Tacoma Transportation Priorities
Next Tuesday the Council will consider a resolution to adopt the City of Tacoma’s 2013 State Legislative and Federal Policy Agendas. These agendas outline official City positions on issues at the state and federal levels that affect Tacoma. The list of state legislative priorities includes 18 items broken down into six categories. Some are repeats or rehashes of previous year’s priorities, and some are new.
Under the category of transportation, there are two items; the first was listed on last year’s agenda, the second includes some language from last year, along with a couple notable updates.
Transportation:
- The City supports adoption of a new transportation revenue package, which may include tolling. The package must include, at a minimum, sufficient funding for all property acquisition for SR-167 and all final design work. Finishing the current I-5/SR-16 HOV project and initial work on improvements to I-5 at Joint Base Lewis-McChord must also be in the package. Initial planning for extension of I-5 HOV lanes beyond S. 38th Street is also a priority.
- Regardless of whether the Legislature approves a statewide transportation funding package, it must address ongoing shortfalls in funding for city arterial streets and other local transportation needs. The City supports increasing the councilmanic authority for transportation benefit district vehicle license fees from $20 to $40. The City also supports providing the Tacoma TBD with the authority to provide a rebate on a portion of the vehicle fee for low income persons. The City supports adoption of a fee based street maintenance utility. Similar funding mechanisms are in use in other states and result in a much higher level of citizen satisfaction with the maintenance of local streets.
The City will start collecting the $20 car tab fee in 2013 to pay for transportation improvements. It’s expected to generate about $4 million to put towards roads and other transportation projects, but that’s a drop in the bucket in light of the need (estimated earlier this year at $800 million for roads and sidewalks alone).
These priorities aren’t binding, but they do state the City’s position on state-level issues. Is there anything under the category of transportation that you would add or change?
Filed under: City Council, Transportation, City Projects, City Government, Transportation Benefit District, Transportation Planning
18 comments
T tacoma_1 December 8, 2012
Getting funding for buses has to be on the priority list somewhere.
And I understand that the highway bottlenecks divert traffic from the highways on to city streets, so I’m ok with I5 and 167 being on the list for fixes, but a State highway needs to get paid for with state funds, not city funds.
F fred davie December 8, 2012
This council can’t stop with the tax increases, revenue “enhancements,” tab increases, toll roads, benefit districts, transportation utility fees, etc.
When are the taxpayers going to get some productivity and efficiency increases, and some common sense cost containment?
J JJ December 9, 2012
I agree with tacoma_1 plus I also agree with increasing the transportation benefit district vehicle license fees from $20 to $40.I actually prefer them higher than that though personally.
J Jesse December 9, 2012
I drive more than the average person. If the gov’t needs more money to maintain the roads that I drive on, so be it. Toll me, tax me, whatever the need is, it needs to be met. Driving a car is not a god given right, as General Motors would like you to believe.
The adjustments for low income persons on the car tabs? Don’t do it. If you make the decision to have a car, you should pay what it takes to make that happen. That means every expense – not just the car and gas. There are alternatives if that expense is too high.
F fred davie December 9, 2012
If you make the decision to ride the bus, you should pay what it takes to make that happen. That means every expense – not just the measly fare you pay.
D Dan December 9, 2012
The gas tax is entirely inadequate for funding our transportaion system. As cars become more efficient, tax reciepts fall even with more vehicles on the road. What we need is a property tax based, or utility style fee to maintain local roads (these are the small ones that have no lines painted, no stop lights and lost of houses and parked cars). It would also cover bicycle and pedestrian improvements which are used by resident of these areas.
At the same time we need to switch to a “vehicle miles traveled (VMT)” sytem for the arterials, highways and interstates where the vast majority of all milage is driven. You would pay based on the number of miles you drive with a higher charge per mile for heavy trucks which cause the majority of damage incured by our roads. This would ensure that those who use the public resource the most, pay a fair share for it’s upkeep. This would not require privacy invading GPS devices like some VMT advocates claim. Every car built already contains an odometer. It’s non-specific milage data could be downloaded every so often to asses the fee. The gas tax would continue perhaps slightly reduced, as an environmental degradation fee for the smog, particulate and chemical pollution created by internal combustion. This is the ideal system in my view, but the politics of how we would ever get there are beyond my comprehension.
M Mofo from the Hood December 9, 2012
Here’s my solution. The Lifestyle Tax: A flat tax on every sinful, global warming, environment degrading, mobile Tacoman. One dollar a day for every citizen of Tacoma. That’s a mere $365.00 a year.
The key to understanding my tax plan is the word “mobile.” Now, I think we can all agree that a Tacoma Lifestyle Tax of one dollar a day will not, and cannot provide enough money to sustain the systemic ambitions of government malfunctionaries. Therefore, in order to supplement my initial mobility flat tax, I propose: The Shoes & Sox Tax.
Let’s look at my Shoes & Sox Tax (indeterminate method) in relation to Tacoma’s vehicle license fee which recently doubled from $20.00 to $40.00. Whenever a vehicle is sold new, the government collects tax and license fees. And subsequently, whenever that vehicle is resold as used, whether one time or one hundred times, the government again collects tax and license fees—on that one vehicle. Well, not everybody drives, so no wonder that the government can’t collect enough money from vehicles alone to create a reserve of funds.
However, nearly everybody wears shoes and sox. So therefore, my proposed Shoes & Sox Tax (indeterminate method) can both supplement my Lifestyle Tax, and ultimately contribute to, if not resolve, the systemic ambitions of government malfunctionaries.
F fred davie December 9, 2012
At the same time we need to switch to a “vehicle miles traveled (VMT)” sytem for the arterials, highways and interstates where the vast majority of all milage is driven.” Dan
We will need to install an odometer on every bicycle as well, because, as you note, it’s important for every person using the public road resource to “pay a fair share for it’s upkeep.” I imagine every bicyclist will want to pay his/her fair share.
S Stu December 10, 2012
Everyone uses roads, whether directly or indirectly. Everyone benefits. So roads are everyone’s responsibility. Not just property owners. Not just drivers. Not just car owners. Everyone.
Increase the sales tax accordingly. Everyone pays. Sales tax is the great equalizer.
Buses? Not everyone uses. Not everyone benefits. And I’m not convinced buses reduce traffic or pollution. Pay to play as much as possible.
Bike lanes are useless. Please avoid.
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
T tacoma_1 December 10, 2012
Actually, bike lanes save lives. Personally, I wouldnt call saving human life useless.
F fred davie December 11, 2012
“bike lanes save lives”
could we have a citation on that please?
T tacoma_1 December 11, 2012
Yawn. We should start w/a citation from Stu that they don’t.
T tacoma_1 December 11, 2012
How bout this fredo, if lane markers don’t make traffic safer, lets just remove the center line on all of our arterials in Tacoma and see how safe that would be for drivers.
J JJ December 11, 2012
City Streets are just too wide.They should only be say 8 feet in width at best.Wide roads and streets promote global warming,gridlock motor vehicle traffic,nuisance on street parking,dangerous high speed traffic.
We are building new highways destroying our environment.We should have a tree canopy near sidewalks rather they should be used to narrow our blighting streets and make them far more environmentally friendly.Tacoma is way too car dependent and this should be forcibly reversed.
[ [email removed] December 13, 2012
@JJ
We have wide streets in Tacoma because most of them, 100 years ago, had either street cars or cable cars.
S Stu December 13, 2012
It’s my observation that marked bike lanes lead riders into a false sense of security, which in turn leads to more accidents, not less. Smart riders always ride defensively.
Additionally, marked bike lanes lead to some confusion, esp at intersections. Drivers wanting to turn right don’t know how to engage the bike lane, and bike riders wanting to turn left are also confused. Unpreditable behavior ensues, leading to more accidents.
Tacoma has many wide, quiet streets. that’s where smart bikers should ride, not on car-busy roads.
A quick Google for “bike lane safety study” leads to 4 interesting top links, one of which is a US government study. Each document has the same findings about bike lanes being more safe: maybe, but not really due to misuse/misunderstanding of lanes by drivers, bikers and peds. I’d appreciate link(s) to studies showing that bike lanes “save lives”.
F fred davie December 14, 2012
Every street should be marked with lanes for vehicular traffic and also for bikes, wheelchairs, skateboards, and horses. That’s 5 lanes in each direction. There should be a complex striping and signaling arrangement at every intersection to make sure each conveyance can pass through in an orderly and safe fashion. Also, each sidewalk should be marked for various types of pedestrians such as walkers, walkers with dogs, wheelchairs, skateboards and mothers with toddlers. These are transportation “priorities” of the highest order and it’s important that the council immediately put aside it’s trivial budget discussions to make these priorities happen.
T tacoma_1 December 14, 2012
Stu
Perhaps I can help with your confusion of lane markings.
1) If your driving down a road, and there is a line running down the center, keep your car to the right of it, unless you are taking a left hand turn, then you may cross that center line if there are no oncoming cars, cyclists, pedestrians, or pocket gophers, but only while turning.
2) If there is a pair of parallel lines on the right side of that same road, and it is too narrow for your car, but wide enough for a bicycle, that is a bike lane and is for human beings on bicycles. If you are a human being in a car, stay out of this lane unless you are turning right. If you are turning right, it is not a turn lane, stay out of it except to cross it in a perpendicular manner. Please try to avoid killing the human being on a bicycle in the bike lane when taking a right turn.
3) Cyclists are allowed the left hand lane when turning left. This helps them avoid gettin run over by cars going straight, while they are turning.