This morning, the city council’s transportation committee was briefed on the feasibility of creating a transportation benefit district to raise money for transportation improvements around the city (more here). Quick background: SDOT needs money—the department’s seen a 26 percent revenue decline over the past two years. Gas tax revenue is down, the general fund is sucked dry, and meanwhile SDOT’s got an estimated $500 million dollars in infrastructure projects that need funding.
So a transportation benefit district would help. One surprising authority granted through such a district would be the ability to toll city roads. This raises a lot of questions—most significantly, which roads? “This idea is somewhat uncharted,” said central staff member Michael Fong. “No one has implemented this and we haven’t fully explored the details.”
- But you see, I talk better with my hands.
“I assume that would only be on city roads,” committee chair Tom Rasmussen said after the meeting, “but we’re going to have to learn more about that. State legislation allows for tolling, but it would have to be approved by voters.“
A transportation benefit district (which would encompass all of Seattle) would also allow the city to generate new funds for transportation improvements in a few other ways, two of which the council can impose without voter approval: a $20 vehicle license fee on residents (raising an estimated $6.8 million annually), and impact fees on new industrial and commercial construction. Fund-raising mechanisms that would need voter approval include property tax increases, a .2 percent sales and use tax hike, raising that $20 dollar vehicle license fee up to $100, and, of course, imposing tolls on roadways in the city, which would make Seattle residents in affected areas go ape shit.
Rasmussen seems to recognize the ape shit factor at play here: “I suggest we create some type of commission to explore further the answers to questions like, ‘How do we actually do this? What’s the impact on businesses, property owners, and vehicle users? Would vehicle users actually approve a toll on SW Admiral Way? Or Martin Luther King Jr Way? Or Denny Way?'” he suggested. “The results would be interesting, for sure.”
The transportation committee intends to revisit the issue. “This could be powerful for funding our infrastructure needs,” said City Council Member Tim Burgess. “I suggest we come up with a specific package of improvements to fund and take [these options] to the voters.”
Are these guys competing to see who can get a fucking Republican elected to the council first? This is the stupidest idea I’ve heard in a while. NO, the voters are not going to approve a toll on Denny Way. Even if it was a good policy idea, which it is not, it’s politically stupid beyond belief.
Just do this the right way and raise the gasoline tax a couple cents fercrissakes!
An open ended transportation benefit district is a definite NO. No way am I going to let this city council continue their recent performance and play political games with my money.
Now, if there is a package of specific improvements, and if it gets us good transit, and if it stays away from the big highway megaprojects… then maybe I’d look at it.
I’d vote for it. Imagine being able to actually use Denny (for a small fee, but still…). Free resources are overused resources to the extent that we replace lost money with lost time.
@2 Good luck with taxing fuel in only the city of Seattle. If it’s more than a few cents most people would just drive elsewhere for gas.
Oooh, also this would solve the issue of nobody using the Viaduct tunnel once they add in the high toll. Just add a high toll to bypass the thing.
man I wish I could get paid to create committees to make decisions when my job is to decide stuff.
All your Taxes is belong to Billionaires Tunnel.
For the next 20-30 years.
Have fun being serfs of the Royal City Council!
Cause that’s what they think you are. Not citizens that they serve – but SERFS.
Groan.
… and meanwhile SDOT’s got an estimated $500 million dollars in infrastructure projects that need funding.
Anyone know what the big projects are on this list?
I’d be happy to vote for a transportation tax, provided the improvements being funded really take our transportation infrastructure to the next level. But right now I just don’t trust the likes of Tom Rasmussen and Tim Burgess to have any vision of transportation infrastructure. What is these guys’ vision besides status quo+new downtown tunnel? Ballard or West Seattle light rail seems to raise their hackles. I doubt they even get the difference between bus rapid transit and conventional bus service or the kind of tough choices real BRT would require. I would be stunned if the Rapid Ride route that is supposed to replace the 358 on Aurora is anything remotely close to real BRT rather than just a prettied-up 358.
It doesn’t exactly inspire confidence that Rasmussen and Burgess are itching to use the city parking tax toward the seawall replacement. There’s a certain expectation of fairness or appropriateness that transportation taxes should go toward transportation projects.
And I don’t quite understand why they’re even talking about tolls when they know tolls are dead in the water. Makes me feel there’s something up. And believe me, I think tolls are a wonderful thing.
I will go along with tolled roads all day long. As long as ALL THE MONEY goes toward improving committing for automobiles.
I can see it now(just like the damn 20$ car tax/fee), Seattle will slap tolls on roads and drivers, and funnel the money toward slowing down drivers by removing vehicle lanes and replacing them with bike lanes. Oh the joy.
I guess the longer drivers are stuck behind slow ass bicyclist they are using more gas, and thus having to fill up more and give the city further gas tax revenues.
Why not have all bicycles and cyclist in the city require a license to ride and license plates? Then we could have EVERYONE contributing the the WDOT revenue short fall. And hey, maybe then bicyclist could actually practice all that share the road crap they spew. Heh…maybe.
Excuse me, but why the hell do we have $500,000,000 in SDOT ‘projects’? Exactly what capital do we have lined for our department of transportation given the current climate?
I can think of the footbridge over Elliot but that’s Federal/State funded. What the hell are we spending $500,000,000 on that cannot be delayed?
Seriously, Cienna– what the hell is in that value that counts as new versus maintenance?
It all boils down to three things:
The Seawall – necessary.
The 520 bridge connections (as in the west end portions to connect to what the state does, relocate utilities, etc etc) – necessary.
The Billionaires Tunnel replacement for the Viaduct – unnecessary.
That last one is why this neverending tax will be so huge – AND WILL IMPACT EVERY SINGLE HOUSEHOLD – renter or homeowner – in Seattle.
All for their vanity and their greed.
Not for Seattle.
What the hell are you talking about? The Seawall is SDOT? I thought we’re going to have to pay that with a separate bond.
Place tolls on all streets entering the city and on all exit ramps on I-5, SR 99, SR 509 and SR 520. So folks who stay in the city don’t have to pay. Buses are exempt, of course. That would encourage city folks to stay in the city, reducing carbon, supporting local business and the use of public transit.
The city has to replace the Seawall. The port is throwing in some cash, but legally it’s the city’s responsibility, as opposed to the State Highway SR-99 which is the Viaduct.
Actually, it was fun watching Dow saying the County would pony up for the Seawall too.
I like @15’s idea.
TOLL FOR CARBON – SEATTLE UBER ALLES!
Make the inefficient gas-wasting suburbs PAY.
What makes up $500 million in projects? Much of that is probably backlog for maintenance, There are countless roads, sidewalks, and bridges in the city that need maintenance. It could also include unfunded monies related to Mercer St and re-connecting the street grid in South Lake Union. Is the Streetcar Plaza at Westlake fully funded?
It’s not hard to add up monies pretty quickly without thinking of anything too crazy.
Tolling isn’t “surprising” as a component. Rasmussen asked about it at the end of a couple council meeting on the tunnel about a month ago. I am sure it would have made news here if Holden had paid attention, and spent less time on just the tunnel talk, and even less jerking off McGinn.
How fucking tough is it to sit through a council meeting and report what went on?
For God’s sake Cienna, it’s either $350 million or 350 million dollars. NEVER $350 million dollars. Redundant much? Here’s a style guide.
dub-dub-dub-one dot umn dot edu/urelate/style/numbers.htee-em-el
I could see tolling work, not on individual streets, but as a zone. Similar to what London has done with it’s congestion charging. There they charge £8 (about $12) for driving in the central core area. Once paid, the toll is good for the whole day (you can come and go as you please). The congestion zone pricing is in effect from 7am-7pm, M-F. So people who are using the city streets in the evenings and weekends get to do so for free, but those who choose to drive downtown during the busiest, most congested parts of the day can do so for a price.
The benefits? Less congestion in the downtown core, better utilization of transit, and a revenue stream for the city for transportation issues.
Just toll the city roads where congestion pricing is most desperately needed, and where anyone can get to the same destination conveniently using transit — that is, the downtown core.
Use the Good-to-Go technology being employed by WSDOT on highways, and vary the prices based on time of day or measurable congestion. Make those roads free during night hours when no transit is available.
I don’t see this as such a tough sell. People who have to drive downtown will profit from this in the value of the time they save from the streets no longer being gridlocked.
As a cyclist, I’d be happy to pay taxes for the privilege. Oh wait… I do. Every time I renew my car tabs. I gotta do that no matter how much or little I drive. Are people really surprised to learn the vast majority of cyclists own and license cars?
Who are these delusional dimwits who think cyclists are asking for free hand outs and getting in the way of “real traffic”? Every time I choose to ride instead of drive I promise:
I won’t take the last parking space
I won’t be contributing to gridlock’d traffic
I won’t be be responsable for the death of you or your family
I won’t be causing new potholes, or accelerating the deterioration of any infrastructure
I wont’ be contributing to this nations obesity epidemic and spiraling insurance costs
To the haters: your welcome!
I drive my car plenty. And I understand we gotta pay for what we use. I support higher gas taxes, I support tolling, I support whatever it takes. If we don’t maintain our infrastructure it’s going to cost us a whole lot more in the long run. Stop bitching, stop crying, either pay the fair cost of keeping your steel box rolling smoothly or sell it and join me in the bike lane.