Obviously we need a VMT squared plus GVW tripled tax.

No subsidized parking at all for commercial use. Streets are for bikes and transit, lights should be altered for that.

There, fixed it for you.

Plus, bonus for you fossil fools, EVs would pay the same rate as you do to fix our Seattle streets building more bike lanes

"Let’s be real, if you have to get to downtown Seattle, you’ll probably choose the 30-minute drive over the hour-long bus trip until local governments make transit the best choice. "

Wait, what??? Who the fuck drives downtown? What world do you live in? Holy shit, people have preferred taking the bus for decades. People used to whine about Metro, saying "it is great for getting downtown, but sucks for getting anywhere else". Now on top of pretty damn good bus service to downtown, we've got light rail. Between the shitloads of parking at the various park and ride lots and the ton of express buses, commuter rail and Link, transit to downtown is excellent. It is especially good at the one time of day that this tax would apply: rush hour.

Just look at the facts: https://www.commuteseattle.com/2021-center-city-modesplit-survey-results/. Prior to the pandemic, almost half the people took transit to downtown. Only about a quarter drove. The rest walked or rode their bike. The only big change was that people started working remotely.

Only rich people drive downtown. Who the fuck else can afford to park there? Yeah, a congestion price might not be the most progressive tax, and as you pointed out, that didn't stop Stockholm -- fucking Stockholm! -- from implementing it. The obsession with progressive taxes misses a vital point. You are much better off with a regressive tax than no tax at all. Take Social Security. The tax is regressive as hell. It isn't flat, but actually goes away away you make more money. Is this bad? Should we get rid of it? Fuck No! It has done more to eliminate poverty than any government program in this country.

When it comes to public policy, the first thing anyone should ask themselves is "What do they do in Scandinavia". In this case, we already know the answer.

While an otherwise very good article, this ignores (or at least skirts) the real issues:

1) Practicality. It makes a shitload of sense in Manhattan, as it is literally an island, with only a handful of ways to get on and off. Downtown Seattle is a lot more complicated. You could tax the bridges over the lake (we already do that with 520) but then you have the roads that go around. What about north and south? The ship canal seems like a logical line to draw, but that means several tolls (Ballard, Fremont, University, Montlake, Aurora and the Ship Canal Bridge). You haven't really cut off downtown, either. Folks in Magnolia, Queen Anne and Broadmoor could drive downtown and not a pay a dime. You could draw lines (like Denny, or Mercer) but now that involves a lot of streets. Cordoning gets complicated.

2) Competition with the suburbs. The last thing this region needs is for businesses to locate in the suburbs because "it is cheaper". No one wants to hear that. We think it doesn't matter. But every city that collapses does so by first losing their center. Detroit is the classic example. It lost jobs to the suburbs, then collapsed. We sure as fuck don't want that to happen.

I'm not saying either one of these issues can't be overcome, but it requires a lot of finesse, something we aren't very good at. Holy shit, look at the fucking mess we've made when it comes to building a mass transit system. Vancouver built things out of order, but they did (and are doing) a much better job for a lot less money. Now we have plans for a second, unnecessary tunnel downtown, with shitty transfers, shitty stations, and miles of useless track to distant park and rides. Folks voted for it because "transit is good", without every thinking about how poor the plans were. We could have spent the same amount of money on a much better system -- one that worked much better for everyone -- but it would have required more finesse.

Rich people like gated communities. How about we gate them in and charge for every time they exit? If you can afford Broadmore/Madison Park/Laurelhurst/Montlake/Magnolia, then you can afford to leave and come back.

No seriously though, climate has to take the front seat over all other concerns, especially in this case when the funds raised will mainly benefit the less affluent. This summer, an area of sea ice the size of Alaska failed to grow off Antarctica. We are screwed.

https://www.pbs.org/video/at-the-extreme-1691699015/

@4
Who prefers to take the bus?
Who would prefer to more than double the amount of time it takes to get someplace?

@11, me. Parking is expensive, transit is paid for by my employer, and driving sucks. Also, light rail is quick, below grade, and even my anti-bus husband will choose it over driving. I think the more relevant question is who is going downtown and for what anymore with work so drastically upended by WFH and downtown being rather dull - retail and restaurants are better in the neighborhoods and the entertainment is just so-so. It’s really a shame so much transportation infrastructure supports such a boring neighborhood.

@7: “To Ballard Metro has eliminated the 15, 17, and 18…”

JFC, Toby, that is just insane! You have my deepest sympathy. I lived in Seattle for decades without owning a car, and I cannot even imagine how bad a trip from Ballard to downtown could be without those routes, the 17 especially. WTF has happened to Seattle?

Every time I read the Stranger, I receive some new justification for having left Seattle.

@8 Nit. Bike helmets are designed to be lightweight and ventilate well but are still very effective and are built to regulatory standards just like motorcycle helmets are. Sure, moto helmets are designed to be effective for somebody who crashes on the freeway at 100mph and slides under a semi. Bike helmets aren't that tough but are well designed for crashes under 30-40mph (max speeds vast majority of bicyclists, including E-bikes might see on a descent). As for protective clothing, not practical unless you want bicyclists dying of heat exhaustion. But it kinda sounds like you really just don't want bikes on the road.

Oh and on EVs - right now there is a flat statewide surcharge on licensing that for most EVs is teh equivalent of driving 12-15K miles a year in a similar gas car. This is on top of all the other license fees everybody gets to pay. AND the state has been piloting a VMT (pay per mile) tax eventually to replace the gas tax entirely. Issues with that that many won't like are how miles are tracked and how you deal with drives out of state. I don't really want a state sponsored GPS tracker in my car, but that is what they are looking at.