McGinn Proposes Fixing SDOT Shortfall with New Parking Tax, License Fee

What a disappointment McGinn is turning out to be. If he were truly interested in both raising revenues and pursuing progressive policy he should start with the single biggest provider of public parking in Seattle – the City of Seattle. He could increase street parking rates by 40% and STILL be below market rate. You'd think that after the numerous forums and meetings that his Great City group had on “the high cost of free parking” that the man would have a clue by this point.

Excellent point. I wonder if that isn't something being proposed but just not mentioned yet.

Honestly, raise it 50%. It would still be cheaper. However, it's totally fair to do an “increase of five to 10 percent in the commercial parking tax, as well as a $20 vehicle-license fee,” as both will also have the beneficial result of driving more drivers to mass transit as parking lot prices climb in response. The $20 car fee wouldn't stop people driving, but makes sense. They do the lion's share of wear and tear, they pay the lion's share of the cost.

Page 75 of the “UTILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION” section shows the total SDOT budget at $336m:
http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/10adop…

Where did $55m come from?

If you want to make biking a credible alternative to SOVs, tax it.

A similar argument was made by High County News about wind in Wyoming.
“Such a tax could be the best thing that ever happened to wind in Wyoming.” http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/thumbs-up-for-wyo…

Why not let the voters vote on a $240 million bike plan? We could put it on the same ballot as the tunnel!

What's the market rate for using sidewalks?

Car drivers already support the streets and have paid the greatest share of providing street parking. Those businesses that depend on a large part of their business on street parking pay through B&O and sales tax for those street parking spots.

People will vote with their gas pedal and leave the city to shop if parking is made more expensive.

BTW we pay for people's transit, we don't insist on market rate for transit.

Buses, trucks and the weather do the wear and tear, not cars.

If they weren't pissing away so much of the Bridging the Gap money (particularly the parts that the public didn't get to vote on – including a substantial increase in parking taxes) on the Paul Allen's Mercer Street beautification project they could afford to fix the streets as well as doing bike and pedestrian improvements…

So does this translate into $300,000,000 for the Mercer Street makeover, and $36,000,000 for everything else? That would explain the 9 year pothole repair backlog, the fact that some major intersections have only one streeet sign and the fact that at the rate SDOT is proceeding, the Bicycle Master Plan won't be fully implemented until 2070 (if then…).

Your link is broken, but the $55 million figure is SDOT's total budget from the general fund and from gas-tax revenues, excluding Bridging the Gap property-tax levy dollars.

Customers pay the sales tax. Businesses pays B&O.

The street is a public space. Do you think businesses have a right to go use park space for private business just because they pay B&O tax?

fixed!

What is the market rate for transit?

Customers of the stores pay the sales tax. They also pay the B&O and the property tax, but without stores there we wouldn't have the revenue for the streets and other government services.

People invested in the buildings in order to rent to businesses so they could provide services or sell products. In order to do business they need customers. Customers need to have a way to get to the businesses and take their purchases home.

Using your logic, people use the parking spaces, businesses don't.

Businesses need customers and if we price out customers they will go where parking is available.

If market rate for parking is what private parking lot owners charge for parking, then market rate for transit is what private transportation operators charge for it. Cab fares or what a private bus company would need to charge to make a profit.

Not exactly true… but whatever. Everyone's gotta have somethin' to believe in.

It's impossible to say. It's not what the KC Metro fare is, but it's not really what private cab services pay either. Subsidies (for both cars and transit) distort the thing so badly it's basically impossible to talk about a “market rate” for transit (or cars, for that matter).

Then again, this sorta gets us into the “myth of the “market rate,” which is a handy concept used by libertarians that has never actually existed in real life.

I'd be careful here. I'm not so sure about the lion's share of “the wear and tear,” but there's no debating that they cause the lion's share of the traffic (which does cause the wear and tear) and generate the lion's share of parking needs.

“Businesses need customers and if we price out customers they will go where parking is available.”

This implies that all customers do and will always drive cars, and thus need parking. May be true now, but… there are such things as customers who don't need parking.

Bus fare does not even cover operating costs.

And we shouldn't insist on market rate for parking either. But perhaps we should insist on a larger portion of market rate for parking? Seems sensible to me, to cover a shortfall.

The challenge McGinn does indeed have here is that if cars continue to be the primary means of mobility indefinitely, you can't realize a mode shift a-la the “high cost of free parking.” The city must think seriously about its investment priorities in this area.

Also, there's a second serious problem here with the “vote with the gas pedal” logic: people might discover they don't need parking at all if you don't provide it (for free). Supply does have a powerful tendency to create a demand.

I never said it does…?

Why not let them vote on a bike tax to pay for it?
An added tire tax, car tires pay for potholes and bike tires for striping would tie revenue source with use (nexus), and prevent that fund from being spent on wind chimes and a mayoral beer bong.

This would make sense if the bikers' need for a bike plan was the only reason to pursue one. But there's a societal need for a bike plan, just as there's a societal need for roads, emergency services, schools, and the like. We don't make people “pay their own way” for these things because we all should use them. In that way, tying revenue source with use isn't always that helpful.

So the problem is (and always will be) a little bigger than “(insert name here) should pay their own way.”

You didn't answer my question, are businesses entitled to use public park space (e.g. Greenlake) for private business whenever they feel the urge because they pay B&O tax?

More direct participation, even symbolic, provides credibility.
This is a point where cyclists face the greatest opposition.

I certainly agree that it does, but that shouldn't mean that I (not a cyclist) should be unaware of my personal benefits from choosing to invest in multi-modal transportation infrastructure, either. Encouraging cycling means less congestion, and less need for different, more expensive infrastructure. It's a trade-off lower road costs for the rest of us. And then there's pollution… and so on, and so forth.

Yes, but what percentage of drivers do the lion's share of the wear and tear? Those of us who have a car but don't commute with it, or who do some of our shopping on foot, don't contribute much to wear and tear on the roads. I'd love to see a car tax based on number of miles driven.

I thought you meant parking space. No, I don't think they should be able to use park space for private business. I also don't think they need to use parks in the same way that they need parking to do business nor do I think when someone rents a space for a store there is the same nexus to using a park as there is to having street parking for customers.

Supply does have a powerful tendency to create a demand..

Really? – I know a guy with a million buggy whips, want some?

No. it doesn't imply that all customers want parking. It says that enough want parking that businesses will suffer without it or at too high a price.

I predict that cars will provide the bulk of transportation for your lifetime – they will be very efficient and most will run on electricity.

Biking causes more congestion

Does your mind work?

Based on typical ESAL equivalency factors and the fourth power law it is clear that heavy vehicles cause a majority of pavement structure damage (with the notable exception of studded tire wear). Therefore, even though trucks make up a minority of motor vehicles (see Figure 1), they are a major consideration in pavement design..

Ummm… not as much as a cyclist in a car would.

It's a basic principle of economics. If you give people something for a lower cost, more of it will be consumed. Does that not seem reasonable?

I think that's true too. But there are other advantages to being a “business without parking” that should be considered as well. It's not necessarily the case that removing or limiting parking will be bad for a business if those other advantages (more amenable urban space, lower costs, proximity to customers) are able to offset the loss of parking.

You can insult me if you want, but it doesn't really advance your argument. I think that trucks do cause a majority of our wear, but they might not constitute a majority of road usage. Taxes that finance roads don't just pay for potholes and maintenance, which I'm sure you know. They pay for new roads, road expansions, and other costs of congestion. These are very significant in terms of “road costs.” Why is a factor we should ignore?

That's not a bad idea. Or instead of taxing all drivers the same, consider which roads they use. If they use roads that are more congested (or “in higher demand”), should they be charged the same as drivers who do not generate the need for more maintenance and expansion of that road?

Let's consider that for a minute. As you place more parking between businesses, it becomes less feasible to walk between them. As it becomes less feasible to walk between them, it becomes more necessary to drive. As it becomes necessary to drive, it becomes necessary to place more parking between businesses. In this way, supplying parking can create a demand for parking (and road usage).

This is all because the parking supply/demand ratio doesn't exist in vacuum. More supply of parking also means a lesser supply of “proximity” (a very expensive commodity in a city) and greater demand for road infrastructure, etc. etc.

I'm annoyed the spandex crowd that speeds through the short shared path between Olympic Sculpture Park and Myrtle Edwards park. The entire length might be 100 feet, but so many bicyclists feel the need to zoom past pedestrians as fast as they possibly can. It's annoying, unsafe, and given spandex attitudes towards drivers, a bit hypocritical as well.

This is off topic a bit, of course, but I was almost run over this morning and I didn't care for it.

There's a perception problem for the spandex crowd, and the McGinn-led city's main initiatives benefiting bicyclists only means they need to think about being better citizens. A nominal $5 bike license — no matter how symbolic or annoying — would go a long way towards that.

Since the bike plan has reduced (road diets) road capacity, yes they do.

Wait. So your assertion is seriously that a cyclist who chooses to bike, rather than drive, reduces the road capacity by at least as much as they would have if they had chosen to drive? And this remains true if they use a grade-separated right-of-way, as the bike plan calls for in some areas?

Seriously?? Please explain. I'm open to the idea that they might. But lacking new information, that sounds totally insane.

Something like $13M of SDOT's budget comes directly from gas taxes. We don't have much in way of new roads or expansions.

I mean, I should admit this won't change my argument at all. Biking is still relatively pollution-free, and thus, even if it created as much congestion, investing in their infrastructure would still benefit me by reducing pollution.

But nonetheless I think this idea that “bikes (per biker) create as much congestion as cars (per driver)” deserves exploration.

This argument suggest we should ignore “new roads or expansions” because “we don't have much in way of them.” Is this what you mean to suggest?

I hate this nesting system.

Seattle has been a “leader” in “road diets” and according to the only study I know of that measured congestion on city streets rated Seattle as the most congested city in the country.

http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/…

The bike advocates hate this study and will point you to studies that measure freeway congestion, but I don't think they are as relevant.

I will take the time to review the study, thank you. I would not be surprised to learn that Seattle is among the nation's most congested cities. But I don't think it's safe to attribute all of Seattle's congestion to bikers alone, is it?

Seattle is one of the few cities of its size and density without a grade-separated mass transit system. The city also has a geography that makes road capacity expansion very difficult and fairly expensive.

Additionally, I was mostly talking about future (rather than present) congestion: the relative level if we pursue a bike plan vs. car-based alternatives. What I'm really looking for is a fairly rational explanation of why bike traffic (per biker) would “cause more congestion” than car traffic (per driver).

I hate the nesting system too.

OK, then lets double the taxation on commercial vehicles over residential. If someone demonstrates they don't primarily use their car for SOV commuting, they get half off. If the business vehicle's business can demonstrate that 50% of their employees take Metro to/from work, they also get 50% on the fees for their business vehicles.

I got a crazy idea to reduce road impact and lighten SDOT's load, after a small initial investment:

Mayor, please order immediately that 50% of the yellow curbs in the downtown core be painted red, and remove the parking meters from the corresponding block to relocate them to other neighborhoods.

That'll cut down on road use.

Heavy vehicles cause stuctural damage to pavements through the mechanism of fatigue. Very simply, cars and bicycles do not strain the pavement enough to cause any significant fatigue. Trucks and buses dictate pavement thickness and they cause the majority of wear. Environmental effects also cause and contribute to wear. Within Seattle it has been found that on most arterial streets Metro buses cause the majority of pavement damage. One reason for this is that buses are exempt from the weight limits that apply to trucks and thus cause a greater amount of fatigue damage with each pass. If you would like to see what a bus does to a pavement designed for passenger cars, visit 38th Avenue South between Othello and Myrtle — before it is rebuilt in heavy cocnrete this summer to correct the oversight. Like a train requires tracks, a bus requires an appropriate roadway section. If you don't believe what is stated here, I suggest you contact Seattle DOT who has quantified these effects.

The downside to street parking is that it is only for 2 hours, and you can't run out and feed the meter like you used to be able to do. Thus, if you raise it that much, people will simply park in commercial garages/lots because of the convenience and the lack of price differential.

I'm not disagreeing with this assessment at all. I never meant to suggest that where traffic is shared, trucks and buses would be responsible for the majority of wear and tear.

I was merely introducing the argument that while the wear-and-tear costs on shared arterials and highways are principally caused by buses and trucks, the wear and tear costs associated with other streets (and capacity expansions) must also be considered.

In this, I intended to suggest that cars require a different kind of road maintenance that wasn't considered: the costs of road maintenance associated with the many new roads that service cars. Encouraging car use encourages (a) congestion and (b) distance. The costs associated with both (a) and (b) involve major capital outlays. And while this fact alone might be enough to end the debate, the costs associated with (b) ALSO include maintenance that, except for the distance necessitated by things like parking, would not be necessary at all. Fewer cars means higher density, which means less road space, which means less road maintenance.

So in responding to the question, “are road maintenance needs caused by buses and trucks, and not by cars?” the correct answer is “not exactly.”

I found the quote about “typical ESAL equivalency factors” at http://pavementinteractive.org/index.php?title=…
Interesting stuff.

However, I can't seem to find any support for the assertion that “on most arterial streets Metro buses cause the majority of pavement damage”. In many areas of Seattle I see a lot of medium delivery trucks and of course heavy trucks famously rely on truck routes through Seattle because of industrial centers and ports. Many of these have higher ESAL ratings than buses. On the other hand this is certainly an argument for lighter buses or more rail transit.

Also I've seen how some residential streets with no bus or heavy truck traffic are in very poor condition because of decades of weather, tree growth, utility work, and so on. It stands to reason that arterial roads would be subject to these same stresses so at least some of wear just happens over time.

I believe the PSRC 2040 plan to toll arterial streets does basically just that. If the technology was already more widely adopted I'd say Seattle should go ahead with it right away, though there needs to be an exception for people with low incomes who are disproportionately likely to work odd hours and therefore need to drive.

I would think that that a price for public street park that matches private lots would actually mean more business. The low rate of public street parking (and especially free or 10 hour spaces) lets people get away with abusing a prime parking spot right in front of a business even if they have no intention of shopping there. In these cases the driver is just trying to save money vs the private lot market rate.

At least the Stone Way and Nickerson road diets are not reducing road capacity, they just matched the number of lanes to the chokepoints downstream (such as the Ballard Bridge). Additionally, neither one was about biking, but about getting speeding drivers to slow down to the posted limit. The added bike lanes were just a bonus of safer road design.

I'd love to see the TomTom study, but all I can find are articles about it. There's one site showing maps but they appear to just be screenshots of from Google. To be honest it doesn't sounds very likely that 43% of Seattle roads have “20 minutes or more of significant delays” during an hour long trip. In fact the only places I can think of with long delays are bridges or freeway entrances.

There are a whole lot of people in Seattle who would normally easily pony up to support this type of proposal and who would join forces to lead on it. That's just not going to happen with this Mayor because people don't trust him. He should have thought about this type of proposal prior to alienating over half the town.

Um

Sorry, meant to say um, that's EXACTLY what they want you to do – park in garages. The goal is to DIScourage driving to work and parking in garages while ENCOURAGING short term parking in garages. I've talked this over a few times with an insider. They have a pretty good handle on what the policy incentives should be, how much they can raise rates, and how much cooperation they have from private parking operators.
-
I almost always agree with your posts, Sarah. Why do you see this as a negative?

Oh, stop it! You follow this stuff closely enough to know which major projects come from which dedicated funding sources.

Why do you hate America, I mean bicyclists?

This is, by far, one of the most disappointing comment threads I've ever seen on Publicola. Perhaps that's because it's hard to take a constructive angle on being broke. The best you, collectively, can do is blame Paul Allen and advocate making it more difficult and expensive to park. Blah, blah, blah…

Exactly.

If the Mayor wants to have a common ground issue this is it! I wish he and Nice Mike would stop spending all their time trying to kill a funded project. I hear them on the cost overrun issue but I don't agree with the stratgey of 'no' anymore. The dithering is killing me.

NordicGal – It sounds like the business community is trying to work with McGinn on this issue. They held a joint Walk Bike Ride meeting downtown at REI in late June. South Lake Union Chamber of Commerce Public Affairs Committee, Alliance for Pioneer Square, Belltown Community Council, BOMA, Capitol Hill Community Council, Chinatown-International District BIA, Denny Triangle Neighborhood Association, Downtown Seattle Association, Greater Seattle Chamber of Commerce, Uptown Alliance, and South Lake Union Community Council all participated in the event.

Nice idea, Joe. Go get someone in the Council to draft it up and assuming there are absolutely no legal or economic repercussions, I'm sure they'll be more than happy to unanimously pass it without delay, amendment or even a second look and then send it to the Mayor, who will be more than happy to sign it without a second look- wait a minute

Repairing and maintaining the existing streets must have the highest priority in a time of priorites. It would make it safer for ALL forms of transportation. That also means the bike plan CBC'ers should be happy there is still any money for it at all in the short term.

At first blush, eliminating a pothole ranger crew seemed diametrically opposite to those priorities, but if they can truly to repairs and patches the last longer, that's working smarter, not harder.

I don't support using fees on cars to pay for the bike plan, and see nothing wrong with bicycle licensing to help support that. However, without grade separated mass tranist, and eventually separated bike lanes, the multmode concept will never be fully realized in Seattle. Unless we get funding from the Feds, it is not feasible to do it with the current tax base, who are already fatigued enough to vote any further increases down that they are presented with. The DBT is also the elephant in the room that is holding many basic needs back.

The sooner we get back to basics, the better off we will be.

You are right on! the issue here is not the idea of raising taxes and fees to fund this need. The issue is choices. Choices made by The Mayor(s) McGinn and Nickels in recent years, the Director(s) Hahn and Crunican and the City Council(s). Bridging the Gap was passed to improve our streets yet a small percentage goes to street repavement or reconstruction while the majority of the Levy goes to non-street reconstruction activities – a CHOICE, As for the regular budget SDOT has been brutalized in budget cuts as pointed out and the BTG Levy was used to “cover” cuts elsewhere. All of the above decisons makers agreed! it was a choice in favor of other than street “higher priority” funding needs. Now Mcginn wants to ask increase other taxes and fees under the cover of Street Maintenance. Where is the oversight here? This is just a flim-flam to pay for other programs that are not as needy.

“a small percentage goes to street repavement or reconstruction”

According to the Bridging the Gap reports SDOT is legally required to use “No less than 67%” on streets, and actual spending has been 70%. This includes major projects like the $30m NE 45th St viaduct reconstruction going on right now, as well as repaving most of downtown:
http://www.cityofseattle.net/Transportation/Bri…

I've often thought we should ban studded tires here.

Already did, it was part of the Bridging the Gap levy.