In an interesting move, Dino Rossi's campaign is pushing back against critics of his transportation plan who seem flummoxed by the cost estimates, noting those figure come from:
WSDOT and RTID.
If Rossi's opponents don't like the calculations compiled by government agencies under their status quo leadership perhaps they could take the argument up with them?
Here's some of Team Rossi's point:
The great bulk (71%) of the proposed spending in the plan announced by Dino on Tuesday was to pay for 9 major unfunded congestion relief projects. At his press conference Dino said that the cost projections for eight of those projects were taken directly from DOT and RTID. The seven large projects in Central Puget Sound are found on pages 30-32 of the final RTID report. Please find a copy of the RTID report here. RTID's numbers were in turn taken from Christine Gregoire's WSDOT. You will see that these seven projects are listed by RTID in the "2006 dollars" column. Dino's plan simply uses these 2006 numbers and adds 2.5%, to reflect one year of inflation (or, to become 2007 dollars).Posted by Eric Earling at April 18, 2008 07:23 AM | Email ThisThere are two other large congestion projects proposed in the Rossi plan, namely, the North Spokane Corridor and a new bridge on the Columbia River between Vancouver and Portland. The figures for the North Spokane Corridor may be found at the following WSDOT site:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/US395/NorthSpokaneCorridor/
Now that's true fiction!
Posted by: Daniel K on April 18, 2008 07:32 AMLooks to me like Sen Haugen is a big part of the problem. A naysayer without any solutions.
Posted by: TrueSoldier on April 18, 2008 08:02 AMOne does get the impression, listening to the reactions to this plan, that folks have been more busy coming up with excuses than solutions for the past four years down in Olympia.
Why did Dino just inflate them to 2007? It's 2008 if my clocks right and these projects won't even break ground until at least late 2009 (that's if Rossi in his FIRST legislative session gets the Democratic controlled legislature to raid education and healthcare funding for all these new highways when the state faces a deficit. Right! I think we'll have an income tax before that.)
So if Rossi wanted to be honest he would show at least a 2010 start date for these projects. And in no way could they all begin at once. The RTID construction schedule was staggered over 20 years.
So if Rossi and you were to be honest you would talk about this plan in the terms that many of the authors of Rossi plan used to discuss the RTID plan that they helped kill - year of expenditure and include interest on the bonds.
Until then this is a bunch of smoke and mirors.
Posted by: jim on April 18, 2008 09:13 AMBut, I agree with the critics. Using RTID and WDOT estimates is like listening to a citizen activist become president (oops, it may happen, but the analogy fits).
Posted by: swatter on April 18, 2008 09:16 AMEven at 2010, that is still two years earlier than what the Democrats, who had 7 years since the Nisqually Quake to make a plan, have come up with.
Posted by: pbj on April 18, 2008 09:21 AMUh, no it isn't. Unless you want to include the price of food and energy in the equation, which is hardly relevant. The PPI less food and energy is less than 2% inflation in 2007.
I dare you to put this same level of funding and feasability scrutiny to Gregoire's idiotic family leave plan!
Gregoire screwed the pooch on transportation in order to run a hobby shop of pandering special interest favors.
Posted by: andy on April 18, 2008 10:17 AMAlthough I agree that food costs shouldn't be included in the inflation number when calculating the construction of roads, I think a sensible case could be argued for the inclusion of energy costs. Not only is a lot of energy used to manufacture the products that roads are made of, but all of those big bulldozers, graders, and steam rollers run on diesel as well.
Posted by: Gary on April 18, 2008 11:43 AMGary, then please make it. How much of a $15 billion transportation plan do you think is energy costs? If we base it on WSDOT biennial budget for highway improvements for 2007-09, it equals a whopping 0.0001 of the total. So why should you factor energy inflation on an entire project based on something that amounts to such a small percentage of the total cost?
Posted by: Palouse on April 18, 2008 01:10 PM
That is a near term calculation. Long-term a general inclusive inflation number makes more sense.
Excluding "energy", when you're pricing asphalt, isn't too wise.
Using 2007, or earlier, or later is fine for budgets - as long as the revenue numbers are stated in the same way.
Otherwise the two columns of spending and revenue don't compare. Does Rossi's plan take that into account? I don't know, haven't studied it enough.
Has any one else yet?
Why the heck do you care about the AWV so much pbj?
SR-520 = 115,000 vehicles and 150,000 people daily.
Hwy-99 = 110,000 vehicles daily
Now that Rossi wants to build a tunnel (which are expensive and never come in on budget) your all for it? Your Rossi talking points have blinded you to the enormity of the cost of his proposal.
Let's look at PBJ's thought process here:
- Favors Dinno Rossi's version of the Boston's Big Dig in Seattle (a city you admittedly stay away from).
- Bitch and moans when new Ferry boats cost to much
- Complains about the lack of Airport like security for the average individual to board a Ferry Boat.
It sure looks like you are all for excessive spending as long as it's a Republican who proposes it.
Gravel is nearly free, provided you use it right at the pit. Using where you're building requires transportation, which is the bulk of what drives its price.
Concrete - cement takes energy to produce, plus there is still that sand and gravel to transport to the batch plant, and then to the job site.
Asphalt - I presume you know there is some oil involved.
Lifting materials, placing materials, transporting materials, mostly done with machines that need fuel.
Energy is a huge component in the cost of construction.
Posted by: BA on April 18, 2008 01:31 PMExcept that when they factor PPI data that excludes energy and food, it includes "products" like asphalt, which already has the energy of producing it in its price.
Long-term a general inclusive inflation number makes more sense.
Agreed, and Rossi's transportation plan is a long term plan. None of those mega-projects are going to completed in the next few years.
Posted by: Palouse on April 18, 2008 01:33 PMThat was the amount budgeted for energy costs by WSDOT for highway improvements for 2007-09. $253k for a $2.391 billion budget.
And as stated in my previous post, the energy cost of goods produced is already reflected in inflation numbers in measures like the PPI. The output (asphalt, concrete) price reflects the total costs of the inputs + profit.
Posted by: Palouse on April 18, 2008 01:39 PMSaid critics are stricken blind, deaf and dumb when the vast costs of light rail - which carries about THREE PERCENT of commuters - are criticized in turn. Nothing is too expensive when building a symbolic relic-in-its-own-time that runs from one point A to one point B, for the benefit of a tiny minority of self-congratulating urban commuters who carry no freight.
Let those critics quake in fear that Rossi's actual actual proposals for abating congestion will have the same effect on voters that Tim Eyman's initiatives do. Being more attractive to voters than to the incestuous political class currently 'governing' urban Pugetopolis, these proposals might just win with some healthy majorities, leaving the statist Supreme Court as the last line of defense of our 'elites' against democratic actions by the people.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on April 18, 2008 03:32 PMPPI went up 1.1% just last month. Using CPI was at least 3% last year if I remember right so 2.5% is low to start with and still only takes us to last year.
But the more important aspect of the program is it does not say where the money will come from. What program is he going to cut? Has he mentioned one yet or is all the money still planning on coming from his great leadership abilities?
Posted by: Lysander on April 18, 2008 06:29 PMHis campaign is reminding me of the out of control way we took the Congress, proceeded to lose the fiscal discipline that is a foundation of the party, failed to balance the budget, and went on a big spending spree. That's why we lost the Congress.
I fear Dino Rossi's fuzzy math and failure to balance the budget will deliver the same results.
Posted by: redflag on April 19, 2008 08:48 AMIf however Rossi proposes a plan, then suddenly there is a financial analysis, and much ballyhooing about how there won't be enough money to pay for such a plan, etc.
The hypocrisy is so thick you can walk on it.
The reality is that Dino Rossi scares Democrats because they know that the vast majority of the people in this state still drive cars, like them, and want at least some of their tax dollars to go to timely maintenance and growth of our road network. Rossi is offering solutions, while Democrats only offer bickering over plastic bag bans. If I were a Democrat, I'd be worried sick as well. Best to just attack the plan and hope that none of the voters are paying attention. You know, the same voters who shot down Prop 1.
Dino Rossi can and will think outside the box as is demonstrated in this post from Eric. One more reason to vote for him.
Posted by: KS on April 19, 2008 12:43 PMNo response to my post showing inflation is higher than Rossi is projecting it? (post #18)
Posted by: Lysander on April 21, 2008 12:08 PM