Coming Soon: Lots of New Transportation Taxes

Apparently, back in the day, Seattle used to issue bike licenses. It would be nice to see a return to that. Bicyclists are road users, too.

I will gladly pay a bicycle license fee based on Gross Vehicle Weight, thank you very much.

First priorities, then taxes. I will certainly vote against taxes until the priorities are set! The city council people are acting out their dislike of McGinn; that's not a good basis for priorities. Let's have the mayor and the city council agree on how the money will be used, over what time period; then I might consider voting for a tax.

The priorities are set in the Bicycle Master Plan and the Pedestrian Master Plan. They just need funded.

“$600,000 it will cost to pay a consultant to study…” – with all the planning and design folks on the City payroll, and a good bit of expertise available through citizen volunteers, can someone explain why we need to pay for all of these studies? (carbon neutrality plan, waterfront plan, transportation plan, etc)

Thje Gross Vehicle Weight of the Mayor on his bike…hmm, not a bad idea.

No. Well, yes, full employment for planners.

They're on furlough, silly

Out of curiousity did anyone mention UW's proposal to switch some campus parking fees to a non-taxable UPASS surcharge? Apparently UW paid $1.29m to the city in parking taxes last year and they'd rather use the money for CTR programs:
http://dailyuw.com/2010/6/30/uw-attempting-redu…

If that passes the Attorney General's office I'm betting some other major employers will want to fund things with non-taxable surcharges too.

Gross Vehicle Weight is used to cover the costs incurred to design, built and maintain infrastructure for heavier vehicles. I have no problem with your proposal as long as bikes use the same existing infrastructure that motor vehicles use. If cyclists want infrastructure specially designed, built and maintain for them, then come up with a tax structure that will shift the costs to those requiring the investment in the infrastructure.

I am getting less and less enthusiastic about McGinn's Rail Plan as time goes on. While a big rail supporter, it needs to be done right. The more time goes on, the more it seems the Mayor is more about long term goals than long term planning, and rail requires A LOT of planning to be done right. Lets not rush this.

Or, one could frame it this way:

“Coming Soon: New investments in Seattle's transportation infrastructure.”

I actually find this pretty exciting, that both the mayor and the council agree on the need for new investments, support finding new revenue, and tend to agree on the kinds of projects that ought to be funded, although there's clearly debate (which is good) on what specific projects should be supported. Lots of other cities in this country don't have that level of political support for new transportation investment.

Are you kidding? If we taxed drivers, transit users, and bikers for the amount of infrastructure designed for them, every biker and transit user would get a big fat refund check in the mail, and every car user would get a big fat bill.

We could start by sending a $16,000 bill to each car driver in Seattle for the car-only deep bore tunnel.

Bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit users are subsidizing car drivers, not the other way around.

Paying consultants is how you fund election campaigns.

What, no link to your favorite outdated document?

How do cyclist pay for their own infrastructure without subsidies? This includes the roads that they ride on.

Also, since I know that this will get you going…why should cyclists even be allowed on the road with cars without insurance? My brother was involved in bicycle/car accident that was the cyclists fault (the cyclist was riding in the crosswalk crossing the street when my brother had the green light). The cyclist caused $2,000 damage to the car but didn't pay a dime cause he didn't have insurance and it wasn't worth paying a lawyer to go after a guy with no money.

“Need funded”? This isn't the South.

I can't tell if you're being serious. Do you really think drivers subsidize the meager bike routes somehow? I'm really interested in hearing how you think that is.

Almost all transportation spending comes from sales tax, property tax, or other taxes that everyone pays. And almost all of it goes to cars.

Page 75 of the 2010 city budget for SDOT revenue sources, pages 30-32 for SDOT appropriations. (PDF)
http://www.seattle.gov/financedepartment/10adop…

It does appear that both Mayor and Council have realized we can't fund the things we desperately need to fund without additional revenue. Devil's in the details – but agreed that this feels like progress.

nope this is the Pacific Northwest, where we have respect for everybody and everyregion and are unaffected by prejudice or the need to disrespect anyone.

–!! Hee Haw !!–

As usual, I'm a little disappointed in your reporting, Erica…

I have no problems with your quick summary here of what went on — but there's no depth, no reporting.

You've been here for years now, and I know you have reported on the monorail and light rail and other transportation and transit issues with SDOT, ST, and other agencies. You're well aware of what reports and studies already exist, as well as promises that have been made in the past by current City Council members about addressing the commuting needs of various neighborhoods.

I would love to see a piece on Publicola challenging some of those members about their past statements, or linking to information we (and they) should already have available for consideration.

It's not like this is a brand new idea for funding, we have never looked at these funding sources before, or we don't know where some crucial needs exist in our city's transportation network.

I do almost all of my commuting by bike. If I look at the sales, property, and other state taxes that I pay, how much of them go into the state transportation budget, and how much of that budget is spent on roads, it is very obvious that I am already massively subsidizing car drivers. Sure, I ride on the roads too, but I need a road that is about 8-10 feet wide (one bike lane in each direction), not 30-40 feet wide. Also, I wear out the road much slower than a car.

I'm not complaining about paying these subsidies — I like having the roads around for when I have to drive or take the bus or have something delivered or or or…maybe it isn't completely fair, but it seems to work well enough. But it doesn't make sense to try to put *more* of the burden of building and maintaining our roads on cyclists who are already paying more than their fair share…

The vast majority of the funding for road construction and maintenance comes from the state and city transportation budgets, and the vast majority of that money comes from taxes that cyclists pay just as much as drivers — property taxes, sales taxes, etc. Also, I own a car and even though I rarely use it, I still pay the same excise taxes as people who commute every day. People like me are already hugely subsidizing people who drive as a primary form of transportation. As I said in my earlier post on this thread, I view this as a kind of necessary, or at least acceptable, evil. But don't pretend that it's not the case, because it definitely is.

Try this argument:

“Automobiles present an inherently unconstitutional inequity”.

Because cars present a 'severe impediment' to other modes of travel – walking, bicycling & mass transit (mass transit users are walkers) – it's wrong for car-related infrastructure (roads, signalized intersections, parking) to have “constitutionally dedicated” funding mechanisms (gas tax, etc), and, those funds must be constitutionally dedicated to modes of travel which cars impact.

I strongly favor gas tax increases to European levels as a good starting point; followed by directing those taxes to businesses which are set up to take it into their accounting and pass it on to consumers more through incentives than through increases in charges for services.

The DBT is so atrociously engineered, it's a sign that WSDOT is a rogue agency. The Columbia River Crossing project to replace the I-5 bridges to Oregon is another project which WSDOT influence has ruined. Oregon has come up with a way to cut the project cost in half, yet, though it has only lately come to light, its existence is being kept from the public while the most costly options expedited. WSDOT honchos are raiding the treasury.

the city's legislative agenda could include improvement to the TBD enabling legislation to add better revenue sources; note that the vehicle fee is not related to the rate of use of the roadways.

the city could also ask the county to attempt to levy the local option gas tax; all cities in the county would share in the revenue; the gas tax is among the best for transport purposes, as it is easy to collect, exactly proportional to the use of the roadways, and within the flucuation of market prices. the 18th amendment restriction is unimportant as Seattle has many needs that are within the 18th amendment purpose: pavement management, bridge retrofit and replacement, and AWV related arterials.

The idea of using sales tax to pay for road infrastructure suffers the same problem as the county's November proposal to use sales tax to pay for more police and jails: It taxes the poor harder, to pay for services that disproportionately benefit the rich.

It's time to tax car drivers more to pay for car infrastructure. That means parking taxes, tolls, licence fees, and ticketing law breakers (of which there are many — enforce the speed limits and put up some cameras to see who is making illegal left turns across the Link rail line). Figure out how much revenue that could generate before considering a property or sales tax.

Also, if you want a tax to pass at the ballot box, review the recent string of victories for transit and defeats for highways. Focus the spending on the backlog of pedestrian, bike, and transit needs.

If we vote on a tax that is just about replacing the viaduct, expect a negative result. (Which, BTW, doesn't mean I advocate for keeping the viaduct open, as those following the tunnel boosterism talking points keep repeating.)

Given the choice between removing a couple north-south streets downtown from private car use permanently, or tolling the streets leading into the downtown core as a congestion pricing/management strategy, which would drivers prefer?

A car only needs 10 feet, too.

The road budget isn't consumed by roads wearing out; most of the cost is simply the cost of the lane, and building the road.

You used the roads when your wife drove to the hospital, when you went to the PCC and bought their food that came in on a truck NOT A BIKE, and when you worked at a job where everyone else came to meetings in cars, or when you rode a bus, using the roads.

And btw how does complaining about a little $25 license fee even be worth your time? It's insignificant. It's petty for you to complain. Boat owners including sailboat owners pay license fees; dogs don't use the roads that much, they tend to shit on the grass, yet we have pet licenses. the notion that you should only be taxed on what you use is a profoundly conservative, FOX NEWS position, how could you adopt that view? I don't have kids there fore don't tax me for schools. Well I didn't have a fire this year so don't tax me for fire dept. I didn't look at the art in city hall, don't tax me for art subsidies. Wow, cyclists are soooooo extremist in joining the rabid antitax crowd! Yucky poo!

oh gooddie! The liberals are going to push a higher sales tax. This will make the working class hate taxes, government and liberals more!

It's all going as per our master plan….

One flew over the Seattle Times blog.

You and what army are going to accomplish either of these?

You and what army are going to build a deep-bore sinkhole that will swallow the city's budget for years to come?

Street maintenance and road improvements are overdue in Seattle. But more taxes unfortunately mean more money taken away. At least it’s being put towards something that is worthwhile and meaningful. However, to ease the blow of this increase, you can save up 40% on your commute (transit, bicycling, parking & vanpooling) through Commuter Nation (http://www.commuternation.com/sea)