Seattle's car tabs: Will residents get their money's worth?
The city knows it has a problem with deferred maintenance of streets and bridges. But the city (and we voters) keep approving new projects.
Seattle voters are about to decide whether to pass or reject the 10-year, $60-dollar auto license tab fee, something that aims in surprisingly small part at the large problem of deferred maintenance for city roads and bridges.
The city has for years kept a long list of deferred maintenance of our existing infrastructure. The city has estimated that there are 400 miles of streets that need repaving at a cost of $578 million. Add replacing decades old bridges, along with some utility work, and $1.5 billion might not do the job.
Some might have expected that this new tab tax revenue, on the November ballot as Seattle Transportation Benefit District Proposition 1, would be directed at this backlog of deferred maintenance. But, as happens often when funding measures are presented on a ballot, the city prepares a teaser list of things the new tax money might pay for.
In this case the plan, approved by the City Council and the mayor, spreads the money around with the idea that it will please various voting consistencies. Metro Transit riders will see investments for faster service. Sidewalks will get a few blocks, and there will be more money for new bicycle lanes and free bike parking. And yes, some left over to complete a few projects that were part of a previous building projects list called “bridging the gap.” that ran over budget.
The city claims they will spend $18 million of the tab tax to plan where to put new streetcars, knowing streetcars cost 10 times more than electric trolly buses. Why is spending millions more to install rails rationalized as having more public appeal? Rails are also more dangerous for bicyclists.
Proposition 1, however, does almost nothing to reverse our problems with aging infrastructure. The tragedy in this misguided proposal is that little if any of the money will go for the most-needed deferred maintenance. Worse the language of the proposal will give the city the option to change their minds on how to spend the money. The city could redirect the money to pay for any frill it wants.
If you were to vote yes to the 10-year tab tax, it would assume you have total faith in how the city has spent your money in the past. Before you put your mark in the box, there are questions that need answers. If we have billions in deferred maintenance then why hasn’t the city been taking care of our city infrastructure as a part of routine management? We trusted, has the city delivered?
Almost everyone accepts the harsh reality that everything wears out. The people you elect and those they hire to take care of our city should know this very well. If the roof leaks you fix it. It is patently clear the city knows what’s worn out, but has instead spent money on less critical projects. What is necessary is setting aside money each year for that purpose. It’s an approach that requires self-discipline both in the people we elect and those of us who keep going along with all the new stuff we might want but don’t need.
While our mayor, City Council, and city department heads are responsible for maintaining our city, we the public share the obligation. When the city asks us if we want a new stadium, streetcar, monorail, tunnel, skatepark, trade center, playground, city hall, or waterfront park, we tend to say, “That would be just great.” As baby-boomers, many of us have been accustomed to getting what we want and paying for it has merely been the act of charging it. We end up buying or paying for countless new things but fail miserably to take care of what we already have.
We have spent all the revenue from the past on popular or glamorous projects spending very little on planned replacement. Our elected officials and civil servants shudder at the thought of spending a million dollars to replace a leaking water main or sewer line, but our city was eager to buy a new fleet of hybrid city cars long before the older models reached the end of their service life. The reality was the city wanted bragging rights to be the greenest of them all.
Responding to questions from Seattle City Council members about why Seattle’s streets were in such poor condition, city Transportation Director Peter Hann testified that Mother Nature’s harsh winter was what had caused roadways to break up. He also blamed global warming. Hann did not mention that Seattle, unlike some of its neighboring cities, does not routinely seal cracks in roadways that allow water to seep under the paving. Nor did Hann explain to council members that in the past the much-touted pothole rangers typically delivered a shovel full of asphalt into a hole and stomped it down instead of drying the hole and using a mechanical compactor to create repairs that last longer. (Finally, after years of faulty repair, someone finally got through to them because they now dry the hole first and use a mechanical compactor and seal the edges to create repairs that last longer. Meanwhile, miles of roadways were damaged by poor repair protocols.)
Before we take major steps to increase near-permanent revenue with a tab tax, it would make better sense to reform the process our city uses to establish priorities. Private business as well as most citizens make the difficult choices in how to spend their money. Seattle planners and officials use focus groups rather than data that directs money to the most used investments and needed repairs.
Common sense would suggest the most-used bridges, roads, and civic infrastructure get funding and repair first. That simply doesn’t happen. The 200-plus planners for the Seattle’s Department of Transportation apparently respond to the most active pressure group to make those decisions. An example, North 105 Street from Greenwood Avenue to Northgate Way is one of the most heavily traveled and damaged East-West roadways in the city. Seattle’s DOT, however, decided to rebuild Linden Avenue from 129th to 145th Street for $12 million. This stretch will receive new bikeways, sidewalks, and widening. While the Linden project will clearly update the street, 105th street has 90 percent more usage and isn’t getting resurfaced yet.
Using focus-group logic, the city decided to spend heavily on replacing street name signage. Sure, the old ones were harder to read, but old signs didn’t endanger lives and easily could have been a very low priority expenditure. Might there have been enough money for a warning sign for a bicycle pathway that went down a flight of stairs but wasn’t built because the money was spent?
Speaking of bicyclists the Puget Sound Business Journal asked the mayor how often the Cascade Bicycle Club representatives visit his office. The club very actively urged the city to put Proposition 1 on the ballot and was involved in determining where the money would be spent. It’s no surprise that Proposition 1 will finance over 100 miles of new bike lanes and provide free parking for more bicycles.
Opponents assert Proposition 1 is a regressive tax. Paul Allen pays $60 bucks for his limo and the single-mom waitress who drives a 1983 Toyota pays the same. Of more note is that the automobile owner is chosen as the primary group to be taxed. Since transportation is essential to everyone in our economy, it only seems logical that our entire population share in the cost of the transportation infrastructure.
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 7:50 a.m. Inappropriate
I'm still wondering what was done with the money collected from the monorail excise tax.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 8:15 a.m. Inappropriate
Mr. Kammerer is missing a few crucial points in this story.
First off, everyone wants to dig at Cascade Bike Club. The money they get from the city goes towards their education foundation and not by any means "hiring lobbyists". I understand everyone is full of anti-bike sentiment right now, but at least get the facts straight.
Second, we want to talk about road maintenance: 67% of Bridging the Gap dollars go for that purpose. We are behind on infrastructure for several reasons, mostly related to a decline in revenues, and Prop 1 is another drop in the bucket for preserving and maintaining our roads.
Lastly, Prop 1 was developed by a citizen's panel, and not developed at the urges of several interest groups. The CTAC-III committee, which include a diverse range of participants - unions, enviros, neighborhoods, and social justice advocates - held several public meetings- where any one could attend and talk about their priorities. And do you know what the public said - we want faster, better transit and we want improved roads. These two elements have the highest investment of the package.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 8:48 a.m. Inappropriate
When "Bridging the Gap" was promoted, the backers claimed there was $600 million worth of road maintenance to perform. Shortly after it was passed, we learned that there was $1.8 billion of road maintenance to perform. So tell me: Were they incompetent, or dishonest, or both? There's no liar quite like a stupid liar, is there?
As for Prop. 1, less than 20% would go toward the #1 problem: the crumbling streets. You can lie to people for a while, but eventually the lies catch up to you.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 9:01 a.m. Inappropriate
Middleground: first off the money that Cascade Bike Club gets from the City is most likely fungible. Typical City contracts provides payments for overhead and administration which would otherwise have to be covered by by the Club. This frees up funds to be used to defray the cost of lobbying. Also, short of following around staff who are funded with City dollars it would be next to impossible to determine if they are only providing the "educational services" they are funded for. In this tight budget the City should not be funding this period.
Second, we are spending billions on capital projects for transit right now. All of which, bus, SLUT, Sound Transit require on going operating subsidies which severely limit the funding availability to maintain the basic infrastructure that all traffic needs to function i.e. roads, bridges etc. Other local municipalities like Bellevue and Shorline do not have road maintenance backlogs because they approach road maintenance as Mr.Kammerer described. They certainly do not achieve this by employing 200 transportation planners at cost of probably close to $20,000,000 per yr (assume salary/fringe/overhead at $100k per planner)to respond to the loudest advocates.
Lastly, your description of CTAC-III is the definition of special interest groups. These are mostly people who get paid to be at the table to advance their own interests. Lets see what the real public does at the ballot box.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 9:31 a.m. Inappropriate
I will be voting no on this for many reasons, a couple of which are mentioned in this article. First and foremost, the fleet of snazzy shiny new Priuses and other new vehicles. I realize the city's vehicles get a lot of use, but until every single taxpayer has a new vehicle, the city should be repairing and using their vehicles until there's nothing left of them. Kind of like what they advise us to do with our stuff instead of junking it.
Second, also as pointed out, this proposition spreads the money around to non-critical wish list items like bike lanes who knows what all else. Our city has functioned just fine for a very long time without these things and yet our streets are truly crumbling. First ,fix the streets. I'd vote for that. I am not interested in another tax that will not end when they say it will to do things I don't support.
It's time for our officials to get over their need to be bigger, better, greener, more, or whatever other manifestation of civic inferiority complex they're currently flaunting. I don't care about those aspirations and suspect many would agree that instead what we want are functional streets and evidence that city government lives as frugally as the rest of us.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 10:46 a.m. Inappropriate
Excellent article by Kammerer. I agree with the comments by JakeJackson, supersinic, and mspat.
Vote NO on Prop 1
http://citizensagainstraisingcartabs.com/
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 11:10 a.m. Inappropriate
Seattle claims to be aiming at a sustainable future. If so, why not offer a proposition where car tabs are proportional to vehicle weight as many other places do? The amount of wear and tear on the roads is proportional to vehicle weight; the amount of energy it requires to propel a vehicle is proportionate to vehicle weight. The amount of pollution (carbon) produced is proportional to vehicle weight, with an exception for hybrids and electric vehicles. Pricing car tabs in a way proportional to vehicle weight would make sense.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 11:30 a.m. Inappropriate
One of the most galling things to me about Prop 1, which noboby has picked up on, including Kammerer in this article, is that the CTAC III -- laughingly described by Middleground as a "citizen's panel" -- conducted a phone survey this year of Seattle residents on transportation issues. Here are the results:
http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/docs/ctac/CTAC%20III%20Survey%20Summary_FINAL.pdf
On page three respondents were asked: "What do you think are the two most important transportation issues facing your neighborhood? (top 10 shown below)"
#1 answer: "potholes/poor pavement" 26%
#2 answer: "traffic/congestion" 21%
#9 answer: Light rail/need monorail 4%
Bicycle infrastructure of any type was nowhere in the top 10, and #10 had only 3%, so bike infrastructure did not get even 3%. And people were allowed to list TWO things!
On page 6, respondents were asked: "How important to you are the following transportation investments?"
They asked about 14 different things. The top three in importance were:
#1 Paving streets and repairing potholes in roads 69%
#2 Repairing or replacing deteriorating bridges and overpasses 68%
#3 Improvements to our most heavily used roads 62%
The bottom three im importance were:
#12 Adding new sidewalks 30%
#13 Improving bike lanes 29%
#14 Extending the streetcar network 26% (34% not important)
Extending the streetcar network was the only investment that got more "not important" votes than "important."
So, I ask you, does Prop 1 reflect the priorities of Seattle residents, with only 20% of the revenue going to pavement repair, and ZERO going to bridge maintenance and repair?
Why is any money at all going to planning more streetcars? The CTAC III's own survey shows that Seattle residents don't give a fig about streetcars.
And why are we bothering with bike lanes at all, when less than 3% of residents think that that is an important thing to do in their neighborhoods?
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 12:50 p.m. Inappropriate
As a bicyclist I prioritize smooth roads over bike lanes any day. Hitting a pothole is not pleasant in a car, it can be a header fall on a bicycle, or make us swerve into traffic to avoid it. (And swerving all around to avoid potholes makes it look like the bicyclist is out of control to following drivers, slowing everybody down.)
As for street cars, the tracks in the streets are a MENACE to bicyclists. The grove for the wheels to follow the track is just wide enough for your wheel to fall into but not wide enough for you to turn the wheel and climb back out, result, you fall, in traffic if you are only mildly unlucky and in front of the street car if you are really unlucky.
Again as a bicyclist, I'd rate street cars in the last category of things the city needs.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 12:59 p.m. Inappropriate
Great article, great comments!
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 1:04 p.m. Inappropriate
Oh you can do a two-fer with street repair, make some side streets not through streets by every couple of blocks make everyone turn right, and add a sidewalk through it. It slows down residential traffic, keeps folks from trying to use it as an alternative rush hour route. And yet you can still drive around on it, just not as a direct route. But locals can walk through it, and bicyclists can just pop over.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 4:19 p.m. Inappropriate
In the midst of all this confusion and hand wringing about legitimate transportation issues and how to fund them, our sacred pair of multi-billion dollar, congestion producing, vanity projects are steaming right along. Lest we forget, the waterfront tunnel/park and the Disneyland option for the I-520 bridge will cost 4-5 billion dollars more than superior alternative designs and will deliver less capacity and access than the structures they will replace. That's billions with a B folks...for destroying mobility and making traffic worse.
Shouldn't someone be wearing an orange jump suit and picking up cans along the highway somewhere?
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 4:54 p.m. Inappropriate
Sacra blu monsieur rolls! My beret has flown off! Seattle must become a world class city! And how else but by having world class debts that we cannot pay?
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 5:11 p.m. Inappropriate
...you got me -GaryP.
Good one.
Posted Wed, Oct 26, 11:51 p.m. Inappropriate
Property taxes have risen at allmost twice the rate of inflation,over the last 15 years, last year it was 9% we have seen parking rates go up,the proposed levie for familys and educaction is doubled this year,utility cost have risen sharply over the last few years The city has been on a spending spree, all the while ignoring basic repair of infrastructure. The atitude by city government that we can have it all should be over and to start to priortize, starting with very basic city needs.
Posted Thu, Oct 27, 3:30 p.m. Inappropriate
Excellent points, citzencane. I often wonder if anyone in this city sees the big problem. We live in a big spending city, county and state. Well meaning politicians have approved programs for every victim group and good cause. We couldn't afford the programs then and we really can't afford them now. Our well-meaning legislation has only made life more difficult for those of lesser means now that a major budget imbalance forces us to rein in spending. Rather than support dependency we should advocate self-reliance.
Posted Mon, Oct 31, 7:13 a.m. Inappropriate
@Skeptical, I am in favor of self-reliance for Eastern Washington, which currently scams a couple billion a year from King County. In any case, transit isn't about self-reliance. It is a quintessentially collective responsibility. I'm not sa fan of light rail, or of Prop. 1, but preaching "self reliance" on transit is foolish, dilatory, or both.
Posted Wed, Nov 2, 1:47 p.m. Inappropriate
Good article. Sadly, I am persuaded to vote "no" on Prop 1 for the simple reason that it fails to allocate enough funds for the most pressing issue facing this City: our crumbling roads and bridges. I moved to Seattle a little more than 20 years ago. The practice of deferring basic maintenance in order to fund more glamorous projects began well before then. With a few exceptions (e.g., bridging the gap) the practice has continued unabated. These problems will not go away. I read recently that every $1 not spent today on road maintenance translates into a $7 problem 10 years from now. So by “borrowing” money from the maintenance budget to fund something else, you’re effectively paying interest at the rate of around 20%. If the City proposed borrowing money at that rate, there would be a run on torches and pitchforks.
My family owns 2 cars. I would gladly pay $120/year in extra tab fees if the money were dedicated to deferred maintenance. Hell, I’d gladly pay more than $120/year. Is a flat $60 fee regressive? Absolutely. Would I be willing to pay more than my neighbors who earn less? Yes, again. Do I want to be responsible for figuring all of this out? Not really, that’s why I vote to send people to the City Council and the Mayor’s office. Until we (voters) make it known to them (Council and Mayor) that addressing the backlog of road and bridge maintenance is a top priority, we’re probably in for more cobbled together “solutions” like Prop 1.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.