From time to time, we all need to take a step back and evaluate the picture. That’s true of our personal lives, but it’s just as true of government and its efforts, too. That’s why a new report from former state Transportation secretary Doug MacDonald is so valuable.
MacDonald started with a seemingly simple question: how much does the typical Seattle household pay for transportation and transit, and how is that total divided among different agencies?
You might think this important information is already compiled somewhere, but it wasn’t. Transportation planning exists in silos. MacDonald told Seattle Times columnist Danny Westneat, “The plans are always pitched from the agency’s point of view — how much money they will bring in, and what projects they hope to do. I wanted to flip it, to look at it from the consumer’s point of view. How much are you paying? Are you getting results?”
How much does a typical Seattle household pay?
By MacDonald’s calculations, a typical Seattle household (one that drives and utilizes transit an average amount and owns a $450,000 home) in 2014 paid $1,975 in transit and transportation sales taxes, property taxes, fees, licenses, street parking charges, and fares.
But he didn’t stop there. MacDonald also totaled up the taxes added by Seattle’s already-passed Metro bus proposition and the statewide transportation package, as well as the Move Seattle levy on the ballot this fall and Sound Transit’s hoped-for ballot package next year. Put those together, and in a few years the typical Seattle household’s contribution to transportation would jump to $2,762, a $787 increase.
That’s no small jump. Westneat says we’re on “a transportation-spending jag for the ages.” Of the $787 potential increase, the already-passed statewide transportation package accounts for about $102 of that, through a gas tax increase and higher weight fees. For the investments being made, I believe that is money well spent.
No coordination, no big picture
Beyond the specific facts it presents, MacDonald’s report is valuable for highlighting that there is so little overall transportation coordination happening in our region; nobody’s specific job is minding the big picture. The fact that before MacDonald’s report we didn’t have great data on the mix of transportation taxes and how much a typical household pays is just further evidence of the problem.
Of the transportation investments we’re making today, are we appropriating the right mix to highways, streets and roads, and transit? The agency-by-agency, one-package-at-a-time approach makes it difficult to say. Voters aren’t presented with the mix, they’re presented with individual agencies’ tax wishes.
And what of agency performance? Evaluating overall performance is also no one’s specific job. MacDonald notes the need for “performance measures for how new spending from several agencies can be evaluated for what it is intended to achieve as a whole and whether it will do so.”
The lack of an overall transportation vision has real on-the-ground effects. For instance, MacDonald pointed out to Danny Westneat that missing from this whole discussion – what apparently no agency is anxious to talk about – is the need to do something about I-5 through Seattle (a topic I’ve broached as well). “The question of what we should do to make our city’s main arterial [I-5] work better isn’t anybody’s specific problem, so it’s been shoved aside,” MacDonald said.
It’s likely that MacDonald wouldn’t have been allowed to publish this sort of a report back when he was state Transportation secretary. “You can tell reading MacDonald’s study that it wasn’t commissioned or requested by anyone in charge,” Westneat wrote. That MacDonald can now be blunter about the facts is another reason his report is worth its weight in gold.