05% when driving or operating watercraft.
...
If passed, Washington would join Utah as the only other state in the country that has a limit that low.

It only passed in the Washington Senate by a 26-23 margin.  The House has to approve it and the Governor sign it to become law.

Wonder if there's other sources of alcohol besides beverages that could trigger the limit in ingredient doses (e.g., vanilla extract).

Pretty doubtful.  Vanilla extract is usually used in things to be baked or cooked, and the alcohol will evaporate quickly leaving some vanilla flavor behind.  And the vanilla is used in pretty small amounts anyway. 

Chocolate frosting.

Okay, just for grins the first chocolate frosting recipe I found on the web is from a site called Lauren's Latest, and to frost an 8-inch cake it calls for 1 teaspoon vanilla extract.

Vanilla extract is 35% to 40% alcohol, so the same strength as typical rum (not the extra strong rum like 151).  So even if you ate the entire cake's worth of frosting it's still just the same as one teaspoon of rum - not really going to hurt anyone, even a child.  I'd be more concerned about the sugar overload than the alcohol in the vanilla.

I did see a story about a young teen whose friends dared him to drink the entire bottle of vanilla (what are friends for?) and had to go to the ER, but we were talking about its use in food or drink, not being foolish enough to chug it straight.  It doesn't taste at all good straight.  Even if a young child got ahold of it, they'd probably spit it out and not drink any more.  That kind of unsound judgment had to come as a teen.

[jakeroot]

It was .03 when I lived in Japan, .08 has struck me as absurdly high since I returned.

[Bickendan]

Japan at least has the public transit infrastructure to better handle a .03 limit.