Nonorail?
At a minimum, of course, planners need to revisit the funding sources for the project. According to a Seattle Post-Intelligencer editorial, the Seattle Monorail Project "could ask voters to approve [a motor vehicle excise tax (MVET)] rate higher than the current 1.4 percent—up to 2.5 percent of vehicle value. Other options are a flat license fee of up to $100, a car rental tax and an excess property tax levy." Keeping in mind that the MVET is based on a valuation schedule dishonestly at odds with reality (for example, your car in year 7 of service is imputed to be worth 52% of its new price—this for something that is, I believe, "5-year property" for basic IRS depreciation purposes), a 2.5% tax rate works out to a much higher real tax rate on the actual value of a vehicle. My guess is that voters have been sufficiently stung by the 1.4% tax, despite the fantastic and immediate benefits of paying it, that they won't be approving any increase.
I have a few other tax ideas (remember, this is just brainstorming):
- tax all vehicles that qualify for the "light truck" exemption to the federal "gas-guzzler" tax (i.e., SUVs and pickups)
- tax gasoline pumped into light trucks (pressurized sensor hoses could automatically trigger higher pricing for vehicles exceeding a certain weight)—O.K., maybe this is just a sick little dream I entertain
- collect rush-hour tolls on Lake Washington bridges using an "E-Z Pay" sensor system
- offer pay-as-you-go express lanes using the same sensor system
- implement a county income tax
It's also time to seriously reconsider parts of the monorail plan. Does it make sense to have no park-and-ride facilities in the plan? Without these, the monorail may be little more than an alternative to the bus for people who live near monorail stations. At a minimum, shouldn't there be large park-and-ride garages at each terminus of the Green Line?
Indeed, now that we're going to be revisiting the monorail plan, I think planners' assumptions about how people are supposed to get to the monorail will begin attracting attention. Here's an intersting bit from the 2nd Phase Planning Ridership Forecasting Study prepared for the Seattle Monorail Project by Cambridge Systematics, Inc.:
"There are three types of mode of access in the SMP/SDOT travel demand forecasting model:
"1. Walk access;
"2. Drive and drop access; and
"3. Transit access.
"Walk access time is based on the Transit Walk Access model applied to centroid connectors, plus travel time along roads to the station, using three miles per hour walk speed. All travelers have the option to walk; choice is made based on travel time.
"Drive access zones are based on the assumption that travelers will only drive to drop off passengers within three miles of a station. Within this three-mile buffer, drive access times are based on highway congested travel times to the monorail station. There is no parking allowed at monorail stations. Figure 3.1 shows the Green Line alignment on a real map with station numbers along the Monorail line, while Figure 3.2 illustrates the walk-access and drive-access traffic analysis zones (TAZ) along the Green Line.
"Transit access is based on specified Metro bus routes in the proposed restructured network with a one percent per year increase in service. The proposed restructured network was developed from a series of meetings with KCM in August and September 2004. Transit access travelers will walk to the bus, wait, and board and ride the bus to the monorail station, get off and wait again, then board and ride monorail."
So, in other words, if you don't live within walking distance of a monorail station, either someone (who?) will have to drop you off and pick you up, or you will have to take the bus to the station. I have a hard time thinking these are reasonable assumptions, but I'm not a transit planner. Seriously, though, how many people will be willing to take two forms of mass transit to get to and from work? Shouldn't the monorail offer an attractive alternative to commuting by car instead of something reminiscent of my student trips out to Boston's Logan Airport? And the drop-off thing doesn't make any sense to me—this is not a city of stay-at-home spouses. It's also unclear whether decent bus service will even be offered for the legions living within the "drive access zones" who have no one to drop them off and pick them up. Now that the financing plan is dead, will the "getting to the monorail" assumptions be the next thing to attract intensified scrutiny?
More basically, who wasn't surprised by the Green Line route? Is it really imperative to connect West Seattle and Ballard with downtown, or with each other? Perhaps eventually, but it seems an odd place to start. Maybe the priority should be a route that might reduce traffic on already overtaxed I-5, I-90 and SR 520. Monorail planners have done a lot of work on second phase planning, but seem wedded to a "Green Line sold separately" approach. Maybe they should get the whole system figured out and come back to the voters only when they have a full plan they are committed to selling hard.
Voters approved the Green Line based on monorail sizzle. Now that the financing plan has fallen through (did any politician want to touch that hot potato today?) and the car tab bills have begun coming due, monorail proponents will need to sell a well-marbled steak next time.
It is possible that the whole monorail idea will not proceed. Public opinion has withdrawn the benefit of the doubt. If it's not going to happen, I really want my car tab money back. That's one Tim Eyman initiative I would support.
posted at 12:05 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home