The Washington State Senate has approved a bill to reform the alphabet soup of indecision which has fueled regional indecision on transportation. The ongoing drama of replacing the Viaduct has most recently served to illustrate how desperately the greater Seattle area lacks the means by which to make decisive decisions about the tough issues inevitably occupying local transportation debates. The bill's creation of a Regional Transportation Commission would be a long overdue simplification of transportation planning and decision-making.
Put simply, Senate Bill 5083 creates a means by which transportation planning and decision making in the region, including with the WSDOT, is coordinated. It becomes a one-stop shop for the I-900 empowered State Auditor to go to work. And, most importantly perhaps, it creates a eleven-person governing board, eight of which would be elected in a non-partisan vote. Imagine that, officials elected by the people to actually make decisions about transportation. Something might actually get done.
In a sure sign the bill has merit, Andrew Villeneuve is in full-fledge meltdown mode over at NPI lamenting the idea (with a follow-up here once the Senate actually approved the measure). Apparently, Andrew seems content with the status quo in which not much at all - if anything - ever seems to get done in substantively moving the region forward toward transportation solutions. Of course as Andrew's posts indicate, he favors solutions focused on mass-transit only, as opposed to balanced combinations of roads and transit prudent people can support, and which actually have a prayer of electoral backing across the populations of King, Pierce, and Snohomish Counties in question.
In a region where we were once foolishly trying to build the incompatible mega-projects of light rail AND a monorail, such a consolidation of transportation authority shouldn't seem so misplaced. Oddly, Andrew interprets a Regional Transportation Commission as an assault on Sound Transit, in part by the Discovery Institute. Andrew would serve himself well by doing a little research on the matter.
That effort by Discovery was through the Institute's Cascadia Center, where my father, Dave Earling, served as a Senior Fellow until August of last year. One can see just a sample of that work on regional transportation governance in this op-ed, which notes his past leadership role at Sound Transit. It strains credulity to think that such efforts, led in part by the former Chairman of Sound Transit, are somehow filled with fervor against that agency.
It also seems odd Andrew is so flustered by John Stanton's apparent involvement in support of this reform. Andrew didn't seem to have any concerns when Stanton donated tens of thousands to oppose I-912, joining Andrew in that position.
Bluntly put, Andrew doesn't have a rational argument against the proposed reforms. Take this statement from his primary post above:
If you appreciate how limited your choices are when it comes to mobile phone service, you'll love tycoon John Stanton's plan for shaking up transportation governance.
Anyone who has shopped for a new cell phone carrier in recent months - such as this writer - will laugh uproariously at the fallacy of that analogy; paucity is not a word that comes to mind. Dear Andrew should try this to examine his "limited choices" (or here, or here too if he's still struggling...I punched in NPI's zip code of 98052 where appropriate and found ample choices from which to select).
Back in the world of the living, one of the transportation governance bill's sponsors, Senator Ed Murray, has highlighted the burning need for this sort of policy-making clarity. Murray recently proposed hiring a mediator in advance to trump any Viaduct-like brawl otherwise likely to break out over replacing 520.
It remains painfully obvious our system of local transportation policy is broken in the Puget Sound Region. The Senate bill in question is by no means perfect, but a notable step forward in adding a degree of decisiveness to an otherwise bumbling and laborious local transportation policy process, while creating a board dominated by officials elected solely for the purpose of working on this issue in the Seattle area. That's a reform whose time has come.
Posted by Eric Earling at March 12, 2007 10:41 PM | Email ThisThe voters who actually make those trips will place far greater weight on freedom of choice of routing and scheduling than any appointed, top-down Sound Transit 'planner' would ever do. Bring on the elections.
Posted by: Hank Bradley on March 12, 2007 11:09 PMAll you are doing is adding another level of bureaucracy.
It may sound good on paper, but it will be worthless within five years like every other government program.
The real elected is one good thing in the legislation. If, you as an R or conservative and you believe in limited government, believe this is needed (which I don't think anyone can with the R or conservative behind their names), then the real electeds is a good thing.
And who will be the electeds? Just hashed over politicos who want a few years to get full retirement bennies from the State.
Posted by: swatter on March 13, 2007 06:54 AMIf the point is to have accountable leaders elected by voters prioritizing the projects, taxing and spending, then do not exempt ST and RTID from the plan. Just because they WANT to put their measures before voters does not mean they SHOULD put their measures before voters. We don't even know the details of how anti-taxpayer those will be - neither ST nor RTID will release drafts.
The upcoming joint ballot measure is just an attempt by ST and RTID to lock in limitless sales taxes and MVETS for a list of projects that can be cut back after the vote.
The ST2 and RTID "plans" that will be revealed in a couple of months will be horribly expensive and what would we get in return? Fuzzy promises about more train lines IN TWENTY YEARS, and a three billion dollar (at least) funding shortfall for the SR 520 project.
Posted by: Orotund on March 13, 2007 08:01 AMThis board would not have changed Seattle's opposition to the rebuild. And if they had tried to force the rebuild on Seattle, the powers that be in Seattle would have dug in and forced the dissolution of that board.
Posted by: Palouse on March 13, 2007 08:37 AMThis region needs a Political Demolition Crew capable of razing 50 years of corrupt Liberal rule before it can ever address real world problems.
Coming to a rural area near you, 5-lane highways, amber lights and large sidewalks. Oh goody!
Posted by: MJC on March 13, 2007 11:40 AMI don't know why anyone bothers to even read the blog of a pimple-faced teenager who lives in his parents basement....
Is this the voice of the left? Well, maybe it is actually. That would explain a number of things.
Posted by: Eric on March 13, 2007 11:47 AMWake up.
Posted by: Jefferson Paine on March 13, 2007 12:03 PMSay what you will about the competing fiefdoms of WSDOT and the local transit bodies, at least the fragmentation makes it difficult for public money to be funneled into private hands. Look at all the money we're not spending on the monorail!
This is about back-door welfare for civil contractors.
Posted by: concretepimp on March 13, 2007 05:06 PMLocal control is run over by big government under this liberal democrat proposal. There seem to be few people in our state Senate who will stand up and oppose more government power.
Now I know the Earling family has been smarting ever since the old man was defeated for Snohomish County Executive because his oppenent made sure voters knew who presided over Sound Transit at its worst. A loss like that can alter judgement. Voters call it accountability. But maybe that's why Eric's reliably conservative principles have vanished on this subject.
Discovery Institute's involvement is inexplicable, resoundingly unhelpful and a complete failure. It backfired nearly as badly as the silly obsession with debunking evolutionary science with a public relations campaign. Thank the lord for that Bush appointed judge in Pennsylvania for calling that joke.
For all those Republicans who voted for this big tax, big government bill yesterday, it was just about the money from John Stanton, who I thought might have made a pretty good Governor until he became a big taxer, toller and big government man.
If Dino Rossi needs an issue, this is it. Dino should stand down his fundraising moneybags guys like Stanton and Rowley and speak his gut on this. That would win him the right kind of Reagan-like respect.
Rossi needs to stand up for reducing taxes, not raising them, and less government, not more.
Posted by: redflag on March 13, 2007 07:32 PMThe political hacks at SP are spinning this bill as the baby of government-loving liberal welfare statists.
That's a good sign. It means the political parties see themselves as losers, and that means more empowerment for individuals.
I'll take that over the status quo . . .. .
Posted by: parties = losers on March 14, 2007 12:09 PM