Matt posted a terrific entry yesterday about regional transit funding, the Puget Sound Regional Transit Council report, and next year's battle over the forthcoming multi-gazillion dollar RTID roads-and-trains tax-and-spend proposal. Be sure to read Matt's entry.
Here's my modest proposal to solve a major flaw with the to-be-finalized RTID proposal. The problem is the RTID will require a yes-or-no vote on a huge package of $T for trains and $R for roads. No roads without trains and vice versa. You don't get any road enhancements unless you agree to pay for the entire hairball of trains. (that way, when the trains are inevitably years late and billions over budget, the Sound Transit boondoggle salesmen will be able to say, "but the voters wanted this!"). And the numbers $R and $T are negotiated in backroom deals by central planners, with generous help from the asphalt salesmen, construction contractors and bond lawyers. Yes-or-no, approve it or have fun with yourself in traffic.
Here's a better way to allocate funding that would be more responsive to user demands and also more likely to increase public satisfaction and confidence. First, determine the overall number for regional transportation spending. This should be a multiple-choice ballot. The choices could be $0, $1 billion a year? $5 billion? etc. Every voter gets to choose one. If a majority picks $0, then the whole thing fails. Otherwise, the outcome is the average of what everybody chose.
The second part of the ballot is to determine how that money is allocated between roads and transit. Every voter specifies a number between 0 and 100 which indicates the percentage of the funds that go to roads, with the remainder for transit. To calculate the overall percentage for roads, take an average of voter choices (or to simplify the mechanism, people might be offered choices between fixed percentages e.g. 0% Roads, 100% Transit; 25% Roads, 75% Transit, etc.). This resulting allocation would apply to funds raised from general taxes, such as sales tax and gasoline tax. Other funding would undoubtedly come from property taxes and automobile registration taxes. In those cases, the tax payer is shown the dollar amount of their own tax which is collected for transportation. They would have the opportunity to specify on their tax remittal form how they would choose to allocate their taxes between roads and transit. If you pay, say $50 for the privilege of registering a vehicle in King County, then you would at least have the option of specifying that, say, $40 of that fee goes to roads and $10 goes to transit.
This way, the voters and tax payers have much more control over how much of their money is spent and on what. It's up to the managers to use the budgeted funds wisely. Of course the poohbahs and lobbyists won't like this, so don't expect it to happen. But I personally won't vote to approve any transportation tax-and-spend package unless and until I have this type of input.
Discuss.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at November 17, 2006 12:37 PM | Email ThisIf Eyman were to push something like this, he might even see his approval numbers go up.
Oh, and by the way, #2, representative democracies only occur where there are no professional politicians and, therefore, no unfair incumbent advantage at election time. What we have is a facsimile of a representative democracy, and "pretend" is truly the right word.
Posted by: sro on November 17, 2006 01:11 PMIn 1996, the Voters Guide said this about the Sound Transit tax and $$$pend plan: "Statement for - Traffic gridlock frustrates everyone. Commuting to and from work is just not getting easier. Experience shows that traffic problems do not fix themselves. Debate and delay are not solutions. Our economic future and quality of life are at stake."
What did approving that get us? Liars in power with neverending taxes, no recall mechanism, and worse traffic.
Seattle Monorail said exactly the same thing to voters to get its fiasco approved: "Statement For - Monorail is an excellent solution to Seattle's traffic problems. It is cost-effective transit that will enhance Seattle's quality of life."
What did approving that get us? Liars in power with neverending taxes, no recall mechanism, worse traffic and $130,000,000 wasted tax dollars.
The RTID and ST measure will be pitched exactly the same was. This RTC draft report has the same dire warnings about traffic; it is one of the opening salvos the self-interested groups have fired in the battle to win votes next year. They're waving the flag of traffic congestion to distract from their goal - unlimited transit taxes to dole out as patronage.
This new RTC report is chock full of revisionist history. For example, on p. 6-15 there is a comment to the effect that "despite opposition from city officials and civic leaders" the voters approved Seattle Monorail in 2002. Nothing could be further from the truth.
The political leaders, unions, contractors etc. now pitching RTID/ST2 ALL were firmly behind SMP. The "Statement For" the SMP in the voters guide was signed by Dan Evans, Jim McDermott, and Greg Nickels. The groups and individuals listed as providing "Broad Support" for SMP are: "League of Women Voters, King County Democratic Party, Washington Conservation Voters, King County Labor Council, Sierra Club, Speaker Frank Chopp, environmentalist Dennis Hayes, Dick Falkenbury, Peter Sherwin, Judy Rundstad and many more." There was in fact NO opposition from city officials and civic leaders when SMP went before the voters - they all strongly supported it. And now they want us to buy off on a plan with exactly the same kind of problems as SMP had, only much, much bigger.
Feh.
Posted by: Gerry on November 17, 2006 01:18 PMOne of the big problems that I see is that people are to willing to always give transit fanatics the “benefit of the doubt” and not look at their intentions. Just last week we had one of them chime in on this forum with the statement to the effect that rail allows control of where people live and work and the poster thought that a good thing. I would argue that anyone who’s aspirations include controlling where others live and work is a person with “control issues” and is not to be trusted. In response to this person I posted this quote, a quote I think is applicable to anyone who thinks it their God given right to determine where other people live and work: I never could believe that Providence had sent a few men into the world, ready booted and spurred to ride, and millions ready saddled and bridled to be ridden.
—Richard Rumbold
But we know he's not really from around here, because there are no true investigative reporters left in Washington.
Posted by: Larry on November 17, 2006 01:34 PMThis may not be the best approach from a planning perspective, but with that big a piece of the pie, we're sure to get light rail out to Issaquah, down into Tacoma neighborhoods, and up to Everett. Keep on keeping on, Stefan!
Posted by: Bill L on November 17, 2006 01:46 PMLeaving it up to the voters gets you the Monorail. At least ST is building something....
Posted by: Eric on November 17, 2006 01:51 PMTHAT SAID... I now ride the train to and from work every day from Tacoma. Every single train is PACKED full of riders. People (like me) are using this service and loving it...
While it may indeed seem like every bit of a boondoggle, to me, a boondoggle is something without value or merit except for those few people at the top that might benefit (such as labor, public government, etc...) I don't think the same can be said now about Sound Transit... thousands of people (like me) are reaping the benefit from it every single day...
Sure the government needs to be held accountable to be fiscally responsible... but let's not throw out the idea of trains/public transit entirely... you might find, as I did, that you appreciate the value of something much more when you are actually using it...
Posted by: Andrew on November 17, 2006 02:30 PMFor example, just one year after voter approval of the 9 cent gas tax, it is announced that "due to inflation" something like 276 of the promised road projects are dead or delayed (gullible rural counties get dumped on again).
So what...I'm excited to vote them another super mondo slush fund? I don't think so. If my elected representatives were so good at their jobs, what happened to the MILLIONS for the monorail...when not one single rail was laid?
Posted by: dl on November 17, 2006 02:44 PMIf even half that amount were to stay in the private sector it would create multiples of wealth for small local businesses. Also, other public expenditures are more important. Schools could be funded, municipal services could be augmented, and much additional health care could be provided. The poorest in our community who are hit hard by the regressive sales tax ST imposes could keep much more of what little they have. The fact that ST buses and trains give job commuters (who have options) alternatives is not worth so high a price. Daily commuters don't deserve such largesse given what others need, and given how few are benefitted by these trains.
Bear in mind, the voters in 1996 only approved ST spending $3.9 billion to build everything. The fact that ST is planning on spending $36 billion over the next 24 years (according this RTC report) proves ST has a deep institutionalized contempt for taxpayers.
Andrew: Take a look at how much the public is paying toward your daily commute. It's not surprising that, for $30/day, we can buy you a service you appreciate. The question is: is it right to shake the rest of us down for that?
(Public transit advocates about to remind me of how much the government pays for roads can hold their breath. Gas tax revenues exceed spending on roads, which means that roads are effectively paid for by user fees.)
Posted by: David Wright on November 17, 2006 03:27 PMEvery American can choose how much they want to spend on spreading Democracy in the middle-east: $0 per month, $500 million per month, $2 billion per month, or $10 billion per month. They we take the average and that's what the military gets for nation building in the middle east.
The second part of the ballot would be, of course, WHERE we spend the money: Voters could choose between Body Armour, basic conventional weapons, advanced unmanned drones, or tactical nuclear weapons.
What a wonderful idea! :-D
Posted by: Capt. Sarcastic on November 17, 2006 04:12 PMI Think Gerry got the Transit Commission report wrong. It doesn't say that Sound Transit expects to spend $36 billion over the next 24 years. If it does, that's not true. Sound Transit only expects to spend what voters have approved. The next ballot measure Sound Transit outs up will be for a small portion of that $36 billion the Transit Commission apprantly thinks it should spend.
It is very confusing.
Can we just decide about what's on the table now before generating even more debate?
I want to know what we'll be voting on next November, how much it will cost and what will get done. If we get a new 520 bridge I don't care what else is in it. And we don't need any more tinkering by the legislature, who should keep their turfy porky mitts out of things.
After that we can all start thinking again what to do next.
Posted by: thor on November 17, 2006 05:26 PMQuite the post there - I hope you don't mind if I ask you a couple of questions about it . . . .
The new RTC report indeed says on page 1-7: "The local transit agencies are expected to expend $30 billion on basic needs and system expansion over the next 24 years, and Sound Transit is expected to spend $36 billion for those purposes."
Do you really think the commission got that wrong? If you have a source with some number different than $36 billion in expected expenditures for ST, we'd all appreciate knowing what it is. It isn't that I think you would lie, it's just that it is easy to make statements that can't be supported.
You wrote something very interesting: "Sound Transit only expects to spend what voters have approved." That seems axiomatic, but it just begs the question of how much spending authority ST will want to argue the voters gave it.
What the voters approved in 1996 includes a detailed spending plan for ST to build out the system and operate it. That spending plan was limited in certain respects, for example, local taxes were limited to $1.98 billion, and bonding was limited to $1.05 billion. Do you have ANY reason to believe ST intends on limiting its expenditures in the way Sound Move provides?
A different question that gets at this same issue would be: What is the best argument ST would have for exceeding the spending limits specified in Sound Move? I can't think of any, if that helps . . ..
I'm not sure what that report means when it says things like "expects" to expend $36 billion. I think they probably mean that's how much could be spent if we did everything anybody had ever planned. That won't happen. I don't think Sound Transit expects to spend $36 billion. I think that it probably expects to spend what voters approved in 1996 and what they might approve next year in a legislatively mandated election.
Has this new transit commission hired an astrologist or something like that?
I thought Sound Move was a long range plan, 30-40 years or something like that. I don't think these typses of plans typically have spending limits. They are more like menus to pick from.
Did you buy the whole thing, or just what was on the ballot in 96?