A new, 172-page report from the legislatively-mandated Puget Sound Regional Transportation Commission identifies a staggering $134 billion of estimated road and transit project needs over the next 24 years in King, Pierce, Snohomish and Kitsap counties. Pages 1-7, 5-1 and 5-2 specify this aggregate dollar total. An article in today's Seattle Times titled "Transit Report Urges Tolls, Not Taxes" fails to mention the price tag for roads at all, though it is essentially equal to that of the $66 billion in identified transit needs for the region. The omission is notable, as is the headline characterizing the document as a "transit" report. On p. 1-7, the RTC report notes that the $66 billion transit needs estimate "represents approximately half of our expected transportation expenditures;" the rest being for local and state roads, which are discussed throughout the report. How to do it all? We could say: shave at least one-third of the total off. That there's always some stuff that'd be nice to have, but that we can and should do without. Then again, the estimates are in 2001 dollars and as always, costs for everything keep going up. What else is needed besides cargo ships full of money? Perhaps, the report says, creation of one super-agency; plus tolls, other user fees and public-private partnerships. And, the report makes clear, voter-approved tax hikes.
The legislature would have to approve any new super agency and its powers; it's unlikely this would allow recission of a somewhat controversial provision under current laws, that both road and transit revenues would have be approved by voters for either to be collected. This provision obtains for an anticipated but stalled joint ballot proposal from Sound Transit and the planning committee of the envisioned Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID) which would cover Pierce, King and Snohomish counties.
One four-county super-agency could mean the effective end of six regional transit agencies and the state legislature's authority over transportation tax and toll collection, acording to the RTC report (p. 9-6, 9-7). It's less government overall, but less locally-responsive, the argument might go. Two less sweeping, seemingly more ineffectual and bureaucratic governance models are also proposed. (The RTC's membership, for those interested, is profiled here).
Sound Politics commenters are, to put it mildly, a rather tough sell on transit, and large revenue raising schemes for roads. Their valid concerns about transportation "bang for buck" and real congestion relief are shared even by more moderate and more crucial swing voters in the suburban crescent east of Seattle; although their pronounced hostility to expanded transit is clearly not.
The RTC report appreciatively notes the voter thumbs-up last week for a small King County sales tax hike boosting bus service and maintenance; and Seattle voter approval of a (misguided, in my view) local property tax hike for road repairs. The RTC tome also notes voter retention of a legislative gas tax hike last year, plus rejection of the horridly overspent Seattle monorail project, and opines, "this is the new reality of transportation funding; very smart and discriminating voters that will thoroughly scrutinize proposals despite widespread frustration with congestion, inadequate capacity and deteriorating older...facilities" (p. 6-17).
I dunno. There are smart and discriminating people out there, but they tend to be overbooked. They're mostly thoroughly scrutinizing the family calendar on the kitchen wall; their workload at the office; and how long it takes to get from work to after-school-care to the supermarket to home to soccer practice and then back home. Most folks go with their gut. And the feeling in most guts around Puget Sound is that when it comes to traffic, there's no free ride any more; but no one wants to get ripped off paying for a "fix" that doesn't deliver.
Public comment on the draft RTC report is open through Nov. 30. Scrutinize it a bit, and e-mail your thoughts to linda.robson@trilogy-partners.com. Comments will be included in a a new draft of the RTC report, to be submitted to the legislature and governor.
Posted by Matt Rosenberg at November 16, 2006 12:27 PM | Email ThisTolls are about the dumbest way to collect taxes...
...unless the real goal is to create more union jobs for the politically connected, uneducated sap.
When I moved back here from Chicago, I was so thrilled not to run into a toll booth every 15 miles.
In Illinois, over 50% of all tolls collected go to pay for the employees collecting the tolls. (Salary+benefits+pensions)
Dumb. Very Dumb.
Posted by: Brent in Ferndale on November 16, 2006 12:47 PMSince I rarely use the viaduct and will hardly ever use 520, yet I will still be paying alot for both, I would rather the rest of the money come from the people who use it on a regular basis.
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2006 12:51 PM
Guess how much has been programmed for residential street maintenance or repair? how about ZERO, not one thin dime.
This revenue stream amounts to about $4.6 million annually and will increase by a couple million thanks to the 9.5 cents/gallon increase recently passed by the State Legislature. It represents the 11 cents/gallon of tax everyone pays when they buy gas or disel. If you really want to be sick think this one over before believing that there is a funding short fall: Tacoma's Mayor and about half the council members have used State Gas Tax revenues to do such things as rehabilitate their alley or to do other improvements adjacent to their property.
If they cannot use public transit, then they can use the free option (I-90 in the case of 520, or I-5 instead of the viaduct).
Posted by: Palouse on November 16, 2006 01:44 PMTolls will only affect those that the liberal elite love to pretend to care for....the Middle to low end "worker" who will be affected by paying triple for what the government is supposed to provide.....roads & infrastructure.
Why don't the victims in the State just give the government the finger and tell them they are not helpless and in need of "them" to keep them from starving to death in the ditch of a rich republican.
I'm getting really sick of this.....don't any of these people have a clue?
Posted by: Dengle on November 16, 2006 02:01 PMThe other thing that will help greatly is to make sure that only a small percentage of regional improvements are initially dedicated to mass transit. There's just far too much road infrastructure that needs improvement, or was never built in the first place. If roads are ignored, it will ultimately be at the peril of the whole region with respect to competition. Portland is growing very well due to a much better regional infrastructure. Seattle and Tacoma will lose out to other western ports in the long run if there are not enough roads.
I'm also in favor of tolls to pay for bridges, although only if there is a higher toll for cash and a mandate for transponder technology to eliminate the foolishness of human toll collectors.
Unfortunately, even with wise decisions, less transit, better efficiency of a single regional body and the help of tolls to pay for bridges, there is still an extreme gap between what is needed and the funds to pay for that gap. A lot of that has to do with the poor tax structure in this state, and a history of incredibly bad transportation policy. I don't expect that to change anytime soon.
One good idea would be to incentivize online commerce with tax credits to make WA, a state where a large share of e-commerce revenue would end up. We could play off of Amazon and sort of like tourism in Vegas, we could build a system that would create lower overall costs and shipping costs for e-commerce businesses in exchange for some revenue for transportation. That would also create a lot of jobs for WA. Just a thought.
One thing's for sure, if we don't get creative in a way that does not overly tax our citizens, but still accommodates growth, we are screwed. I have absolutely ZERO faith that out current Democrat leadership can walk this fine balance.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 16, 2006 02:04 PMThe old Kemper Freeman/Rob McKenna proposal would have increased lane capacity by 15-20% while the same dollars would have increased capacity 5% if transit were completed.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2006 02:08 PMNow, lets be generous and estimate that 10% of commuters are going to use transit when gas goes to $5.00 a gallon, that's about 1.6 million transit trips a year (to work and back 220 days a year), adding the current fare to what needs to be raised to cover the $2.75 billion per year transit investment means a one way fare of just over $30.00 or $60.00 a day to ride the bus.
If you make $12.00 an hour, after paying taxes, you have just about $60.00 left in your pocket after a day's work, so clearly, we'll have to raise the minimum wage commensurate with the increase in the cost of living. Which means that prices will have to be raised at all Washington businesses, which means that every time you buy something you'll pay more in sales tax into the state general fund so the legislature will have more to spend on all of the highly effective and extremely efficient and well managed programs and agencies we already have.
I don't see a downside here. (now where did I put that sarcasm font?)
What is it with one size fits all? One megaagency is going to help with what? Get rid of the local agencies and you replace them with what? One big multiple agency?
Jeff B., you know as well as I that the bigger an agency gets, the more out of control it gets. It is basic Socialism 101 or Government 101.
Posted by: swatter on November 16, 2006 03:15 PMThey control the horizontal and they control the vertical.
Let's start with a provisio that I'm guessing that most SP readers agree with: government costs money. And it's money that if left uncollected by government you or I could put to good use.
So while Matt mentions that a super-regional agency might be less responsive to local concerns and commenter swatter rightly notes the tendency of big government agencies to get only bigger, there are probably some real cost savings to be achieved by regionalizing transit in the Puget Sound region (whether that results in a reduced sales tax rate is a discussion for another day).
First off, Sound Transit is arguably a regional transit agency, but it only includes the "urbanized areas" of Pierce, Snoho and King Counties. This was a fine political compromise when enacted, but I would imagine that there are many transit consumers who do not fully participate in the funding of transit due to the rapid growth of the region.
Also, Sound Transit regional express buses are operated by the unionized drivers in each jurisdiction where they operate. So the express from downtown Seattle to Lakewood is driven by a Pierce Transit driver, likewise the Everett to Seattle run driven by a Community Transit person. I can only imagine what fun it is to administer those contracts.
Question: Why is there a separate Everett Transit separate from Snoho's efforts?
Are there redundant routes between all the different jurisdictions? I bet yes.
Finally, King County, Snohomish nor Pierece nor Sound Transit have never been particularly responive to their customers. Why not consolidate? Would it get worse? Maybe but it couldn't get much more so.
Regional market power on bus purchases and fuel buys could only be for the positive.
Transit's not going away in the Sound, may as well make it cheaper through market scale.
P.S. And yes, the government can subpoena your transponder records. Happened in a NYC homicide case awhile ago and "Law & Order" made an episode out of it.
Posted by: David on November 16, 2006 04:53 PM
This problem won't be solved by the extremes: Sound Politics and Horses Ass could fight about this for years and the costs will only go up. Or Kemper Freeman can fight everybody else and keep dragging the GOP down with him.
Can we please work with what we have and get the 520 bridge fixed before the year 2025? The sooner we come up with the cash and cut the contracts, the less we'll all pay in the long run.
It looks like this latest group did some interesting work for all the egg-heads out there but has done nothing at all to fix any problem. Nothing. Looks to me like it may be making itself a tool of a decades long stupid fight by bringing up a bunch of tired old knocks on transit with absolutely no background or sourcing to substantiate their wild claims.
We're generally all doing pretty well compared to most other in terms of making a living around here. We don't need more studies to make the roads better. We need agreement by silly Commissions like this to get out of the way.
A lot of the stuff in this report looks like the same old tired debating society nonsense. It is important to take a long view. But for heck sakes, let's stop the debating and get on with the fixes. If there's money to fix the 520 on the ballot in 2007, I'm voting for it and I'll bet the vast majority of people around here will too.
ST light rail is frivolous and takes up a large chunk of the costs. Besides, the agency is out of control. If Dino Rossi gets elected governor in 2008, we should see some progress in prioritizing these projects, cost savings and reeling in Sound Transit. With any other Democrat Governor, it will be hopeless - mark my words.
It's clear that there will need to be some cost cutting there. Fixing the 520 bridge and widening 405 should be the top two priorities. The prices will not go down with time.
Posted by: KS on November 16, 2006 10:18 PMLooks like Republicans to me: their main point seems to be that the government is broken. Then they launch this gigantic new agency they say is required to fix things. (Their answer to broken government is: More government. And more elected officials. No kidding.)
Will that ever happen? They can't even agree to a common sense transit agency merger in Everett. That football has been in the air for years.
Looks like all the Democrats on this transit commission got hoodwinked by what appear to be at least two Republicans who simply produced talking points for GOP legislators in 2007 and Dino Rossi in 2008.
Posted by: thor on November 17, 2006 09:21 PM