Building new roads for the rest of the state is bad. That's the conclusion I draw from this Danny Westneat column, in which he explains his switch from opposing new gas taxes in 2002 to favoring them in 2005. Here are the key sentences:
That old plan, called Referendum 51, was pretty much $8 billion worth of pork and hot asphalt. Much of it was for new highway lanes. It pledged to turn Interstate 405 into a 12-lane, neighborhood-spoiling behemoth.
It did next to nothing to fix the most decrepit highways, such as the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the Highway 520 floating bridge.
In contrast, three-quarters of the money now goes to fixing the highways we've got, not building new ones.
Westneat lives in Seattle, so it is understandable that he might favor projects that make his life easier. But I don't understand why he thinks it fair to tax the entire state and then spend nearly all the money on a city that already gets more than its share of the pie. (Consider, for example, just how big a subsidy the University of Washington is to Seattle, if that last statement puzzles you.)
State senator Tim Sheldon claimed, in a radio interview last week, that people in the two counties in his district, Mason and Kitsap, have the longest commutes in the state. (I haven't checked that, but it certainly seems plausible.) So his constituents — who are probably less well off than the people in Seattle — will be subsidizing Westneat and company. If Westneat thinks this is fair, I would like to see him explain why.
Or perhaps he simply hasn't thought about it. It often seems that, for Seattle Democrats like Westneat, that the part of the state that you can not see from the Space Needle might as well be invisible.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(The current plan is not even good politics, at least not for those who want to preserve the Democratic majorities in the state legislature. A political tactician would advise putting the main projects in swing districts, not in safe Democratic areas.
I should add that I was not entirely in favor of the 2002 plan. I would like to see us begin with some simpler approaches, such as removing some of the restrictions on what I like to call the "low occupancy" lanes. Perhaps these lanes are necessary during rush hours, but they simply impede traffic most of the time. And we should drop the enormous subsidies for commuter rail, and divert that money to something more sensible.)
Posted by Jim Miller at May 08, 2005 09:38 AM | Email ThisReviewed the project list and transportation funding enacted in 2005 this morning. On balance, the 'Nickel' plan seems to have completed some work out east, and the best that can be said is that our Democrat controlled legislature's purpose revolves around 'highway purposes' to a greater extent than on highways.
Seattle, by virtue of party politics and payoffs with taxpayer's monies, is receiving quite a bit of value on a dollar per taxpayer basis, to be sure. Truly, did we expect anything different? And, it's not done. With the coming requests for regional taxation to fill out the coffers for the Viaduct and 520, they fully intend to bleed us dry to make themselves comfortable. All while having adjunct requests for monies to subsidize Sound Transit. And placing policies in action that try to drive more people into the cities, creating higher housing prices and a larger city tax base. And, because of the higher housing prices, taking even more money to subsidize low income so that they can live in and support the higher tax base. And, oh by the way, select an option for the viaduct that is not only the most expensive, but uses taxpayer money to create high tax value properties to sit upon it and gain the revenue from that.
There are some liberals out there with tingly naughty parts over their victories.
And yet, no one calls them on it. Therefore, they are emboldended, and will continue their pattern of behavior.
Mind you, as much as I agree with the assessment on the underutilized lanes, there are those who have made it an 'all or nothing' game. Firstly, the majority of users are moms with kids, from my observations, and we experience outrage at the thought that we would deny them preferential lane travel. After all, in their view, it doesn't matter that no vehicles are removed from the road (stated purpose of having the lanes), THEY have kids and need to get places quickly!
As it's an 'all or nothing' game, we can expect that any significant modification to those lanes will result in their removal completely. I cite the news this week about the carpool lanes in Vancouver which are so under used that even the state wants a change. And, the planned change is to remove the lane completely. That's right, if they can't have that lane, no one can! That is the ideal of the leadership of this state, and the people who are supposed to be reducing congestion. They would rather paint out and remove that lane than to allow lesser beings such as I to use that underutilized capacity.
Personally, I have adjusted my lifestyle to lessen the impact of travel in the Puget Sound region. I leave much earlier in the morning, and come home much later. Let's me add to the GDP so that we can fund the whims and fancies of those whose job it is to lobby and use the government against me. Of the people, indeed!
It is what it is. We have the leeches that demand that I pay for their agenda, we have the governmental structure that relies upon the support of the leeches to access and gain power to rule despite the will of the people, and then there's people like you and me. Expected to pay for it.
I hope that someone is proud of this state, for I am not.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 8, 2005 10:13 AM$976K to fund a study to determine whether the Legislature should mandate ATV safety classes, and create a licensing scheme.
$200K for staffing costs at the Department of Archeology
Unstated amount out of a $21 million line that mandates the state contract with a nonprofit organization to study DUI recividism. (Sounds like a blank check payoff to me.)
$450K for a consultant to look for new ways to gain revenue for transportation.
Unstated amount out of a $1.4 million budget line to review how the government works together to enact transportation solutions, and to review the feasibility of a statewide MVET scheme.
$1.5 million to fund a study on how to emplace tolls
1.1 million for a statewide rail capacity study
$850K for developing a way to communicate transportation achievements to the public
$2 million to implement a RTID, pay for election costs, and emplace infrastructure
$25 million for grant program to agencies providing special needs transport.
$473K to pave runways in the state
$320K JUST to buy electric buses for Metro soley for use on Capital Hill.
$130K to train blind people how to navigate when they close the bus tunnel in Seattle
$3 million just for the streetcar project in Seattle
$29 million to pay for Sound Transit's Talgo program
2.7M for new round trip rail service to Portland
$500K for a study of Eastern Washington Freight corridor
$13Million to fund a new interchange that lets the UW Cascadia students departy/join 405 with no interference.
26 Million to try to get Tacoma to take ownership of the historic 11th Street Bridge
3 million for a study of passenger only ferry service
867K to fund a safe routes to school program
870K for a pedestrian safety improvement on Yakima Avenue in Yakima, near a rail line
Mandates more use of red light cameras
200K to implement a ferry smart card system
14 million to staff an environmental affairs staff for the ferry system
3.1 million to fund a permit efficiency staff for Transportation
Raises the charge to put business' signs on the freeway exit information signs
3.8 million for another congestion study of Puget Sound, Spokane, and Vancouver
1.2 million more for RTID elections
another $18 million for the special needs transportation grant program
100K more for Benton County to study commute time reduction strategies.
100K to fund a produce railcar program
29Million to lease from Vancouver a Talgo trainset to start a new run to Vancouver
Mind you, these are just the little tag alongs that the legislators threw in. Nothing about what nonsense was a part of the original submitted plans from the agencies. And, I didn't cross reference the bills that were referenced. Probably more juicy stuff there.
Didn't add it all up, but hey, it would relieve some of the pressure for additional funding for the viaduct, eh?
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 8, 2005 10:53 AMI have cut mine significantly more that that and my savings are going to help fund candidates who are not tax and spend happy in this state. They are getting very very hard to find!
Let's all just remember, Ron Sims and group claim Sound Transit was voter approved. It was absolutely NOT. What the voters approves was Sound transit at 2 Billion, and it is 4 billion over budget and 2/3's as long. It is estimated that each trip on Sound transit will cost the state $20. This is NOT what the voters approved!
Take charge of what you pay in taxes, and use those savings to put new people, judges, initiatives, referendums, etc. into effect. It's never too late, even with Former attorney general Christine TAXUSALLBILLIONS in office temporarily!
Posted by: GS on May 8, 2005 12:05 PMI would love to believe that those savings would be mine to spend, but they have and will ensure that any savings I make will result in more take for them.
It's not uncommon for communities who do change their habits to see their legislators come back and ramrod new taxes to replace the 'lost revenue' that happens when society actually complies with their dictates. Believe that Oregon recently raised the gas tax to fill the gap left when people made a point of using less, and by extension, paid a lower amount of dollars to the fund.
A fallacy to believe that we are going to be allowed to keep our savings.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 8, 2005 12:24 PMThe reason the highways are a mess was a bait and switch routine that went on, whereby they reduced GF expenditures, and raised the gas tax for the roads. Over a period of time, the gas tax fund was diverted from roads to highway alternatives. Then, the predominant focus on 'highway purposes' came along. Hence, a dramatic, evolving, purposeful degradation of the funding and infrastructure.
They don't want performance audits, expanded capacity, or anything that would support anything emboldening an individual. They are collecivists. In a state built upon individual rights emplaced in the state constitution, and whose founders set in motion on the basis of individual accountability and progress, they have bastardized the logic, hijacked the governance, and set in motion a collectivist agenda. To answer your questions on studies, there is a cottage industry of their friends that financially gain to produce studies that bolster the 'facts' that in turn allows this collectivist group to ramrod their agenda time and time again. These people are shameless in their avarice and greed, and continue to support a self perpetuating system that takes more dollars, and leaves less freedom. There is no incentive to change. If anything, their motivation is to leverage the monies they already spend to more power, and bigger government.
You are naive in your assumption that there's any good faith on their part, and that they would be reasonable enough to work on a cooperative basis. There's no chance they will do so, for there is no sanction or threat to them for doing as they have. And they know it.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 8, 2005 01:21 PMIf you have a URL for the transportation budget, or some other reference, I think more than one person might want to look at the actual numbers -- especially after seeing the items you found.
So I'll keep looking for those funds I can save and divert that way! This Governor and the current majority are looking for a fight and a fight they will get until they start respecting the wishes of the citizens and quit formulating their own we know best what is good for you mentality.
Posted by: GS on May 8, 2005 01:51 PMwww.commutercars.com
Double/triple the lane density, no pollution. Who needs more roads when we can drive a vehicle that's noiseless, uses no energy when standing still, doesn't pollute, gets the energy equivalent of 195 miles/gallon, and EVERYBODY has a "gas station" at home!
We only (only!) need to come up with $25 million bucks to get the car into mass production (and pass the Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard tests), and this kind of critter would make it a safe, clean commute to/from work. I'm going to be driving serial #3...
Rick Woodbury has *tried* to get the Wash. Legislature interested, no luck. THIS is where we should be spending transportation money, NOT on some half-assed monorail that doesn't go where YOU live!
Boys 'n girls, we *already* have the solution! Hello?? Is anybody listening??
Igor
Posted by: Igor on May 8, 2005 02:18 PM(I hope that I don't have to scrape you off my windshield ;'}
Posted by: alphabet soup on May 8, 2005 02:57 PMhttp://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2005/index_budstat.asp
I have not read the capital or operating, which both are fun sources of mirth and enjoyment most years. Will over the coming weeks, and toss out some of the fun things that they tossed in those budgets as well.
Enjoy.
Steve
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 8, 2005 04:58 PMIt really is a laugh every couple of seconds.
I shan't try to pick out the top 100 tonight, but if anyone is interested, I'll take a crack at it over the next couple of days. Let's put it this way, if I had a veto pen, we wouldn't have had any tax increases, and we would have more than paid for the road improvements I think is necessary.
Posted by: Patches Pal on May 8, 2005 09:56 PMFinite element analysis of the vehicle's roll cage says that the Tango can withstand a FULLY-loaded semi sitting on top of it (static load only). That's at least 35 tons. It's strong!
We have raced the beastie at Spokane Raceway Park last year (in '04), and the raceway's management is pretty strict on crashworthiness - the Tango is FIVE times stronger than what NASCAR and NHRA require for a vehicle roll cage. This means that the car is *much* more survivable than your average SUV, which is supposed to be the cat's meow as far as crash survivability. I'll BET MY LIFE on its ability to withstand a crash. I have a tremendous respect for the guy that designed it, I've been over his calculations, and the Finite Element Analysis package agrees with the real world kinetics.
This is why the FMVSS wants a bunch of money to test the vehicles to destruction - they want to make sure there's no paper-mache cars running around the streets. Have you seen some of the "environmentally friendly" oversexed golf carts running around in Europe? Thanks, but no thanks - I've had personal experience with crashes and rollovers, especially on the racetrack!
I'm pretty dang sure it's roadworthy AND crashworthy! I've got lots of digital pictures of what's under the skin if you're interested...
And, yes, it'll carry Ron Sims. Easily.
Igor
Posted by: igor on May 8, 2005 10:36 PMBruce - Think money for gas taxes, not time, and you will see the point I was trying to make. Nearly all the money spent on roads in this state comes from gases taxes.
Posted by: Jim Miller on May 9, 2005 07:25 AMTurn with me to your capital budgets, and sing along with me.
700K for the african american museum
300k for McIntyre hall
700K for cornish college of the arts
375K for Arlington performing arts
and hey! 115K for the world's kite museum!
(total budget line is 5.4Million)
6.7 million to promote development for affordable housing.
9 million for weatherization programs
1 million to fund a risk pool for nonprofit agencies!
1.5 million to fund a japanese american memorial
39 million for ballparks, museums, and assorted other feelgood things.
345K to upgrade PBS station KYVE to digital
350K to buy ball fields from Yakima City in Yakima
450K to restore the Jefferson county clock tower
1million for the LeMay museum
1 million for the Walla Walla wine incubator
2.25 million for the wine and culinary arts center in Prosser!
(Less than 5% into the document. Stand by)
your representatives are representing YOU and your priorities.
Steve
Of course there are complications. For example, city roads cost more to build per mile. But then again, city roads get much higher utilization -- rural roads wear out because of weather and age whereas city roads wear out due to usage (a gross generalization). And city driving means fewer MPG so therefore more gas (and more taxes) per mile driven. Balancing all these factors is a formidable task. But your post didn't address these, and I won't try to here...
Posted by: Bruce on May 9, 2005 02:12 PMJim Miller made the statement that, "nearly all the money spent on roads in this state comes from gas taxes."
Nearly all, maybe, but not all. I'm trying to get the actual numbers, and for me at least--I guess I don't have very good research skills--it has been difficult.
It has always been my understanding that cities and counties collect non-gas-tax money for their road budgets, from property and sales taxes, although I suspect they get also get some money back from the state gas tax. I'd love to know what these numbers are.
If the magic of the marketplace is to serve us best, we should remove all subsidy from the automobile, which is already the winner in the mobility market. There will always be pressure on government to subsidize transit because the old, the disabled, the young and others have transportation needs that can't be met by driving. But subsidizing cars makes the goal of profitable transit recede ever further away from us. Judging from the composition of the poster on this listserve, which I apprecaiate by the way, I expect people will point out that transit might be better able to turn a profit if it were privately operated, which is no doubt true. But, like zoning, public operated transit is not on anybody's radar to do away with right now.
Thanks for the forum, Ed