[Carfreeliving] Idea for a Transit First Transportation Tax
Andrew Sullivan
andrew at sulli.org
Wed Mar 2 11:07:10 MST 2005
This isn't too different from the proposal some years ago for a
citywide transit assessment based on property values. I have always
thought that if an assessment is done, citywide is the way to do it.
It is probably easier to get the money another way (via sales tax or
vehicle fees) but this certainly is in the realm of the possible.
Note that property tax pass-throughs will lead to a huge battle with
the Tenants' Union. Also, it needs to be very clearly tied to either
increases in service levels or meeting service standards for Muni, and
it needs to be dedicated to the MTA. I would NOT recommend combining
both capital and operating money in one proposal - capital funding
comes from Prop K and could be increased via other means such as a
general obligation bond (as recently proposed by Rescue Muni for
Geary).
Not sure if this gets you multimodal utopia. But we can try.
Andrew
On Mar 1, 2005, at 23:47, Emily Drennen wrote:
> Apologies if you get this more than once. There were some technical
> difficulties.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Emily
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> ******************************
>
>
>
> Dear all,
>
>
>
> In response to the current budget crisis for the MTA, I've been
> kicking around an idea for a new funding source, which I have dubbed
> the "Transit-First Transportation Tax" (TFTT). It would be levied as a
> percentage of each residential and commercial property owners' tax
> bills (renters would probably need to kick in to some degree as well
> as a pass-through), and would go to fund MUNI, bikes, peds, disabled
> access, street resurfacing, and some car-related projects as well
> (such as signals, signs, and street paint). The "sell" is that it is
> in everybody's best interest (both businesses and residents) to have a
> strong and affordable MUNI system. Relatively small increases in their
> tax bills could have a big impact on MUNI especially by lowering fares
> and increasing ridership.
>
>
>
> I have included below a very *drafty* outline of ideas, questions, and
> concerns for the TFTT. Please let me know if you think this idea is
> worth pursuing further, and any other thoughts. If it sounds
> plausible, I'll bring it to more folks, with the aim of getting a Supe
> to take it on. This could also be a great project for TLC and/or SPUR.
> (BTW, if this sounds plausible, I'd very much like to continue to work
> on it. Any funding out there anywhere?)
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Emily Drennen
>
>
>
> ***********************************************************************
> ********************************
>
> Transit-First Transportation Tax (TFTT)
>
> Emily Drennen FEBRUARY 2005
>
>
>
> SUMMARY
>
> The Transit-First Transportation Tax (TFTT) would be a new tax levied
> on all residential and commercial properties (as a certain percentage
> of each property’s annual tax bill) and would fund transit-first
> transportation projects (such as MUNI, traffic calming, bikes, peds,
> paratransit, and street resurfacing, etc.).
>
>
>
> Problem Statement
> • Chronic shortage of funding for transit-first transportation
> projects, such as for MUNI, pedestrians, bicyclists, paratransit
> riders, etc.
> • Declining federal and state funds for transportation projects
> • Increased demand for municipal services, and long-term municipal
> budget crises
> • Scattershot transportation project planning and implementation,
> based on the possibility of outside funding
> • Continuing budget deficits at MUNI, with no major new funding
> sources identified (with a high probability of higher MUNI fares and
> increased service cuts)
> • Planners and engineers spending too much of their time seeking
> external government grants when they could be doing much-needed
> planning and engineering work
> • Need for more high-level transportation and land use planning that
> is multimodal, county/corridor/neighborhood-wide, and that takes
> advantage of economies of scale and opportunity
> • Annual budget process that is highly political, volatile,
> short-term, which means that transportation budgets are necessarily
> short-term and uncertain for future years
> • Massive infrastructure needs, such as curb ramp
> installation/repair and street resurfacing/rebuilding, that can barely
> be addressed through current funding mechanisms. Not taking care of
> these capital needs leaves the City vulnerable to much higher costs in
> the future, such as through an ADA lawsuit or skyrocketing costs from
> deferred maintenance
> • Inadequate enforcement of traffic laws, leading to needless
> injuries and deaths from reckless driving
> • Expensive major capital projects in the near future (such as the
> Central Subway, new BRT service on Geary and Van Ness, and the
> completion of the 3rd Street Light Rail) without any new major new
> sources of funding identified
> • An annual tax is the most efficient way to provide consistently
> provided services (bond issues are episodic and are expensive;
> TIDF-like fees are only assessed when development occurs (very
> dependent on economy and not very $-producing))
>
>
> Outline of ttft
>
> w TFTT would fund:
>
> o MUNI (capital costs, personnel, planning, etc. to keep fares
> low, service frequent, improve reliability and convenience);
>
> o pedestrian improvements (curb ramp backlog, countdown ped
> signals, and other projects as identified in the Ped Master Plan);
>
> o bike improvements (based on approved projects and priorities
> as identified in the Bike Master Plan);
>
> o traffic calming;
>
> o ADA access;
>
> o Integrated Transportation Management Systems (such as Transit
> Preferential Signals, Next Bus, and SFgo);
>
> o traffic enforcement (SFPD increased traffic enforcement with
> goal of increased compliance with traffic laws and reduced injuries
> and deaths);
>
> o parking enforcement (increases in DPT staffing for parking
> infractions);
>
> o public transportation infrastructure (sidewalks, streets,
> signals, signs, etc);
>
> o county-wide planning efforts (SFCTA modeling, Better
> Neighborhoods, etc.);
>
> o paratransit service;
>
> o school area access and safety
>
> w TFTT collected by Tax Collector as part of existing property
> tax collections
>
> w Renters would split the TFTT bill with the landlord of their
> residence or business (what %?)
>
> w Proceeds of TFTT would be managed by the SFCTA through a
> process similar to the Prop K ½ cent sales tax
>
>
>
> BENEFITS
>
> w Benefits of a dedicated and sufficient funding stream:
>
> o Rational and logical project development and implementation
>
> o Better citywide, neighborhood, and corridor planning
>
> o Better multimodal coordination
>
> o More matching money available for outside funding sources
>
> o Ongoing maintenance
>
> o Less political process
>
> o More money available for general fund for essential programs
> such as health and human services, fire/police, library, etc.
>
> o Increased efficiencies from coordinated, planned, and
> integrated project process
>
> w Appeal to average person:
>
> o Transportation affects every person, every day in may ways
>
> o Transportation investments are good for property values,
> businesses, the economy, and jobs
>
> o Transportation enhancements can increase quality of life (more
> time with family, less stress, less need for a private car, etc)
>
> o Other city services would receive more money from General Fund
>
> o Transportation costs are 2nd highest expenditure for personal
> income in Bay Area. Working together to reduce MUNI fares and increase
> service will bring down personal transportation costs (efficiencies of
> scale). Very small (how small?) yearly amount spent on TFTT would
> bring down annual transportation costs for most people.
>
> Questions to be answered
>
> w Prop 13 restrictions on this tax?
>
> w Need estimates and actuals of property taxes paid in SF, with
> a breakdown by residential and commercial
>
> w Would TFTT rate need to differ for residential and commercial
> uses?
>
> w Determination of acceptable amount to fund through property
> taxes:
>
> o How much $ would be ideal amount to raise through this
> mechanism (to adequately fund MUNI, etc.)?
>
> o How much would $ would it cost to provide free MUNI service?
>
> o How much to create multimodal utopia?
>
> o How much would people balk at?
>
> o How much would tax be for a typical family, small business,
> and other prototypical examples?
>
> o Any exemptions for low-income property owners?
>
> o How to protect low-income renters from paying tax?
>
> o How to get exempted from or overturn state law requiring 33%
> of transit budget from fare box?
>
> w Accountability: How to ensure that the SFCTA spends money
> wisely?
>
> w Implementation: Any problems with the Tax Collector adding
> the TFTT to tax bills and collecting it?
>
> w Is there an equity concern already built into the property
> tax structure?
>
> w What things to include/leave out of funding mix for: a)
> political reasons b) lack of need c) availability of outside sources
> d) not directly transit-first (like Residential Parking Permit program
> and other parking)?
>
> w How to handle BART, GG Transit, Caltrain, SamTrans, ferries?
> (Probably best to leave it out of mix, or dictate that TFTT can only
> be used to expand SF service)
>
> w Sustainability of TFTT:
>
> o Sunset horizon?
>
> o How to repeal?
>
> o Any need to re-authorize, and how often?
>
> w Timeline for ballot: fall 2005 too soon?
>
> w When could first benefits from TFTT be realized?
>
> w Inflation concerns:
>
> o How to set tax so that it keeps pace with inflation?
>
> o Should it be adjustable (in a range) by the SFCTA based on
> need, or kept as a set percentage?
>
> o How effective are property values as a barometer for
> inflation? (And does Prop 13 affect this?)
>
> w Political appeal of “free” Muni vs. “keeping fares as low as
> possible”?
>
> w How to develop campaign for TFTT?
>
> o Which Supes to put it on ballot?
>
> o How to develop enough media, visibility, and support for TFTT?
>
> w Need to develop simplified explanation of TFTT, why it is
> necessary, and what it’d fund
>
> w How to tie this into current budget year debate?
>
>
>
> Stakeholders
>
> w Supervisors
>
> w Mayor
>
> w Agencies (MUNI, DPT, SFCTA, Planning, DPW, SFPD)
>
> w Large downtown businesses
>
> w Small businesses
>
> w Homeowners and neighborhood associations
>
> w Renters and SF Tenants Union
>
> w Homeowners
>
> w Transportation advocacy groups
>
> w Other advocacy groups (seniors, people with disabilities,
> environmental, etc.)
>
> w Organizations and stakeholders that would benefit from
> increased availability of city funds for their programs (public
> health, arts, police/fire, adult education, youth and senior programs,
> library, etc.) due to a lowered need for city fund support for
> transportation programs
>
>
>
>
>
> Emily Drennen
>
> 415/863-2248
> bicyclesf at yahoo.com
> www.emilydrennen.org
>
> Advisory Council Member, Bay Area Air Quality Management District
> Citizen's Advisory Committee Member, Metropolitian Transportation
> Agency
> Board Member, Walk San Francisco
> Past Chair, SF Bicycle Advisory Committee
>
> Celebrate Yahoo!'s 10th Birthday!
> Yahoo! Netrospective: 100 Moments of the
> Web_______________________________________________
> Carfreeliving at livablecity.org mailing list
> to facilitate and promote car-free living in SF
> To unsubscribe:
> mailto:Carfreeliving-request at livablecity.org?subject=unsubscribe
> or, for all options, go to:
> http://livablecity.org/mailman/listinfo/carfreeliving_livablecity.org
More information about the Carfreeliving
mailing list