I’ve spent a lot of time covering King County Metro’s proposed $20 “congestion reduction fee,” but there’s another local car tab hike in the works, and this one is almost definitely coming to your November ballot. How much it will be, and exactly what it will pay for is still up for grabs, but with an August 16 deadline looming, we’ll all soon find out.
“I believe that the council will approve going to the voters,” Seattle City Council Transportation Committee chair Tom Rasmussen told me yesterday. “What council members are weighing is, what are voters likely to approve?”
Yesterday council member Jean Godden told the Seattle Times that she was proposing a $40 fee that would devote more money to road repair and less to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian projects. Rasmussen suggests that with some members pushing $40 and others pushing $80, the most likely outcome is that they’ll just “split the middle.”
The Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee III (CTAC III) recommended last month that the city ask voters for the maximum $80 that state law allows, on top of the current $20 annual per car fee already being levied. That may seem like a lot of money, especially with another $20 for Metro potentially added on top, but as I’ve previously suggested, the taxes and fees we currently pay for the privilege of driving are actually quite low compared to the infrastructure and maintenance we get in return… but you can always do the calculations for yourself and come to your own conclusions.
What would we get for the additional $27.2 million a year an $80 fee is estimated to raise? CTAC III proposes dedicating 30 percent of the revenue to “pavement preservation” and “traffic safety” (in other words, road maintenance), 20 percent to implementing the city’s Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans, and 50 percent to implementing the as yet unfinished Transit Master Plan, with the bulk of that money, $9.8 million, devoted toward “transit corridor improvements“:
Make improvements along 15 corridors prioritized by Seattle’s Transit Master Plan. These improvements can include speed and reliability improvements along each corridor; enhancement and expansion of the electric trolley bus network; alternatives analysis, planning, design and construction of high capacity transit systems (e.g. bus rapid transit or streetcar/rail systems); and updates to the transit master plan. Projects should be cost- effective, make Seattle’s transit system work better and encourage an increased share of all trips in Seattle are by transit.
According to Brice Maryman, a member of CTAC III, seemingly minor improvements to transit corridors can have huge payoffs. Currently, most buses through the central core only run at between six to eight miles per hour. A mere two mile per hour increase would not only speed all vehicle traffic along the corridor, but increase efficiency on the bus route by between 25 and 33 percent, freeing up equipment and drivers to provide additional service on those and other routes.
“Simply making it more efficient for people to board buses opens up exciting possibilities,” says Maryman. Spoken like a true transit geek.
Some might object to dedicating the bulk of a car tab fee toward non-car purposes, but it’s not like road maintenance is left unfunded or ignored. CTAC III recommends that 44 percent of the existing $20 fee be dedicated toward pavement preservation, while 73 percent of the $544 million, 9-year “Bridging the Gap” levy has been spent on road maintenance since its passage in 2006. Maryman also defends using car tab money to pay for things like bicycle and pedestrian improvements. “We’re investing in those chronically underfunded things that everyone does,” explains Maryman. “Everyone walks.”
As for the prospects of this new fee passing voters, whether $40 or $60 or $80, Rasmussen says he’s “cautiously optimistic,” while Maryman is downright confident. “I think it will pass,” says Maryman, basing his assessment on polling, public testimony and past experience. “This is about doing things that Seattle voters value: Building sidewalks, filling potholes, making transit more efficient and reliable.”
And while suburban voters may balk at nearly everything with a tax increase attached to it, Seattle voters tend to be willing to pay for the kind of city they want.
I’d feel better about these city only fees if there was a way to allow city car owners to drive on all the better roads, while relegating all the visiting suburbanites to shitty potholed riddled sub-standard roads.
As a city resident, why should I be subsidizing the economic activity of all the people who come to the city, but don’t live here and aren’t subject to city resident fees?
I’d rather have a gas tax over tabs. Now I have to pay to drive even if I don’t use my car.
A broad approach to local and regional transportation. I like it!
A lot of little projects with huge payoff and small costs are better than one huge megaproject with small payoff and a massive cost. This should be how we approach the viaduct.
Everyone who drives a car also walks, Brice is exactly right. You walk on sidewalks to go from your parking place to your destination, in fact! And in a lot of this city, our sidewalks need a lot of help.
The vast majority of Seattle residents want more transit and more sidewalks. The big reason people drive is that there aren’t enough transit options! Very few actually WANT to drive, far more just want to get where they’re going – and a bus or a streetcar means we can read on the trip. 🙂
Dont forget about the extra 100$ “Saving the planet” tax for EV & Hybrid owners. Is that a law now? Seems like the state was thinking about it back in Feb. Anyway, thats a yearly tax on all EV/Hybrids, ontop of the car tab registration.
Boy, you liberals sure love your regressive taxes. Thanks!
We need to add a $29 car tab fee for drivers to cover all the bicyclists they hit.
Or make it based on their net wealth.
Definitely will reduce congestion as it will hasten the mass exodus to sunnier climes with a better deal for a middle class person.
All of the added revenues should go to providing smoother pavements for bicycles, buses, trucks, and cars. Why do they propose dividing it up among so many non-pavement projects, none of which will be completed?
What good does it do to have all those special bicycle and transit projects only to have them implemented on rutted, potholed road surfaces? I just don’t get it. Buses and bicycles drive on pavement, dammit!! Why is that so hard for them to grasp?
Perhaps they really don’t want to solve the pavement problem because then the voters would stop voting for all these special taxing measures (renewal of Bridging The Gap is coming up again soon!)
They are not talking about making Metro more efficient. The plans so far are to convert 2 vehicle lanes into 1 combined car, delivery truck, and bus lane and 1 bike lane. This is going to speed up buses?
We are not adding capacity; we are cutting it in half. Twice as long to get thru a light. More wasted gas, increased business cost, increased commute times- except for the 15,000 bicyclist versus 340,000 cars/ trucks and about 190,000 transit riders.
And road maintenance? On NE 125th between Lakecity Way and NE 15th Street, the repaved the two edges and restriped for bicycles. Did nothing for rest of street.
Yes everyone walks, but everyone uses the roads. Just like everyone is dependent on a vehicle, be it car, delivery truck or bus.
If everyone benefits, why isn’t this being proposed as a .02% sales tax or property tax increase? These are options per the legislators. Thus everyone pays, not just Seattle car owners.
Why no congestion fees where people pay every time they drive into downtown Seattle during business hours? Then this money can be directly funded into transit and bike lanes.
London did this and it is turning their city around.
So, you want to charge me $80 more a year to use my car, but only 30% will go to making the roads I’m driving on better?
No, not better, just keeping them maintained the way they should be in the first place with the exorbitant gas taxes I already pay (3rd highest, 4th highest in the country?).
No, I’m already not getting enough for the money I’m paying, why on earth should I pay even more and get even less in return?
@4
“and a bus or a streetcar means we can read on the trip. :)”-
ah, no. Drunks, mentally ill, loud phone callers, unruly teenagers, screaming kids. Constant harassment and annoyances on the bus. You can’t “read” on my bus.
People don’t want “more” transit; they want transit that they feel safe and comfortable on.