Editorials / Opinion

THE nearly $1 million that the city of Seattle spent to clean up the latest snow is truly a large sum. But it is only a fraction of the costs imposed by the storm, which shut the city down. On these pages we have read of the nightmare commutes and lost business throughout the Seattle area. When added up, these costs are truly staggering at approximately $375 million for the three-day shutdown.

The city and metro area should spend significantly more on snow removal to help avoid these costs. This is clearly a case for good government spending.

Let's look at this cost estimate in a bit more detail. The Seattle metro area has an annual GDP (a measure of goods and services produced) of about $230 billion. If we make the conservative estimate that the city loses 20 percent of its normal production for each day of the closure, this amounts to $375 million. This lost productivity is due to closed businesses, customer cancellations and workers failing to show up for work because of child-care needs when schools are closed or impossible commutes. This estimate, though, omits the difficult-to-measure costs, such as the stress and anxiety over commutes or lost learning from school closures.

These estimated costs are nearly 400 times the city's spending on snow abatement. One might argue that Seattle doesn't get these snow storms enough to warrant massive spending.

Suppose Seattle only got a storm that shut the city down once a decade. This is again an underestimate as I can think of three in the past handful of years. If we think of spending on snow removal as insurance against a city shutdown, then we should be willing to spend almost $40 million a year on snow removal. But even with more marginal spending increases, we could expect big payoffs.

The city of Chicago, known for terrible storms, has to spend only $15 million per year to keep its streets clear. Suppose Seattle spent $15 million every time a freak snowstorm occurred or threatened, but due to its hills was only able to save one day of closure out of three. This spending would recover $125 million of otherwise lost daily production, or close to an 850 percent return. Where else are such great returns possible now that the housing bubble has burst?

Of course, the city's and county's budgets are tight, so how should this new proposed spending be raised? I propose a novel tax that depends upon the weather.

Most years, the city will need to spend a minimal predictable amount on snow removal. But in some years, a snowstorm will hit demanding massive spending to keep the city open. Perhaps homeowners through property taxes and businesses through their business taxes could be charged a snow-removal surcharge in the event of snow over, say, an inch.

With such a tax and the clear streets it funds, we are all better off. The further benefit of this tax is that it does not accumulate as money in the general fund that is too tempting for politicians to avoid spending on sunny days. The money for the snowy day only comes when there is a snowy day.

I won't wade into the detail of how the money should be spent to remove the snow, but the bottom line is that the Seattle area massively underinvests in snow removal.