January 25, 2012 ·

Potholes or Taxes?

The findings reported by Tacoma’s Mobility Stakeholder Funding Task Force shouldn’t surprise anyone.  Tacoma’s roads have problems, and we’ll need to raise taxes and fees to fix them. 

The task force was assembled to study and make recommendations on improvements to Tacoma’s streets, sidewalks, trails, light rail and bikeways.  Specifically, the group of stakeholders was asked to consider which projects should be tackled, how much funding would be necessary, and how and when to raise that funding.  Their findings, submitted to the City in a letter dated January 11th, led to a sobering conclusion.

… the need for improvements to roads, sidewalks, arterial streets, and pedestrian safety is significantly greater than the available funding sources.  To improve pavement conditions alone to acceptable levels, up to $40 million per year for 20 years of additional funding would be required beyond today’s levels.

In case you missed it, that’s up to $800 million for roads and sidewalks alone. 

After not pulling any punches on the seriousness of the situation, the task force laid out a proposed plan for “real and significant improvements” to Tacoma’s transportation infrastructure.  The group suggests that the City maintain existing transportation services, and supplement funds through a carefully ordered set of measures, including an increase in property taxes, a utility revenue bond, and the formation of a Transportation Benefit District, funded by a vehicle license fee.

Suggestions for prioritizing road improvements, included recommendations for “geographic and demographic equity” (important), investments in multiple modes of transportation (good, and in keeping with the Mobility Master Plan), and an emphasis on “less expensive repairs to structurally sound roads” with the observation that rebuilding failed roads is exponentially more expensive.”  In regards to this last item, while the logic is doubtless sound, it seems to demand a little more attention.  What constitutes a “failed road?”  Are we ready to abandon these “failed roads” to their fate?  What about the tax payers who live/work/travel those roads?  This last issue aside, it’s clear that we’re in fairly dire straits when it comes to our roads and transportation systems. 

Committee chair Mark Martinez, quoted in a TNT article, sums up the situation nicely; “This is probably not going to be real popular with the taxpayers of Tacoma…  However, we do have to acknowledge that if we want to improve our roads, we do have to pay for them.”

Are we ready to pay the price to fix things?  Or are we going to let the decay continue?  Potholes or taxes?  Cake or death?

Read the entire task force letter on the City’s Mobility Stakeholder Funding Taskforce page.

Filed under: Transportation, City Projects, Roads, Transportation Planning

2 comments

  • tacoma1 January 25, 2012

    I’m all in on a TBD. If I can get complete streets outta the pothole deal, I’d be on board there too.

  • AreteTacoma January 25, 2012

    I’m glad that people somewhere are looking at the numbers and trying to come up with some rational solutions rather than just complaining. I am most pleased with the last line of the stakeholder letter that urges any new money be used only for maintenance purposes. There has to be accountability. It will be very difficult for the public to trust the city to manage this money responsibly given our current economic situation, but if legal mechanisms are built into the levy that govern how it can be spent, I think this thing would stand a shot of passing.

    I do have some concern about the line regarding geographic and demographic equality. Maintenance needs to be completed using a scientific pavement management system that ensures repairs are undertaken at a time that maximizes their effectiveness, giving us the best value for our money. If two (or possibly many) roads have the same priority according to that system, and there is only enough money for one, then and only then should other factors be considered. Transit routes should be the first consideration, then the best demographic to use would be population density. Fix first the roads that are used by the most people.