The Fleming Family home page

Monorail home page

Mass transit home page

My opinions regarding priorities

My ideas for routes

(PRT) Personal Rapid Transit

Vocabulary

Links to other monorail sites

The Controversy

The Seattle Monorail Project approved by voters in November 2003 provides that the Project will be funded by a Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) of up to 1.4% of the value of each vehicle registered in Seattle each year at the time of vehicle license tabs renewal.

This tax was opposed by many vehicle owners and may be a major factor as to why the Monorail Project passed by such a narrow margin in the election.

About the middle of 2003 it was discovered that the actual revenue coming to the Monorail Project from the MVET tax was about 30% less than expected. Investigation disclosed that the data bases used to calculate the estimated tax did not truly reflect autombile ownership in Seattle. It is also suspected that some Seattle residents are listing addresses outside of Seattle in order to evade the monorail tax.

My Opinion About the MVET Tax

I THINK THE MVET PLACES TOO MUCH BURDEN ON TOO FEW PEOPLE. The MVET means that only vehicle owners will pay the tax, and only those with Seattle home addresses. Those without vehicles or that live outside the Seattle city limits do not pay the tax, even though many of these people benefit from the Monorail Project.

Who Will Benefit from the Monorail?

The most obvious people to benefit will be those that ride the monorail. Many of these riders are people that are now taking buses. There will be other people that are now driving but will save time and money by switching to the monorail.

There is controversy over how many people will actually stop driving and take the monorail instead. I personally anticipate that it will be a fairly large number. People that drive downtown are subject to delays in traffic and difficulty in finding a parking place. The cost of driving a car combined with parking fees can be quite expensive.

If enough auto drivers switch to using the monorail, there will be a noticeable reduction in traffic congestion, so those people who continue to drive will benefit from the monorail.

Business owners near monorail stations will usually benefit from increased business.

People without cars, or who would rather not commute by car, will pay more for rent to be near a monorail station. Therefore owners of residential rental property near monorail stations will be able to charge higher rent.

Tourists and convention attendees will benefit from a modern rapid transit system. Business that rely on tourism and conventions for income will benefit from the monorail.

Events such as concerts and sporting events that take place in venues along the monorail route will benefit from the monorail. Many people will take the monorail rather than contend with parking and major traffic jams before and after the event. The people that choose to take the monorail rather than drive will improve parking and traffic for those who do drive.

How Did We Get the MVET-Only Tax?

The State Legislature limited the possible choices for taxation for the Monorail Project. It was decided by the Elevated Transportation Company (ETC), the organization that prepared the ballot measure, that the MVET was the best choice.

Technically, the MVET was approved by the voters when they voted in favor of the ballot measure for the monorail. However, in reality I don't think the acceptance of the ballot measure truly reflects the opinion of the people regarding the MVET. The ballot measure asked the voters if they wanted the monorail to be built, along a certain route, for a certain maximum cost, and paid for with an MVET tax. The only way to vote against the MVET was to vote against the monorail. I don't think the approval of the measure at the polls reflects how much the people favored the MVET, but rather how much they wanted the monorail to be built.

As it is, the monorail measure passed by only a little over 800 votes, a very slim margin. I strongly suspect that there were many other people that wanted the monorail but voted against it because of the MVET!

How Would We Change the Tax Package?

The ballot measure approved by the voters requires that any change in the method of taxation would approval of Seattle voters in an election. So somebody would have to prepare a new ballot measure specifying the new tax package, and place it on the ballot in a future election.

There would have to be supporting legislation at the state level. There would have to be some strong lobbying to encourage state senators and representatives to pass new laws that would permit Seattle to use various taxes to collect revenue to finance construction of the monorail.

Would the People Approve New Taxes?

I think that if the tax package is reasonable and fair, it will be overwhelmingly approved by the voters.

First of all, in the ballot issue approved in the November 2002 election, the voters approved building the Green Line at a cost of $1.75 billion. They have already approved the cost. Now the money coming in will fall short of that goal. There is good reason to expect the voters to approve a new tax package that would increase taxes enough to bring in the amount of money originally approved.

Another key factor is the MVET. I think that so many people would vote in favor of a sharp reduction of the MVET that they would accept the rest of the tax package.

I think that if the new taxes are small, but various, the amounts of the individual taxes would be small enough that the majority of people would accept them.

My Proposed Tax Package

Basically, I propose a reduction in the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, coupled with a number of various new taxes. Each new tax should be small so that there would be little opposition, but all the taxes added together should be more than sufficient to provide the $1.75 billion needed to build the Green Line. Any excess amount, whether by collecting too much or by reducing costs, could be applied towards the next project, whether an extension of the Green Line or a different line.

The details:

THE MVET SHOULD BE LESS. I think that the MVET is a good idea, as one of the benefits of the monorail is to help relieve traffic congestion, and therefore will benefit drivers. However the MVET should be much less, perhaps 0.1% to 0.3%, with maybe a cap so that there is a maximum amount for any one vehicle.

THERE SHOULD BE A SMALL INCREASE IN THE SALES TAX. A small increase in the sales tax, for example 0.1%, could go toward the Monorail Project. The sales tax will apply to virtually everybody making purchases in Seattle, including those without vehicles and those commuting from outside the city limits. The tax would amount to one cent for every ten dollars spent, so would probably be accepted as part of the package.

THERE COULD BE A MODEST TAX ON EVENTS THAT WILL BENEFIT FROM THE MONORAIL. Such events would include games, concerts, and other events at Safeco Field, Seahawks Statium, Key Arena, other venues at the Seattle Center, and Downtown.

THERE COULD BE A SMALL TAX ON CONVENTIONS AND TOURISM. Hotels, convention venues, restaurants, tourist attractions, local tours, and car rental companies will all benefit from improved rapid transit and less congestion Downtown.

THERE SHOULD BE A TAX ON PARKING. Those who drive to the Downtown area or to the ball stadiums or Seattle Center, should help pay the cost of improved mass transit that will help relieve congestion and provide an alternative to many people that will find mass transit better than driving. I can think of three forms of taxes on parking — a percentage of parking fees for pay parking, a per stall tax on parking spaces, and an increase in parking meter fees.

The per stall tax would mean that free parking facilities would be taxed, the company owning the facility paying a small tax for each parking space it owns. An option would be a small tax per square foot of parking area. The tax would have the effect of organizations encouraging customers and employees to use mass transit.

THIS SAME SYSTEM OF TAXATION COULD BE THE BASIS FOR GENERAL TRANSIT FUNDING. The monorail is only part of a regional mass transit system. The whole integrated network of transit modes and systems needs funding. The system of taxes I am suggesting could be developed into a system of taxation to fund the various transit agencies and the overall expansion of mass transit in the region, for monorail, buses, ferries, bus rapid transit, commuter trains, and if the people really want light rail, then light rail too.