I respect the current challenge facing Olympia, trying to solve the dreadful gap between demand for road projects versus available money in the transportation budget. That said, the state has made a number of choices over the years. One of those has been not to prioritize improving the dangerous stretch of Highway 2 in Snohomish County. As such, I have trouble reading Senate Transportation Chair Mary Margaret Haugen's op-ed on the topic with anything other than a highly cynical eye.
Posted by Eric Earling at January 14, 2008 07:42 AM | Email ThisSecondly, she blames the problem on a State highway on local governments. I mean, hello, anyone in there? The responsibility on State highways is not local, but State.
Thirdly, US2 should be looked at as a tri-county problem and solution. Believe it or not, Skykomish is in King County, so that county is part of the problem and should be part of the solution. And, of course, the east side is Chelan County.
Posted by: swatter on January 14, 2008 08:02 AMNo matter what the reasons, the bottom line is that if they wanted to fund US2, they could have, and would have, done it. It was not funded because they decided other things were more important, and people are dying because of that.
There's no way around that fact.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 08:07 AMThere it is.
"...Safety must be the highest priority..."
But how can safety be the #1 priority if the attitude of the legislature is one of KingCo-centrism? Obviously, safety is not the top priority here.
I believe that if Senator Haugen and her cohorts on the transportation committee have safety as Job 1 then the answer is to start all over again with a blank sheet and the only consideration for priority being that highway's safety rating. There is no legitimate reason - or excuse - for the legislature's failure to put the money where it is needed most.
Get the priorities right, and the rest will fall into place.
Posted by: Jeff Thorp on January 14, 2008 08:13 AMIt's now been almost 7 years since the Nisqually quake. What has the state done to improve "safety"?
The paper this morning has yet another ferry pulled out of service for repairs. Why are so many "all of a sudden" requiring "emergency" repairs? Where has the state been with this "safety"?
IBM has that commercial showing employees playing "buzzword bingo". There should be a political version, "Political Buzzword Bing" - it would sell millions.
Bingo!
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 14, 2008 08:28 AMKudos to you for keeping an open mind and seeing the damage politics does to all of us.
Posted by: swatter on January 14, 2008 08:54 AMSince the 2001 Nisqually earthquake the state budget increased 43% (from $21 billion to $30 billion). WA median family income increased 11% ($57,400 to $63,500).
Could the real problem a lack of priorities, not a lack of funds?
Posted by: russell garrard on January 14, 2008 09:05 AMI-695. Yeah and Calif tried to use the same excuse after we passed Prop 13 too.
Crooks.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 14, 2008 09:10 AMCurrent priorities are HOV lanes, HOT lanes, HOV on/offramps, light rail on I90, and art. I've written before about the $250 million spent on bronze fish at Eastgate/I90.
The DOT mantra has been, "The least bang for the most buck."
Finally, Haugen accuses folks of wanting congestion relief above safety. I maintain, however, that most of the things that make a road dangerous are the SAME things that cause congestion. The fix will usually solve both issues.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 14, 2008 09:20 AMSen. Haugen: That was then, this is now:
January 3, 2008, EVERETT HERALD, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen: "Congestion is our number one priority."
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080103/NEWS01/491713797&news01ad=1
January 13, 2008, EVERETT HERALD, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen: "As far as I'm concerned, safety must be the highest priority of our state transportation system."
http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20080113/OPINION03/881139578
Politicians will say anything.
Voters sent a very clear message last November when they approved I-960 (Tougher to Raise Taxes) and rejected Proposition 1 (an $18 billion transportation tax package): don't take more of the people's money - instead, use existing resources more effectively. Responding to the people, we've stepped forward with this year's initiative: ReduceCongestion.org. It's a smart professional plan to reduce traffic congestion by implementing common sense policies based on recommendations from an independent performance audit. And it's funded from taxes and charges we already pay.
Without it, politicians will raise taxes.
The number one finding from the performance audit report by State Auditor Brian Sonntag was that traffic congestion relief is not a top priority of the department of transportation so the audit's fundamental recommendation was: "Commit to congestion management and reduction as a primary goal." As Sonntag says in his accompanying letter to the report:
"Citizens have identified congestion as a priority, and therefore, so must the Department (of Transportation) and the Legislature."
Sonntag's audit reported that we can reduce traffic congestion 15-20% by simply using our existing resources more effectively. Politicians' multi-billion-dollar plans only promise things will be 'less bad' 20-30 years from now. With ReduceCongestion.org, things will be better 30 days after voters approve it -- AND IT DOESN'T INCREASE THE TAXPAYERS' BURDEN AT ALL.
ReduceCongestion.org offers these three policies (all are based on recommendations from Sonntag's October 2007 audit report) with accountability and oversight provided by the State Auditor:
1) Opens carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours (peak defined as Mon-Fri 6-9 am, 3-6 pm);
2) Requires cities and counties to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets (with benchmarks and accountability provided by the State Auditor); and
3) Increases funding for emergency roadside assistance to clear out accidents faster (with benchmarks and accountability provided by the State Auditor).
To provide funding for these policies, ReduceCongestion.org DOES NOT RAISE TAXES, INCREASE FEES, OR IMPOSE TOLLS OR OTHER CHARGES; it instead dedicates a portion of existing vehicle-related revenue to a new dedicated account called the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account" whose revenues and expenditures will be monitored and reported regularly to the public by the State Auditor:
1) ReduceCongestion.org dedicates 15% of revenues generated from the state sales and use tax on new and used vehicle purchases (approximately $128 million per year);
2) ReduceCongestion.org dedicates revenues generated from fines and penalties from red light cameras;
3) Current law requires that a percentage of the cost of any transportation-related public works project go toward the purchase of art -- ReduceCongestion.org instead dedicates such funds to the new account;
4) ReduceCongestion.org DOES NOT create or impose tolls or charges on roads or highways, but if tolls or charges are imposed, then such revenues are dedicated to the "Reduce Traffic Congestion Account."
To read the complete text, go to:
http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i984.pdf
While I don't trust the lawmakers in Olympia, your comments seem to be equally clueless (Stop Excusing It, Just Fix It)
It never ceases to amaze me how the citizens of this state want something for nothing and think the state has some big pot of money that is just waiting to be spent. If they do, how much is in it? Maybe Eyman can identify that. But of course, he's just a politician as well so he's not in the business of being honest either.
The fact of the matter is, oil was $20/barrel in 2000 and it's $100/barrel now, a 500% increase. What are roads made of? Oil. What powers the highway equipment? Oil.
Haugen's point is that all of these huge projects cost money. Cold hard cash.
If the Reagan spin that tax cuts increase overall tax revenue, then Dino Rossi should be proposing huge tax cuts in Washington State. So his job should be pretty easy. Just propose some tax cuts to flood the state with more revenue.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on January 14, 2008 09:44 AMHaugen is, as Eyman shows clearly, talking out of both sides of her mouth. Nothing you or she said, nothing anyone CAN say, changes the FACT that Eric is right: the state -- especially Huagen herself -- CHOSE to NOT prioritize saving lives on U.S. 2. They put other things ahead on the list of priorities.
It's an unassailable fact: they knew people were dying, they could have spent the money to fix it, and chose to spend it on other things.
Spin THAT.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 09:56 AMHow about them ferries. Don't tell me all this stuff just happened to them and NO-one knew it.
These boats have been is a poor state of repair, but everyone (Gov) has put their head in the sand.
Heck I live in Mukilteo and our ferry mess is getting worse everyday. Now tell us, no fix until 2011 or later. Yet they have know about this problem for the last 12 years.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on January 14, 2008 10:14 AMOf that $4-5/gallong, I assumed government would take more than a measly 9 cents a gallon that they got.
Posted by: swatter on January 14, 2008 10:24 AMNot sure what you mean here, but just the WA state portion of gas taxes is 0.36 a gallon.
$4-$5 a gallon is often trumpeted as needed by alot of people who want to see change in oil dependence, and that's fine, as long as you also realize that we will likely endure a prolonged recession and high inflation to go along with it.
Posted by: Palouse on January 14, 2008 10:39 AMObviously someone knew about the ferries. Probably alot of people. By its very nature, 'government' involves lots of people. However, I-695 back in 1999 was responsible for alot of ferry cuts. It was a huge $$ hit, despite what the Eyman crowd says, that they could 'find' the money 'somewhere'. Obviously that was complete nonsense. But people seem to buy such message points.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on January 14, 2008 11:04 AMThat's why roads like US2 are held hostage. They can use them as pawns in the game for more revenue. The fact is that WA wants to be like CA. But to do that, they need more revenue, they must have the Income tax to fully fund all of the road projects, as well as all of the other garbage they are already funding. They took the earlier budget surplus and squandered that on useless programs and more education unions, etc.
It's essential to both get rid of Gregoire, and to pass Eyman's new initiative so that we won't need to squander more money, but roads will get fixed. And Rossi can act as a gatekeeper to veto just about everything that the Democrat Olympia Orgy can dream up.
It is about priorities. The state puts social programs ahead of infrastructure. Neccessary ifrastructure, Safety and Law enforcement should be paid for first. After those are paid for, we can start talking about pet projects and social programs. This applies to all levels of governemnt, city to federal.
The thinking in this state is that they shouldn't have to make budget cuts or reprioritize things while there is the gigantic ATM that is the people of the state.
I'm tired of always having to have a vote for Medic One. That should be a given for mandatory funding before all else.
Posted by: William on January 14, 2008 11:20 AMEric's title of 'Just Fix It' implies that the state should just fix the highway and apparently just 'find' the money somewhere. I'm afraid it's not that easy.
Don't think I'm defending Haugen. I'm not. She's all over the map on transportation. The entire legislature is. They jump from one thing to the next to the next. They're not transparent with the public, which just creates suspicion, which Tim Eyman has captured and fed his initiative schemes.
What I find most objectionable about Haugen's Op-Ed is that the government is going to 'protect' me and keep me 'safe'. Please. I'll keep myself safe. The government isn't my parent, although elected officials always seems to think they are. I've driven highway 2 and I don't find it particularly dangerous. It's a beautiful drive. I'm not a commuter however so don't think I'm minimizing the problems with daily commuters.
What I really hate about her Op-Ed is this comment:
Development of the once-rural area has brought an increase in eager commuters and younger, less experienced drivers on a two-lane highway that was never designed for its current capacity.
She makes this statement pointing the finger at younger drivers as if they can't navigate a 2-lane highway. Complete nonsense. Plus, she just quoted a whole bunch of numbers so she obviously had access to how many 'younger' people were involved in accidents on HWY 2 but chose not to share that.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on January 14, 2008 11:22 AMI don't think you understand how the funding process works. I blame this secretive state for that. They should be more transparent and explain how the whole process works.
Transportation projects come from targeted accounts. They do not come from the general fund. So even if you cut social programs, it would have no effect on making more money available for transportation projects.
Here's a url that has some pie charts about Transportation funding:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/47384B5F-73B9-4AEC-9F10-845AA7E0F4B4/0/Nov07GasTaxRevDist0709.pdf
Medic One, I believe, is a county tax vote, as well as a targeted fund. I don't know the origins, but I suspect it's based in this state's overzealous populist mindset that voting more is a good thing.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on January 14, 2008 11:30 AMActually, in this case, it absolutely IS that easy. More money is being put away by Gregoire -- so she says -- than is needed to fix U.S. 2. The estimate is about $1b for U.S. 2, and Gregoire is putting away ... $1.3b? $1.5b?
The only way there isn't enough money is if there is a greater priority than saving lives on U.S. 2. So the question is only, what is more important?
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 11:36 AMAnd don't tell us you don't know how much the Snohomish County subarea is slated to be bled for Seattle light rail over the coming years - you know full well.
Posted by: Fotheringham on January 14, 2008 11:47 AMRichard, your PDF file only shows where the gas tax money is being spent. It does not show where the money comes from, specifically, the general fund. Your "targeted accounts" are only the buckets DoT puts the money into when they get it from the general fund.
Only the 5 cent and the 9.5 cent increases were "targeted" for specific projects, and even those aren't sacrosanct. With the 2 billion allocated to the viaduct, there are threats that if Seattle didn't get its act together, the funds would be reallocated.
23 cents of the gas tax are not specifically allocated to any projects.
As to I-695, how much was actually done to improve congestion relief prior to 1999, when they had all that money? How many ferries were repaired or replaced?
The government was mis-spending or flat out wasting the MVET prior to I-695 so blaming I-695 is a cop out.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 14, 2008 12:03 PMThanks buddy, you hit it right on the head.
The ferries have had problems that they did NOTHING about long before I-695 came along.
As I said before, you should see the ferry mess we have in Mukilteo, with no relief in sight.
Yet they have known about this for years!
"However, I-695 back in 1999 was responsible for alot of ferry cuts."
Where do people keep coming up with this crap? Is there some website that they all go to that spouts it? Are they just parroting someone else's words and can't be bothered to do any of their own research?
Get your facts straight before you start pointing fingers!
I-695 was declared unconstitutional by the State Supreme Court. So, how was it responsible for anything?
The state legislature then implemented the $30 car tabs and Gary Locked signed it.
Posted by: ItTakesAVillageToConveneAGrandJury on January 14, 2008 01:08 PMHopefully when they build the new bridge, they will create a fund to maintain it and save up money for when it needs to be replaced again.
Hopefully when they build the new bridge, they will create a fund to maintain it and save up money for when it needs to be replaced again.
You said:
"How much do you think Sound Transit will end up spending on light rail in Seattle....
And don't tell us you don't know how much the Snohomish County subarea is slated to be bled for Seattle light rail over the coming years - you know full well."
Yes, I DO know full well how much Snohomish County subarea will be paying for light rail in Seattle
$0
The light rail is being paid for by the East King Subarea, the North King Subarea and the South King Subarea. That's it. Let me dig up the details on numbers. Sound Transit pays alot of overhead to do all of this subarea cost accounting but it's pretty detailed and tedious. But the amount is still $0.
Posted by: Richard Borkowski on January 14, 2008 01:59 PMThrow Mary Margaret Haugan and her big spending batch of bums out in 2008!
Posted by: GS on January 14, 2008 02:41 PMSo, tell all your Democratic friends that they won't have the swatter to kick around anymore if they win the elections. On second thought, that could redouble their efforts.
Posted by: swatter on January 14, 2008 02:55 PMYou make other good points too ... how come Boston built the first subway in the U.S. with far less than it takes to do a project a tiny fraction of the size and scope today, like the monorail? Some of the cost increases make sense. Many don't.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 04:23 PMHow true.
In 1862, Lincoln had a young General McClellan under his command. McClellan was supposedly a great leader, the men loved him, and he had a very large, well equipped and powerful army. But, as Lincoln complained, "He is slow".
McClellan outnumbered his opponents and had many advantages over them, but he always wanted to prepare more. He always complained that he didn't have enough. He didn't want to move until he had enough supplies, men, etc. This drove Lincoln crazy and Lincoln actually sent him a note saying, "My dear McClellan: If you don't want to use the Army I should like to borrow it for a while."
When Grant was put in charge, he made a conscious effort to work with what he had and to not burden Lincoln with too many problems. For Grant, his function was to take the war to the enemy, not sit around complaining about needing more.
This attitude removed a great burden from Lincoln and though he still didn't know Grant that well, he was very pleased that at last he had a general that was a leader and wasn't afraid to lead.
Our Democratic "leaders" are more like McClellan (who, coincidentally, was a Democrat). We need a "Grant". Someone who will make the hard decisions and lead - not sit on their rears complaining about how they can't do anything unless they can get more first....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on January 14, 2008 04:57 PMI agree that "process" is a killer in time and money - that's different.
whoa man, if we did it that way there'd be no need for bond counsel like Foster Pepper, and then who would be available to sue radio talk hosts on a pro bono basis?
Posted by: russell garrard on January 14, 2008 05:47 PMDig, Richard, dig.
Dig up and post a link to Sound Transit data on those issues. What are the subarea spending plans, what are the subarea taxing plans.
I hear those aren't moving targets. They're morphing targets.
Posted by: Coot on January 14, 2008 06:21 PMHe probably means opt out of the State, like I did last month. I'm down in LA this week for a convention, but I simply left. I'm now located outside of WA - company, personally, everything. The last 20 years of WA government have driven the State into the ground, they just don't know it yet.
Businesses are fleeing WA, money is leaving. The ONLY reason many live there is because of the 0% income tax. When (assuming the Ds retain control of everything with supermajorities to boot) an income tax is passed, you'll see a flight of capital and wealthly that will make the gates at SeaTac whirl like a windmill...
I know personally 15 small business owners who have left in the last 3 years, like I just did. The reason? Taxation, over-regulation, and forced expenses (like the highest minimum wage in the nation). Our total 16 companies were small - around 300 employees total. But many had high-paying jobs (engineers, master machinists and the like), and high revenue but low profits - sucks because of the B&O taxation (and being a worldwide-competitive service provider puts you in that 1.5% B&O rate to boot).
WA is killing itself by forcing businesses out, and it's pretty clear the majority don't care. Swatter is right to get out while the getting's good...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 14, 2008 06:47 PM1.Have us take transit everywhere.
2.relocate to the urban villages,and see 1..
To blame lack of money maks the real problem which was lack of proper planning.What the D's are not telling us is they had the money and spent billions on gentrifying the inner city of Seattle so we could be frustrated into it..
Seattle corrupted our transportation policy for gentrification. We needed high speed rail but it did not allow Seattle to tear the stareets up enough to spur the kind of development they wanted.
If we are going to change our outlook on transportation we need to evict the Seattle gentrification zealots from the process in order to get the high speed rail to serve the people where they live now.
We also need to get King County to invest in its original corridors to allow more local traffic to use them,so we free up the interstates for by pass traffic.It can be done,but not with Seattle gentrification zealots at the wheel.
Look at the advisory group for the viaduct replacement project.loaded with Seattle gentrification zealots waiting to corrupt another project.If you want to pass a law to provide congestion relief for the puget sound region pass a law that evicts the Seattle gentrification zealots from the planning table.
I was once told by a Sound Transit official that up to 50% of the cost of their projects can be on environmental mitigation and regulation, though that was several years ago (before skyrocketing inflation in construction costs) so it may have changed. Short story: environmental mitigation in the Puget Sound region is very pricey.
Richard B -
Your argument against me about "something for nothing" would have more merit except that I supported the nickel gas tax increase, I supported the 9.5 cent gas tax increase, and I supported Prop 1. I'm willing to pay. Lawmakers need to do a better job of prioritizing solutions for a truly deadly stretch of state highway. That and they might want to figure out a way to keep the ferries running.
Posted by: Eric Earling on January 14, 2008 10:04 PMBA @ 40: as Eric said, it depends on the project, but yeah, it can cost up to half. Hundreds of millions, if not billions, pay for such studies in this state every year. It's utterly insane.
Posted by: pudge on January 14, 2008 11:15 PMBesides time delays, environment studies cost a lot of money. Time delays automatically increase the cost of the project. Consider the completion of I-90. It was stopped for environment reasons in the late 60s (you know, the time of Gene Marine-America the Raped), the cost to complete would have been maybe 10 million. Consider the cost it did take- well over 100 million, if not closer to 500.
Posted by: swatter on January 15, 2008 07:06 AMNo I'm in CA for a convention this week, but I relocated to Shanghai, China (Minhang district). Yes, there's red tape and a government to deal with, but decisions are made in days - if not hours - the rules are laid out, and I have never seen a more efficient government run.
And even though Shanghai has 40 million people in the greater Shanghai area (about half the size of the LA area as measured by area, but twice the population) traffic and mass transportation flows much better than in Seattle.
Although, I must say that the sunrise this morning while sitting in the sand at Huntington Beach was nice...:)
Swatter,
Three words: Hong Kong Corporation. Stronger privacy laws than Switzerland, English common law system, and unless you actually work AND receive your funds in HK your income there is tax free. You don't have to reside in HK to own an HK company.
It's a great tax shelter, the economy is very stable, the Chinese government is VERY hands-off with HK (they know it's a golden goose and are not going to risk it at all), even allowing elections where the winners are 90% of the time the non-Central Party candidate.
Not to mention that the Bank of China (Hong Kong) pays 5.8% on deposits over $10,000... And you're insured to $250,000 per account.
Posted by: Edmonds Dan on January 15, 2008 07:35 AMI'd like to see you try to institute a B&O tax overseas. Please keep the B&O - heck, raise it! - to complete the business drain of the state of WA.
Your ex-citizen,
Shanghai Dan (formerly Edmonds Dan)
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 15, 2008 07:41 AMHowever..... we are slowly losing OUR freedoms while much of the rest of the world is gaining freedom. Unless something changes, the lines will eventually cross. The WA Legislature is pushing us toward that point where places like China are more free than here.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 15, 2008 11:04 AMWe were near an upscale hotel, and once 3 guys came in with PRC driver's licenses, at that time still quite a novelty. I told them they had to have passports to buy beer (only U.S. and Canadian ID's are good under law). I explained to them I had to watch out for the stings. I'll never forget the look of bafflement when the visitors from Red China realized they couldn't buy a beer in the land of the free.
Sure, buying beer is a petty 'right,' but a lot of lillipution things--liquor laws, tax laws, seatbelt laws, gun laws, health care laws, liability laws, education laws--add up to something of significance.
Posted by: russell garrard on January 15, 2008 06:32 PMI'll never give up my US citizenship; however, while I still have 10 years of working "life" left, I've chosen to relocate to a country that is easy to do business in, values work, understands that creation of wealth is fundamental to getting ahead, and sets the rules to make it as easy as possible to create wealth AND keep what you create.
In the mean time, I'll travel as needed, but never again do business - or be paid for working - in the State of Washington. And as little as possible inside the US in general. Overseas - Asia, Australia, even South America - is so much more business friendly it's amazing as many companies stay in the US as currently do.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 15, 2008 09:05 PM