As many have noted, one reason we have safety problems on our highways is that many politicians prefer to spend money on wasteful, but high profile, projects, rather than on maintenance, which is dull and does not allow them to cut ribbons or even get their names put on signs. (For some examples, see here and here.)
Many politicians have this preference, as I said, but few are as frank as Washington state's Mary Margaret Haugen. First some background on one of the state's most dangerous roads:
Hazardous design and swelling traffic volume have made these curving miles of undivided two-lane highway the canvas for a staggering amount of grim "art." Since 1999, the 59 miles of Highway 2 between Interstate 5 and Stevens Pass have seen more than 2,600 crashes. Thirty-nine of those have been fatal collisions, claiming 47 lives.
Even as traffic volume has doubled since 1990 and cities along the route are as much as four times larger, major safety improvements have been scarce. In the weeks ahead, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) will release a final draft of its Highway 2 Route Development Plan, listing 52 recommended projects that would cost more than $1 billion if they were all built today.
Why has the road been negelected? Here's why:
In fact, Highway 2, which runs principally through the districts of Republican legislators who voted against the 2003 and 2005 gas-tax increases, received less than $2.5 million of the revenue, while the rest of Snohomish County received more than $1 billion.
"It's really brutal to say, but the people from those districts didn't support anything as far as funding," said Senate Transportation Committee Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island. Consequently, less revenue went to districts with legislators who didn't support the tax measure, she explained. "That certainly is a big reason."
Yes, it is really brutal, Senator Haugen. What you have just said is that you and your allies have been allowing people to die along Highway 2 because you don't like the representatives they choose. That's not just brutal; that's despicable.
And there has been money for improvements for years, but those running this state have chosen to spend it on cargo cult projects, such as light rail, rather than maintaining the roads. And there is no sign that they intend to change their ways, despite those deaths on Highway 2, and elsewhere.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(There may be another reason for the neglect of Highway 2. Many of the state's Democratic leaders are what I call "urban imperialists", who see rural areas the way most emperors see conquered provinces, as places to be exploited, not nourished. When I returned to Washington a little more than a decade ago, I was shocked to see how Highway 2 had been neglected. It is almost as if those running this state want to clear the population from that area and convert it all to wilderness.
As you might already have guessed, Washington's Democratic governor, Chris Gregoire, was quick to respond to this article and to the growing discontent along Highway 2. She toured the road and is promising action. And the cheerleaders at the Seattle Times say they believe her. But the cheerleaders didn't bother to check to see if Gregoire had cleared this with Senator Haugen, nor did they mention this unpleasant fact: So far, Gregoire has made many promises to improve our roads, but has little in the way of actual accomplishments, or even real plans. And she is absolutely unwilling to divert money from the cargo cult projects.)
Posted by Jim Miller at September 13, 2007 04:47 PM | Email ThisFuel taxes= money for the state.
Really it's not that hard.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on September 13, 2007 05:38 PMThe only intelligent solution for the high prices, crime and unlivable conditions of Seattle is to spread out.
We need a massive building program Eastward...mountain removal included.
Posted by: John Bailo on September 13, 2007 06:16 PMThere's probably a good reason why I'm not in public office around here...
Posted by: Smoley on September 13, 2007 06:21 PMThose highway funds are handed out based on compliance. Things like seatbelt laws and carpool lanes have a direct impact on federal funding.
If we don't dump money into mass transit we don't get money for other projects. Our legislators only see the loss of federal money if they don't comply. They don't see that if they don't fund the boneheaded projects that they would be ahead of the game.
Posted by: Vince on September 13, 2007 07:50 PM... or maybe give a few clockwise twists (righty tighty, lefty loosey) on the valve controlling the population surge nationwide by securing our borders (bonus: also rumored to help with that "national security" thing), turning off the jobs magnet, and actually enforcing a few immigration laws. If memory serves, the Total Fertility Rate of the US is about 2.0 -- set up for a gradual decline without any immigration. Modest population growth is probably a good thing, and we should certainly allow a bit. But this uncontrolled population growth through illegal immigration is what is driving the irresponsibly-fast development push out into the hinterlands.
Posted by: TB on September 13, 2007 09:29 PMIt's criminal.
Posted by: pudge on September 13, 2007 11:43 PMI do believe the state is seriously neglecting its own State Highways and the Federal Highways in the area. Additionally, the rail lines are also not up to par. These are investments, folks, they bring return in movement of commerce and help everyone by keeping the cost of goods, we buy, lower. Their up-keep and expansion where clogged can also help the environment. Yes, the environment. So, if any of you are serious about government doing the "right" things, then you should support candidates that make fixing the road and rail infrastructure, along with proper funding of education a top priority. This will have many returns. It will have a heck of a lot more returns than supporting candidates that mix up Iraq with Afghanistan/Pakistan and think that American soldiers dying to support a civil war is just a small sacrifice. Each soldier's death is a huge sacrifice and shouldn't be cast off so lightly. The focus should be to finish the job in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where the enemy actually resides.
Posted by: tc on September 14, 2007 07:34 AMHaugen called a spade a spade. I have no problem with that.
Another problem is that US2 is a Federal Highway. Under funding guidelines, those projects that maximize federal dollars got higher priority.
And back to my comment a few days ago, grants are awarded based upon need. So, if you let your infrastructure go to pot, you can show need and get the big bucks. You are, in essence, awarded for mediocrity.
I would think US2 has passed the level of need and entered the realm of urgency. I see a bigger issue with US2 than I do with the Alaskan Way bridge redo (not the retrofit which I support).
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 07:34 AMOr am I misunderstanding you? (I am not misunderstanding Haugen.)
Posted by: pudge on September 14, 2007 08:24 AMUS2 has always been a need that needed to be funded with Federal dollars. Contrary to Mr. tc above, the lack of funding for infrastructure, such as roads, disappeared during the Clinton administration and didn't disappear because that money was being diverted to build up our military.
The cost to fix US2 was always too much for the State to fix and would have taken all of the State's transportation dollars by itself. It was in the early to middle 90s when WDOT began purchasing R/W for the Monroe bypass. I don't know if they sold that property or continue to hold onto it. Then, everything stopped.
As a frequent flyer (driver) of US2, there have been bridge replacements and road widening and straightening but they are few and far between.
pudge, remember the Supreme Court nominee battles we had? Elections have consequences was the comment by the Republicans supporting Roberts and Alito. Same goes for divvying the pork.
There was no way, actually, to fund even a portion of the US2 improvements without a better cash stream. I could blame the Republicans when they ran things in the early to middle 90s if I wanted, since they opposed all gas tax increases back then.
So, Haugen was being truthful.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 09:06 AMUnless you want to get started on all the trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars wasted on social programs, I suggest you stick to the subject of the thread - transportation. Not the Iraq war.
Posted by: jimg on September 14, 2007 09:47 AMThat's not entirely true. There was a transpo package back then and it was mainly funded by MVET. However, when 695 passed the funding source dried up.
Posted by: jimg on September 14, 2007 09:51 AMIt's not the "way it is." It's the way the Democrats are doing it, intentionally, and with malice, not just toward Republicans, but towards all citizens.
Further, saying we needed a better cash stream does not imply that we needed THAT PARTICULAR cash stream. I was in favor of more funding for transportation, but against the gas tax. Just like John Kerry -- whom I defended in this matter -- was for the $87 billion for our troops in Iraq, but merely against how that was being funded.
To say they were against funding or increased taxes -- or even an increased gas tax! -- just because they voted against a particular gas tax bill or two is simply untrue.
Posted by: pudge on September 14, 2007 11:28 AMRepublicans didn't fund transportation. They are as much at fault as the Democrats are.
What you seem to say violates the Golden Rule, "He who has the gold, makes the rules". I have been to 'divvying up funds' sessions in my past life as a State employee. Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 11:38 AMTwice now, Swatter.
Yes. They did.
Now, one could make an argument that the Rs weren't responsible by creating a funding package out of the MVET - and then supporting 695 when it came about later.
But it's entirely misleading to say the Republicans didn't fund transportation.
Posted by: jimg on September 14, 2007 11:56 AMWith regards to Highway 2, if you want it fixed, the answer is two-fold. First, next year hold whoever is running for the Congressional Seat(s) that cover the area collective feet to the fire. Make it a key comparison point for Congressional Candidates. It is the Congressional Candidates that can work on getting the Federal Funding. Second, for the respective State offices, hold those candidates feet to the fire on what they will do. It is only when constituents get involved in the selection of candidates and the shaping of local issues will the problem get solved. If you don't hold the elected officials responsible and keep voting in the same old-same old, then how do you expect a different result? Clean house of the incompetent politicians and only keep those who actually perform and take the state and their constituents interests to heart. Stop electing based solely on party. Parties are worthless and sole purpose are to prepetuate inner-breeding. It is time for new thinking.
My wish would be that the state did away with political parties for all races. I know it is a pipe dream, but I am hoping. It is too bad the courts wouldn't listen to the Grange. The Grange had the right idea. It is time to resurrect the idea and make it stronger.
Posted by: tc on September 14, 2007 12:47 PMYou make interesting points, but I have a hint for you....drop the need to use Republicans and corporate in the same sentence. You sound like you are trumpting the ever familiar mating call of the left. The reason you see Republicans and corporations on the same side often enough is because they both like competition.
And I still do not see what the war has to do with funding roads. Need based funding from the feds...US highways...whatever...all crap. We have the funds (or rather revenue), the problem is that those who are spending the money (our esteemed elected) are not being held accountable for their mis-spending. I agree with you point there on tossing the whole bunch.
We as a citizens of a city, county, state and this nation, have no idea where all the money goes. It is not a question of enough funds. If anyone thinks it is, you are stupid and blind.
As a collective, if we were all one person...we'd be on Springer.
Posted by: Chris on September 14, 2007 01:35 PMThe potential is there for a civil war, sure, and sure, there are several factions of the three divisions going after each other. But these factions are about the same size as the old mob families, which I wouldn't call a civil war.
Posted by: swatter on September 14, 2007 02:01 PMpudge, but you still won't vote for a tax increase to pay for these things, so why should I bother answering you?
You are lying about me.
I said, at the time, I would vote for even a gas tax, IF the legislation were better written, IF the funding for US 2 were guaranteed, and so on. What happened -- that the gas tax went through and then necessary projects like US 2 didn't get funded -- was the only major reason I was against the gas tax to begin with, because even though I agreed with the goals, I disagreed with the poorly written bill.
NOW I wouldn't vote for a new tax, of course, since they have just added all these new taxes, and I don't see how any new taxes are necessary. They have the funds they need, but they are allocating them AS pork, as you said, instead of doing it according to actual need. If they fund it by need and STILL need more money for critical projects, then I'll consider voting for new taxes.
What you seem to say violates the Golden Rule, "He who has the gold, makes the rules". I have been to 'divvying up funds' sessions in my past life as a State employee. Sometimes, it just doesn't make sense.
In this case, it DOES make sense. The Democrats are, literally, allowing people to die just because they voted for Republicans who opposed the gas tax.
Posted by: pudge on September 15, 2007 12:37 AMTo paraphrase: The Democrats always start out by sayng they support the troops, but in the middle of their first sentence, they add "but".
The same goes for your support for a gas tax increase. You support it but you are against it. Truthfully, pudge, and only you can answer it, is there any way a gas tax can be proposed that would satisfy you.
And not to pick on you, my comments reflect directly back to me. For many more years than you, I took your same position- the R position. However, my main bugaboo is waste in WDOT. So, I have given up hope that we can reduce waste in Olympia more than 1-2%, not the 15-20% that I want. So, while I was holding out hope, the roads have been falling more and more behind.
And I may even vote for ST and I think it is the biggest waste and fraud ever perpetuated upon our citizenry. Nyah, not on this one, it will still be a NO vote.
Posted by: swatter on September 17, 2007 07:47 AMI support funding for roads but I oppose this particular bill. Yes, so? You fail to show how that is in any way remotely unreasonable. You try to decietfully imply I would have opposed it under any circumstances:
Truthfully, pudge, and only you can answer it, is there any way a gas tax can be proposed that would satisfy you.
I already stated what it would take to satisy me. What part of it didn't you understand? I shall quote me: "IF the legislation were better written, IF the funding for US 2 were guaranteed ..." I wanted a bill that didn't simply allocate a ton of money and then said "trust us, we'll fund what's most needed." Because look what happened: we got the taxes and then we went and funded things like a sound barrier on I-5 that was not needed at all (because hey, if we do that, we get federal funding!!), while people are still dying on US 2.
Of course, I would prefer this funding happened by slashing much of the existing state budget, instead of new taxes, but I would have voted in favor of the gas tax anyway, IF it had been a reasonable bill. It was not, and the fact that US 2 remains unfunded proves I was right.
And not to pick on you, my comments reflect directly back to me. For many more years than you, I took your same position- the R position. However, my main bugaboo is waste in WDOT. So, I have given up hope that we can reduce waste in Olympia more than 1-2%, not the 15-20% that I want. So, while I was holding out hope, the roads have been falling more and more behind.
You really do not get it. First of all, my side lost on these votes: the funding went through. Second, if *I* had been successful in stopping the funding as designed, then funding still would have gone through, but more responsibly. Again, it's the same thing with Kerry and the $87b in 2003: if Kerry had been successful in stopping the $87b bill, then the funding still would have happened, just in a different, (to him) more responsibile way. I defended his rationale, because it is perfectly reasonable.
This kind of attack from you is a HUGE part of the problem in government: we pretend that everyone has to vote a certain way on a bill just because of the subject, and that there's something wrong with opposing the bill because of its details. It's not: the details are often the most important part.
And I truly believe the Democrats did it this way on purpose: they didn't want restrictions on how to spend the money, they wanted to be able to punish Republican districts, and they knew that saying "we need to fix roads" was a way to get that done: deceptively imply that this is the only way roads can be fixed, and that if you are against this, you are against fixing the roads.
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2007 08:26 AMI have asked the following question of your own, Michelle, and she couldn't answer it, so now, maybe it is time to ask you to see if you are a Republican or not.
If your preferred candidate does not get the presidential not, will you vote for the Republican nominee? Can you answer that one?
pudge, you gotta be 'for' something once in a while. You can't be against everything all the time, unless it fits all your ideals.
And? You are wrong if you think I am only against things. I already said (now three times in this discussion) I would have been for this tax, even though I still wouldn't have liked it, if it had guaranteed funding for necessary projects instead of leaving it up to the majority party to divy up later. I've called and talked to my legislators being for all kinds of different legislation, including better sex offender laws, which I participated in a rally for.
That said, yes, I am more often against legislation than for it, since I believe that less government, generally speaking, is better government. By default I am against any new legislation, until a need has been demonstrated, and I am convinced it does not violate the rights of the people, and so on. But your implication that I am against everything is nonsense. You must be thinking of someone else!
If your preferred candidate does not get the presidential not, will you vote for the Republican nominee? Can you answer that one?
I don't know what this has to do with the topic at hand, but I am already on record here saying yes, I will. I am also on record here defending Michelle in her implication that she might not.
Just because you won't vote for the candidate doesn't make you not a Republican. Maybe it makes you not a very GOOD Republican, I don't know. Regardless, I do not hold my party affiliation higher than my ideals, and neither does Michelle, and neither do you. Michelle's biggest issue (or, one of them, anyway) is abortion, and she rationally believes that it hurts her efforts if a pro-choice Republican is elected: that, indeed, it might be BETTER for her efforts if a Democrat is elected. I tend to disagree, but I can't fault her reasoning, since we don't really know until it happens, and it hasn't happened yet.
We all guess and make predictions about what is best for our own goals. I cannot fault someone for doing what they think is best, even if I disagree with their analysis.
Posted by: pudge on September 17, 2007 11:11 AM