That's what Geov Parrish of the Seattle Weekly says has happened to Washington state's roads, quoting a Democrat.
It's a pretty tall order. As Jon Scholes, transportation aide to King County Council member Julia Patterson, told the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, "To tell [taxpayers] that we need more is difficult, but it's the reality. Twenty years of transportation neglect isn't taken care of with one vote."
And who is responsible for that neglect? Modestly, Parrish doesn't tell us. (It is a surprising modesty in someone who writes for the Seattle Weekly, a publication not generally known for its reluctance to assign blame.)
I was not living in Washington for much of that time, so I can't say from my own experience. But I do know that, during those twenty years, Washington had booms and busts, and had Democrats controlling the legislature and Republicans. So, on just what I know, I wouldn't be inclined to blame the state's roads on hard times, or on the legislators from just one party.
But I did learn enough about Washington's politics so that I know that there is one constant during those twenty years, which you can see in this list of governors:
For the last twenty years, we have had Democratic governors. For the last twenty years, our roads have been neglected. Coincidence? I don't know for sure, but I do have a general argument and two examples that make me think it may not be.
First, note that, since the rise of environmentalism, the Democrats have a large number of activists who believe that building roads is undesirable, that we should shift toward much greater use of mass transit. Although most elected Democrats would not make the point so crudely, one can hear, from time to time on talk radio, activists who think that crowded, dangerous roads are part of the solution because they will force people (or at least other people) to use buses and, in time, light rail. It would not be too big a jump to think that such people might have had a strong influence on governors Gardner, Lowry, and Locke, that they might have found ways to stop the construction of new roads in those three administrations, during those "twenty years of neglect".
There was a striking example of the reluctance of Democrats to build new roads during Gary Locke's first term. After he had been elected, several suburban Republican legislators called for an increase in the gas tax (5 cents a gallon, as I recall), along with new roads. I expected Locke to seize on this, since the need for new roads was so evident, and the Republicans had given him a wonderful political opportunity. He could simultaneously divide the Republican party and pose as a moderate. Instead, much to my surprise, he did nothing for months and let the opportunity slip away. I finally decided that his own administration, or perhaps his own party, must have vetoed any new road building.
The second example shows what Locke might have done. Christine Gregoire has bigger fans than me, but I do agree that she probably deserves the credit (or blame) for the passage of the gas tax/road repair package. What she did, I think, could have been done by her three Democratic predecessors — had they wanted to.
Did three Democratic administrations deliberately choose to neglect our roads for twenty years? It sure looks like it. But, as I said, I was not living in the state for much of that period. So, if you have a better explanation for those lost twenty years, let me know.
(I should add that, as Parrish points out in the article, there is good reason to believe that, in spite of the passage of the gas tax, many of Gregoire's road projects will not even be started in the next few years, since they depend on voters in this area passing still another tax.)
Posted by Jim Miller at May 17, 2005 05:20 PM | Email ThisThe money was not being spent properly before, it is not being spent properly now, and only a fool would believe it's going to be spent properly in the future.
Find the number of transportation AGENCIES and fiefdoms currently operating in and around Western Washington, and you'll find a major part of the problem. You can also lay part of the blame at the feet of the prevailing wage we are forced to pay. And add the environmental hurdles, hoops and extortion already mentioned. (yes, extortion. Ask any property owner who's had his or her land confiscated for wetlands mitigation.)
Add up those causes - and others - coupled with a mentality that cars are evil, roads destroy the planet and we should hold hands and float to work, and you'll end up with a 37 to 38 cent a gallon tax on gas which does nothing but line the pockets of the social engineers and the AGC.
And while I disagree with what's behind the tax, I will continue to drive my truck, I will continue to drive alone when other options aren't available, and I will continue to "pollute the planet." Know why? Because that's my choice.
Posted by: jimg on May 17, 2005 05:47 PMWhy would any rational person continue with give more money to the same old people with the same old plans and the same old outcome?
INSANITY!!!!
Posted by: JCM on May 17, 2005 05:48 PMWhy would any rational person continue with give more money to the same old people with the same old plans and the same old outcome?
INSANITY!!!!
Posted by: JCM on May 17, 2005 05:48 PMWhat sort of lunatic would build a convention center right over a freeway? What kind of idiot would reduce four lanes of freeway to two lanes in the center of the major city? HOV lanes would not be a viable option if they were also full. Therefore, those lanes will of necessity reduce flow of traffic. Only idiots would propose those lanes.
We are spending uncounted millions, in the Olympia area, on unnecessary round abouts. At least one doesn't even have a cross street. It is just a round about in the middle of a street.
We have built bike lanes where few, if any, bikes can be found. One "bike trail" has a million dollar tunnel under a street a block from a light. We have two way turn lanes along side the bay with only a few driveways on that road. Waste is the rule, not the exception, for roads and highways in this state.
It is all the product of inept politicians.
Posted by: Ron A. on May 17, 2005 05:49 PMI for one would be HAPPY to spend more on gas taxes as a REGIONAL tax that buys what the region needs most -- a I5 fix, a 405 fix, a 520 fix. The viaduct does not even enter the picture as far as I am concerned as the volume is nowhere near what those other three roads each demands individually.
Posted by: dano on May 17, 2005 06:05 PMI've lived in western Washington for most of the past two decades. About 15 years ago I attended a WashDOT-sponsored conference, in or around Seatac as I recall, on preparing for the 21st century. The point was made very clearly, that the department believed in the credo, "If you build them, they will come." The them was roads, and they wanted to discourage immigration and the consequent population boom by not building any more roads in the state. Mass transit was to be their salvation. I remember walking away thinking, "They came right out and said they weren't going to provide the ongoing services that are needed to maintain our transportation capabilities, but they didn't offer us a tax cut!" They squandered our taxes for at least the last decade and a half to ensure our transportation system would be crippled. This was not neglect--'twas done by design. Democrat-inspired and lead design. These are the same people you can blame next time you park your mid-size car in a compact-size parking space at the office. This, too, was by design.
Posted by: Bill on May 17, 2005 06:25 PMThat and the fact that roads are not a high priority to DOT.
Posted by: Norm on May 17, 2005 06:30 PMEven in states with decidedly Republican governance over the 20 years, it has been very difficult to build new roads.
Aside from environmental regs, one major reason is that gas tax revenues have declined dramatically in real terms. Though gas prices seem high now, in real, adjusted for inflation terms they are not. Hence the gas tax revenues states receive from our now much more fuel-efficient cars buy less highway improvements.
Congestion 20 years ago, and even 10 years ago, in Washington state was pretty much confined to Seattle and its bridges to the Eastside. But the very people you'd need to vote for more roads in Olympia's august halls (Seattle pols) were the ones most committed to transit plans.
The Puget Sound region's best bet at this juncture is to fix what we've got: the scary 520 bridge and 99 viaduct, the stupid lane drops and adds on I-5 and adding some capacity to I-405.
It will cost money. Lots of it. What's the old AAMCO commercial say? You can pay me now, or you can pay me later.
Bill is due.
Ironically, they don't seem to factor in the fact that during all this time, drivers are polluting more than they would if they spent less time in traffic. And, they sure aint letting go of their cars.
Even with rail, they aren't going to take a bus to a rail station, and putt along, still stopping at stop lights, and take 3 times as long to get downtown as they would have had they driven and just sat in traffic.
There has always been plenty of money there. The state has just been spending it on social services - such as anti-male "advocates" that encourage divorce, inflated WEA spending, environmental "studies," all sorts of politically correct nonsense.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 17, 2005 07:31 PMTOLLS!!!!!! ??
Posted by: Andy on May 17, 2005 07:44 PMThey only do that when it's a project that the locals don't want (like the Narrows bridge).
Posted by: Dogbert on May 17, 2005 08:14 PMKing County DOT drove Sammamish into incorporating to get away from this county's pro-development agenda; approving everything without any funding for roads and other necessary infrastructure.
What would people say if King County was intentionally misusing their traffic modelling sofware right now for massive developments, including failing to run it as required by law to achieve realistic results? What if these "public servants" inserted imaginary roads into traffic models to shift cars off the gridlocked roads and free up capacity? What if they inflated those road capacities to avoid making developers pay to widen the roads their projects are overwhelming? What if their baseline traffic models were based on "actual measured road counts" from 1998 that were 30% lower than the actual counts - mysteriously corrupted to invent even more capacity on already gridlocked roads? What if people knew that every important parameter used by their DOT in their road studies was being manipulated to trick every analysis technique into showing capacity on roads that are already backing up for miles every day?
What if people learned that this manipulation to help developers and the growth industry was adding billions (with a "B") to our roads problems?
What if it wasn't a "what if"?
Posted by: Mike on May 17, 2005 08:20 PMWe asked what dummy built a convention center over a freeway? We asked what dummy would constrict a cross-country freeway (I-90) with a full lane constriction to I-5 and have a feeder lane on it also? We asked what dummy would have three operational lanes take off exit lanes and keep the car pool lane south I-5? We asked what dummy would design a two lane I-5 feeder from 520 and then allow those people to exit at Mercer Street? southbound? We asked what dummy would have two person car pool lanes everywhere except on 520?
Get my drift for stoopidity? And they ask us to give 'em a brake? WSDOT - They need a break, full retirement! Performance audits in WSDOT
Pudster
Posted by: Puddybud on May 17, 2005 08:49 PMA few other factors also have aided and abetted road deterioration in the Evergreen State such as; the Growth Management Act, which did a poor job of addressing infrastructure - although some municipalities have done a good job of road upkeep in spite of the GMA, thanks to the integration of effective transportation planning in some cases. However, the states road funds have relatively dried up - whereas DSHS has squandered abundant funds.
Another significant factor that Parrish left out, is the reluctance of this Democrat-controlled utopia (NOT !) to allow real performance audits. Why did the Dems not allow performance audits ? Simple, becsuase it would have been political suicide! The funding picture would be significantly different if Brian Sonntag was able to do what he is elected to do; go in and do an independent audit on all state agencies and cut the waste. Initiative 900 will allow this to happen.
Even if Tim Eyman (who has been found to be of questionable judgment and character at times) is sponsoring this initiative, he hit the nail on the head this time and will restore some trust in how our taxes are being spent, at least for a while, until the Dems muck it up, as they did with Initiative 601. This is of course, assuming that the Democrats stay in control, which is looking more and more like a shaky proposition. Go Initiative 900 !
Posted by: KS on May 17, 2005 09:03 PMWhat complete freaking idiot decided to build a convention center OVER the major highway that goes from Canada to Mexico??!!
That has got to be about the dumbest thing EVER in transportation in any city anywhere. Yet, not a single fartwad on the Seattle Silly Council, Nuckles, Railroad Ron, or the King County Cooky-gang, the stolen governor's office, or the banana republic legislature has ever once mentioned tearing the damn building down.
They taking billions from us for all of these projects, yet wont do the most practical thing that can be done - tearing down the stupid convention center and opening up the bottleneck.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on May 17, 2005 09:30 PMof course we could also go talk about the bridges that have sunk, exits that don't have on ramps back on, etc
Posted by: righton on May 17, 2005 09:43 PMWhen I came here from California I noticed back in the late 70's and 80's that there was an appalling lack of road building here, even though I could see the need. California, for all its faults, at least was acknowledging their need for roads and spent the 60s and 70s building them, and beyond.
this state, for all its beauty and the good it has going for it, has been appalling in acknowledging the population growth and accommodating it. I observed this state had a 'head in the sand' approach to the problem. We are living with the results of that approach today.
Yes, we need better roads. I would be all too happy to pony up for it, but they have not spent the money they DO have well. They need to demonstrate responsible behavior to that end before asking me for more (and clean up the theft by union employees at the ferry docks, pls)
Posted by: Michele on May 17, 2005 10:11 PMWhen I came here from California I noticed back in the late 70's and 80's that there was an appalling lack of road building here, even though I could see the need. California, for all its faults, at least was acknowledging their need for roads and spent the 60s and 70s building them, and beyond.
this state, for all its beauty and the good it has going for it, has been appalling in acknowledging the population growth and accommodating it. I observed this state had a 'head in the sand' approach to the problem. We are living with the results of that approach today.
Yes, we need better roads. I would be all too happy to pony up for it, but they have not spent the money they DO have well. They need to demonstrate responsible behavior to that end before asking me for more (and clean up the theft by union employees at the ferry docks, pls)
Posted by: Michele on May 17, 2005 10:11 PMIn order to resolve any issue, you need to identify the problem, not the symptoms of the problem. Transportation, social programs, mismanagement are only symptoms. The problem is the unbelievable lack of government leadership.
The way to fix the problem is to motivate the voting constituents of Washington to make effective changes at the top. Not to vote for people because of their party affiliation, but to vote for people who have a passion to make an effective contribution to Washington and its residents. If this dream were to come true, this state would thrive in terms of economic issues which would lead to comprehensive social programs which truly addressees the needs of the poor and is able to reasonably define basic environmental values. Our schools would be top rated. Transportation programs would reflect the needs of the people and commerce. They would thrive because we would trust the personnel who would be responsible for their implementation.
In summary, we need a government that we can trust. Trust is the common thread. Until this happens, we will continue to see the truly ineffective way our tax dollars are spent.
"Puddybud - you are exactly right!
What complete freaking idiot decided to build a convention center OVER the major highway that goes from Canada to Mexico??!!"
That was a deliberate decision, from what I read some years ago, to PREVENT I-5 from being widened.
I recall three reasons given -- one, arguably rational from a community standpoint, one technical, and the last one purely emotional. The arguably rational reason? Plowing I-5 through Seattle carved (even more so than many freeway projects inevitably do) as it was built a fairly substantial physical swath in terms of width and division right between First Hill/Capitol Hill and downtown. An area (First Hill) that was, IIRC, economically depressed (for that period of time), and the concern was the inevitable further destruction of the neighborhood since any additional I-5 widening would likely have to be come from the current east margin of the roadway.
And, the convention center/Freeway Park? In part, used as a means to put a bandage over the cut in Seattle made by the construction of I-5. "Reconnecting" the residents of First Hill with the downtown that had been right next door.
The technical reason? Those of us who live in the area know the general lay of the local geography, and many also know about the general soil conditions: (1) outwash soils that were subsequently compacted during the last Ice Age by (literally) 1000 - 5000 foot depths of glacial ice -- not floating like some cube in a rum and coke, but, pressing the fine particles of sand and rock into something with the consistency of hard rock and concrete that is almost impermeable, (2) pockets of 'slop' and sand lenses, (3) outcroppings of bedrock, (4) outwash and fill material in the river courses, you name it. And, to avoid cutting into the hillsides, expensive elevated sections of freeway (take a look at the current portions of I-5 down near the brewery -- near where Sound Transit moved a 'single shovel of dirt (sorry, couldn't resist) and then some on the maintenance bases and tunnel to get between the fill area in SoDo (formerly, Elliot Bay) and the Rainier Valley) and imagine widening the road by another 24+ feet for each additional northbound+southbound lane (not to mention, killing more private businesses in downtown in the process).
The purely emotional reason? People who deliberately wanted to constrain capacity on I-5 to keep Seattle from growing and (in theory) turning Seattle into a clone of the boogey-man of all West Coast cities:
Los Angeles. Freeways. Sprawl. More freeways. Photochemical smog.
The thought? Don't build it, don't let it be widened, and they won't come. Problem was, it didn't work out that way. Look at the skyline of Seattle in the mid-60s, the mid-70s, the late 70s, the 80s, and now. Stopped growth that decision did (channeling Yoda) - NOT. And, rather than getting a "no questions asked 80/20 federal grant for the LRT portions of Forward Thrust back -- what was it, 30 years ago? -- we let Atlanta get the federal dollars for ITS transit system, we figured that Seattle would always be the center of the local universe (not dispersed jobs/housing centers: Bellevue, Redmond, Auburn, Kent, Issaquah, Renton, etc) and we left I-5 pretty much the way it was. Shortsighted.
Question for the audience. Any bets on what the cost to build a wider Ship Canal bridge would have been to add more capacity? Buy all the apartment buildings on the east side of I-5? To build even TALLER retaining walls down by the (now) I-90 interchange and/or buy out the Rainier Brewery? And, how many people would have whined about how WSDOT was spending limited local tax dollars -- not that many years before the late-60s Boeing 'bust'?
Posted by: FlyingTigres on May 18, 2005 04:56 AMIt started when the Environmental Policy Act stopped the completion in the late 60s (remember hippies). So, when it became time to complete I-90, the costs were 20 or so times more expensive (Mercer Island got a lot of those perks). That recent construction project just sucked the regular State construction funds and nothing was done in newly expanding areas.
Well, those old 'newly' expanding areas are now built out and sucking for capacity. Projects they are talking about now could have and should have been started back then.
So, we need to go back a little bit longer than 20 years. I also don't think who was or wasn't a governor had as much to do with this situation as the main facts I mentioned above.
Fast forward to today, and replace I-90 with Sound Transit, etc. and you will get the same problem for the future generation.
Posted by: swatter on May 18, 2005 07:28 AMOn the other hand I expect neither logic nor common sense to come from TESC.
Posted by: Andy on May 18, 2005 09:47 AMTWENTY YEARS PERHAPS!
Thanks Stefan and your ilk...you wanted it...you got it! Too bad we all have to suffer from your idiotic beliefs..
Posted by: Jim Rogers on May 18, 2005 01:26 PMUnbelievable, considering the projected growth in the Cooper Point Community will add over 50,000 homes in the next five years. It's a really bad boondoggle, as this project has impacted the already congested intersection of Cooper Point and Black Lake Blvd. Expect more of this from Evergreen, the sick institution it is. Why they get away with this is amazing to me. The college should be shut down, especially since they don't have the enrollment compared to our other state schools.
I haven't driven out to the West side in a couple months. Please tell me they're using Caterpillar equipment on this project. :)
Posted by: jimg on May 18, 2005 05:04 PM