One of the more disingenuous arguments against I-912 is that repealing the new gas tax would only take money away from roads and ferries, and that voting for I-912 would not be a way to deny funds to unproductive "mass transit" boondoggles. That argument might be narrowly correct but is materially deceitful.
In fact, the so-called "Transportation Partnership", which includes the gas tax increase that is the target of I-912, is only the first stage of a two-stage con game. The second stage, for the Puget Sound region, is the "Regional Transportation Investment District" (RTID) plan still being formulated. Many of the projects that are supposedly funded by the gas tax require matching funds from the RTID tax hike which should be on the ballot in 2006. The RTID plan will include a massive, still to be determined. subsidy for the sinkhole that is Sound Transit light rail. So the only way to actually get the necessary improvements in roads will be to also waste a great deal on "transit".
This work-in-progress document gives the highlights. The most revealing part of the document is this paragraph [p. 6]:
They have no idea how much the proposed tax package will actually cost the people who pay for it. But no matter how much it turns out to be, they will argue that it is fair!
So yes. Voting yes on I-912 will force the powers-that-be to reexamine the overall plan for transportation "investments", and to reprioritize spending on projects that actually make sense.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 28, 2005 11:45 AM | Email ThisI don't know where these guys get the idea we have to have this massive mass transit thing. We want to be like New York?
Posted by: swatter on October 28, 2005 12:18 PMWhat a bunch of garbage! YES on 912. YES on 912. YES on 912. No more business as usual!
Posted by: Misty on October 28, 2005 12:56 PMI'm in a situation where I can use transit to get to work downtown. I like saving on gas and I work for a company that pays for my bus pass. When I worked on the other side of the bridge, I drove.
I guess what I'm asking is, isn't a compromise that addresses both transit and road option better than either of the one or the other approches?
Posted by: RR on October 28, 2005 01:02 PMBurning fossil fuel is good for the environment, green plants need the CO2 to produce food, and the CO2 that isn't converted to sugars helps keep our planet warm which is good for all of the fragile creatures that don't have houses, and of course the homeless.
Not building miles of new pavement is down right bad for the environment, anyone that cares about the planet should demand that infrastructure to support the efficient movement of passenger vehicles take priority over transit of any sort.
Your point about Sound Transit getting bundled in with the highway projects is a fair one, though, and a question in my mind is whether the additional exposure on the mass transit side (which is not specified) is so egregious that it offsets the benefits of the many projects which otherwise deserve funding.
One other question. If I-912 fails now, but the RTID tax package also fails next year, what do you think will happen with the incremental gas tax revenue that we are already collecting? This is not a rhetorical question; I am in fact wondering whether the "to do"t list wouldn't just get pared down and the money spent, but on an economically feasible set of projects, since by law the uses to which gas tax revenues can be put are constrained to highway/ferry projects.
Posted by: HT on October 28, 2005 01:18 PMWSDOT has posted a list of projects that the gas tax money would fund -- to completion -- I repeat -- to completion -- if the gas tax package that the Legislature passed is allowed to continue (if I-912 fails).
So suppose you and the other pro-912 people here tell us what is on that list that is your priority.
All this stuff has to get done sooner or later. Some people pretend it doesn't. If 912 passes, and DOT prioritizes within the framework of present revenues, as you would have them do, how much more do you think those projects would cost 10-12 years down the line? Less? I don't think so.
Do people here want to complete these projects with 2009 dollars, or 2019 dollars, or not at all?
I'm not asking these questions to be a smart aleck or a troll. This blog exists in the first place because taxpayers have the right to know where and how their money is being spent. This has nothing to do with liberal or conservative, moonbat or wingnut, left or right. We all live here.
For instance, most people here want to relieve congestion. Fine. So do I. But several posters I have read here do not want their money spent on bicycle lanes. I have a tough time figuring that one out. I don't WANT those damn bicycles clogging up my right of way. I WANT them to have a separate right of way.
Whose off ramp do people here NOT want to build? Whose bridge do they NOT want to fix?
Whoever is governor, and whoever controls the Legislature, there will be a DOT. You don't trust them? Fine? Who then DO you trust to build and maintain our transportation infrastructure?
I'll tell you people up front: In my opinion, there is NO transportation problem this state has that is solved by passing I-912. But whether or not it passes, these questions will have to be asked, and answered.
All I'm seeing from Stefan is "we MIGHT have to pay MORE!" Well, Stefan's right, but not QUITE right. You WILL pay more, either way. But if 912 passes, you'll pay more later. None of this stuff gets any cheaper, you know.
Posted by: Ivan on October 28, 2005 01:35 PMMorons like you think it is about NIMBY'ism. It isn't. It's about responsibility, accountability, and efficiency - nothing being shown by the current regime.
Your pathetic try at deflecting the focus from the incompetence of those responsible with a demand of "Well, OK Mr. Smartypants, what would you do?" isn't going to deter anyone. As far as I'm concerned, we're going to starve you out (for starters!).
The presumption that somehow putting up with the crap we are being force-fed is better than throwing out the scoundrels illustrates everything I need to know about you and your agenda.
Vote YES on I-912!
Posted by: alphabet soup on October 28, 2005 01:51 PMA roundabout off exit 13 of I90 was just completely redone, adding brick sidewalks (very cost effective), taking out two lanes and putting up a light on one entrance to the roundabout. The net result, traffic backed up much more than before - adding about 10 minutes. They figured out how much they messed up and before removing all the equipment, they ripped up some of the brick island sidewalk and put back one of the lanes.
I90 between I405 and exit 11. The whole center of the freeway is ripped up. They are so proud of it they do not even have signs for how wonderfully they are spending our money.
How about road money going to - wait for it..... roads? Why is road money diverted to public transportation?
How about not taking a 6.5% cut of road money that goes back into general funds.
The bridge to Gig Harbor. From what I understand all the work there is not adding capacity, just HOV lanes and toll booths.
All this from just being out on the roads. Actually seeing the list I could probably bore everyone to tears the list would be so long.
Posted by: fred on October 28, 2005 02:32 PMPosted by: Kirk Parker on October 28, 2005 03:21 PM
We currently pay .288 per gallon for Washington state gas tax, and .244 per gallon for federal gas tax. That's .532 per gallon.
I'd say, at this moment, that's about 3 cents per gallon more than we should be paying.
Posted by: cc on October 28, 2005 03:23 PMFirst, get rid of the sales tax on all state purchases, services, etc. My grandmother used to call it robbing "Peter to pay Paul." Whatever you call it, the state shouldn't be paying sales tax. It is a clever scheme, charge sales tax, which moves over 8% of the funds over to the General Fund.
Second, get rid of prevailing wage. What is so special about someone standing before a construction zone, twirling a sign back and forth between STOP and SLOW? Who in their right mind thinks these people are so highly trained or skilled that they need 25 dollars an hour?
Third, get rid of the requirement to spend .5 percent of all public construction projects money on ART.
Fourth, stop wasting millions of dollars on cable barriers. They don't prevent accidents.
Fifth, stop putting up all of the sound walls, why are we wasting millions on walls to stop the sound of cars when walls holding up rocks are falling down?
Sixth, why are we putting "lids" on the 520 bridge? Does it really need landscaped "lids?"
Seventh, why are there only 3 lanes on I-5 going into Seattle? Where are the lanes? Where is the capacity? I am tired of seeing roads being deliberatly made smaller, causing more traffic jams. Our crazy planners down here in Olympia and Lacey are creating traffic problems by decreasing capacity to install sidewalks, landscaped islands, and bike lanes. I have never seen anyone riding a bike in a bike lane.
Eighth, I want lanes, lanes and more lanes. I don't want to be run off the road by buses who enter I-5 and immediately cross all of the traffic lanes just to jump into a HOV lane. Get HOV lanes off of I-5. It is an Interstate, where are the Federal dollars for it? What did Patty Murray bring home in the new federal transportation bill? 500 grand for an Seattle Art Museum sculpture park! She needs to be kicked in her butt!
Nineth, If Seattle really needs a tunnel, start making the businesses who will profit from it, pay for it.
I have a problem with a Governor who lies, breaks campaign promises, and screws the people she is claiming to help. We did NOT need to increase spending by 12% this year. We did NOT need to pass the biggest tax increase in 100 years this year. Until we know that our tax dollars are being spent wisely, I will forever vote against them.
Posted by: sgmmac on October 28, 2005 03:40 PM
The new bridge will increase speeds on the existing bridge for all lanes, and considering that the state average for passengers per vehicle is 1.6, I daresay that it adds more than one extra SOV lane worth of capacity.
As well, the new bridge is built so that another deck can be added later for MUCH cheaper than a new bridge if necessary. As well, did you know that Narrows is being paid for by tolls, not a gas tax?
On 912:
Yes, we tax gas to build roads. The RTID is not receiving funding from the gas tax in the 2005 transportation package. It receives funding from three counties, and those three counties have consistently voted to tax themselves for RTID.
You don't walk into a building and say "We don't need this support beam. It's too expensive." You leave that up to experts. The same goes for urban planning - I don't think anyone here is an urban planner, and while we often raise good points that urban planners can see, we don't typically get all the information before we make judgments - they typically do. If someone isn't doing their job, replace them, don't stop them from doing the work to make our roads better.
Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on October 28, 2005 03:46 PMNow, my turn to fume on roundabout on W Lk Sammamish! It is a total joke. When they started rebuilding it, someone asked on PI (or Times) why this rebuilding, and someone from DOT answered that this "investment" is necessary to improve traffic flow at the tune of $700k, and they were doing this because they learned a lesson after observing what was going on with the first roundabout. I guess their lesson was that they had to make it painful enough for people to surrender more money (in taxes) to pay for further "improvements" and "investments"!
No More!!! Yes on I-912.
Posted by: C. Oh on October 28, 2005 04:06 PMProblem is, it's federal law. Good luck with that. Bush had the authority to suspend it by executive order in a disaster area. How'd he make out with that? You know how.
Sound walls? People WANT sound walls. Ever live next to a freeway? I have. Lanes, Lanes, and more lanes? Who are you going to throw out of their houses? Hey, it's not your house, so who cares, right?
Cable barriers don't prevent accidents? Prove it. Do you have something against safety? People WANT safe roads. We WILL have safe roads. You WILL pay for safe roads.
Pay some more now, or a LOT more later. Maybe you diehards around here don't believe that's true. Vote for 912, then. If it passes, it passes. It won't solve the problems that even people here think need solving.
But anybody who thinks people don't want these problems solved eventually, and won't want to pay for them eventually, is barking at the moon.
Posted by: Ivan on October 28, 2005 09:48 PMI don't think it's federal law that we pay someone 25 bucks an hour. If so, why arn't other states doing it? Washington pays more per mile than almost any other state.
As for sound walls, I want things I can't have and can't afford. People don't want sound walls over relieving congestion. It's a matter of priorities.
Cable barriers don't stop accidents. DOT admitted it when they cancelled doing the projects, because they are waiting to see if 912 passes. I want safe roads, I drive on them and so does my family. I don't want money wasted. Save the money and develop a plan for barriers that DO prevent accidents.
It is tiring that our planners improve roads, just to start another improvement on the same road the following year. Our Lacey planners just completed a project last year to relieve congestion by making two roads one way with lots of repaving, cute little landscaped islands, huge sidewalks with grassy tree lined areas by the sidewalks. What they didn't do is increase the lanes, now the traffic coming off of I-5 is even more congested. I just read online tonight that they are going to repave this street again this next year.
Why are the car owners paying for every kind of possible transit project, except the ones that will improve a car owner's drive?
You want to live in Seattle without a car and think the rest of the residents in the state to pay for your buses, bike lanes, monorails, trains, and tunnels?
I drive a big truck and I want uncongested roads to drive on. I don't expect Washington Senators to bring back funding for the Seattle Art Museum's Sculpture Park, I expect them to bring funding for roads!
Posted by: sgmmac on October 28, 2005 10:59 PMThe point is, this man is shilling for jobs out of the taxpayer money fund. The firm he works for is Shannon & Wilson Geotechnical and Environmental Consultants. They have a vested interesting in continuing to suck off the government moneys that are wasted on projects.
The gas tax is now being touted by the Department of Transportation as a way to help with the "Choke Points" in our road system. The "choke points" were designed by the DOT and civil engineers like Eric O'Brien. They don't need more money to continue doing poor work.
This isn't an issue of people not wanting to pay for roads, this whole thing is an issue of money well spent. THAT isn't happening. And giving more money to government workers and programs doesn't improve quality. Posted by: Skeptic on October 29, 2005 12:25 AM
Interesting web site, I wonder how many taxpayer dollars were spent on the fancy sign for the I 405 project team with the logo of Washington State Transportation Department?
No wonder we are paying billions.... so self serving people can have huge fancy signs!
Posted by: sgmmac on October 29, 2005 01:45 AMInteresting approach, Stephan. Especially since I saw you on tv with that Personal Rapid Transit nut Emory Bundy talking about how much you enjoyed riding on BART (more expensive than light rail). In fact, I think you said something like "I like using rail systems in cities that have them." Well, guess what, Shark: those rail systems you ditched your car for weren't free.
And if the clowns at SP think a roads-only package will gain the support from the voters in King County, think again. The only way Seattle voters (needed in big numbers for any kind of tax hike) will support the much needed expansion of I-405 will be if the the package is BALANCED...which means, yes, light rail to Northgate. See how that works? Now if you DON'T want to make needed investments in 405 or 520 (ala I-912) then I think you should pursue this track. I could see the half-sane pitchfork and torch crowd at SP taking this route in their pursuit of setting our region back another couple decades, and squelching economic growth to suit your anarchistic needs.
The rest of us - who have lived here for a while - remember the bold steps of Forward Thrust, and Warren G. Magnuson building the I-90 bridge to get this region to where it is now.
If the cave dwellers of SP had existed back then, the battle cry would have been "we don't want to be like NY," and "that I-90 bridge with all its lids and parks is too expensive."
Thank God there are a few sane ones among you, like Mr. Rosenburg, who don't fall into the "anarchy now!" crowd. Without him, you guys would just be a bunch of black-clad anti-WTO type wackjobs.
Finally, if any of you find yourselves falling for Kemper Freeman's weird automobile jihad, or John Carlson lying about how "half our state spending goes to transit," then I would encourage you to take a look at how I-745 faired back in 2000. This was Tim Eyman's (back when he still had credibility) well-funded intiative which would have allocated 90% of all new transporation funding to roads. It lost statewide, 60-40. It got creamed in King County.
Still want to promote a roads-only regional package, kids? If failure is your objective, I would have to say "go for it."
And for all you anti-light rail people. Pray, do tell, why every other major metropolitan area (and ALL the regions we compete with for high paying jobs and emerging industries) have all built light rail lines? And why is it that, despite the high cost, once those light rail lines are up and running, the only question becomes "when can we get more?"
Think it's all some Sims-style left wing conspiracy? Well, think again. In Denver, where they passed a $5 billion transit-only initiative last year, the areas that supported it most strongly were upper class, Republican suburbs that voted for Bush in the last two elections. Weird, huh?
Just goes to show what kind of steel bubble you guys seem to occupy over here at SP.
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on October 29, 2005 02:37 AMYou want to live in Seattle without a car and think the rest of the residents in the state to pay for your buses, bike lanes, monorails, trains, and tunnels?
I drive a big truck and I want uncongested roads to drive on.
--
I don't live in Seattle, and I don't live without a car. I want uncongested roads to drive on just like everyone else does.
I want you and the rest of these smart guys (not Alphabet Soup, who doesn't qualify) to tell me how you are are going to free those roads of congestion without providing alternatives for those who choose those alternatives. Yes, that includes bike trails, monorails, and light rail.
Those things all cost money, and the longer we wait to provide them, or more lanes, or whatever people think they need, the more expensive it will be. Pay more now, or pay a LOT more later.
You want more people off the roads? Right. So do I. Tell me how passing I-912 will get that for you.
It won't. It will make things worse. If you drive a truck for a living, you should be voting NO on this dumb idea.
Posted by: Ivan on October 29, 2005 06:49 AMThe issue is he has been in charge of the oversight on transportation projects for a lot of years. He has not spent the money wisely. The DOT has stopped mooring the mutli-million dollar bridge tenders boat on the 520 bridge while they are asking for money. They are now using a smaller more "economically aesethic" boat moored there right now.
MacDonald cut his government job chops in Taxachusetts. I don't know if he had any involvement with the Big Dig, but he learned his thrifty spending habits there.
The DOT does not need more money, they need adult supervision and better spending oversight. Posted by: Skeptic on October 29, 2005 01:52 PM