Ref 49 and Ref 51

REFERENDUM BILL NO. 49

Chapter 321, Laws of 1998 (Shall motor vehicle excise taxes be reduced and state revenues reallocated; $1.9 billion in bonds for state and local highways approved; and spending limits modified?) The measure was submitted to the voters at the November 3, 1998 state general election and was approved by the following vote: For – 1,056,786 Against – 792,783.

---

---

REFERENDUM BILL NO. 51

Chapter 202, Laws of 2002 (The Legislature has passed House Bill No. 2969, financing transportation improvements through transportation fees and taxes. This bill would increase highway capacity, public transportation, passenger and freight rail, and transportation financing accountability through increased fuel excise taxes, sales taxes on vehicles, and weight fees on trucks and large vehicles.) The measure was submitted to the voters at the November 5, 2002 state general election and was rejected by the following vote: Approved – 674,724 Rejected – 1,081,580.

Slate Gorton argues in favor of Ref 51..."an imperfect solution"

Referendum 51 raises serious debate on Seattle University campus

October 28, 2002

On Wednesday, October 23, former Senator Slade Gorton, who currently co-chairs the "Yes on Referendum 51" campaign, participated in a panel discussion at Seattle University's transportation forum held in Wyckoff Auditorium. The event, which was co-sponsored by the College of Arts & Sciences and Albers School, provided Gorton with an opportunity to present a pro-Referendum 51 view, while at the same time fielding questions from a panel of students and the audience.

Referendum 51 is an issue that will appear on the November 5 ballot as a method of paying for a statewide 10-year, $7.7 billion transportation program. Changes that would be created by the passing of Referendum 51 include a one-time, 1 percent surcharge on vehicle sales, raising a weigh fee on trucks heavier than five tons, and increasing the state's gasoline tax by 9 cents a gallon over two years. The taxes used from these increases would be used to address problems such as traffic congestion, improving the safety of what the state Department of Transportation calls 2,037 "high accident" locations, and also repairing over 900 earthquake susceptible bridges. "Referendum 51 will not solve all of our transportation problems," said Gorton in his address. "It is the foundation for the house� it's not the house itself."

Gorton emphasized that the government would be accountable for each expense purchased with Referendum 51 money for the next ten years. "I can't remember any state legislature ever doing this before," said Gorton. "If this form of accountability works here, it can, and will, probably be applied to other forms of legislation as well."

In addition to the points brought up by Gorton, the student panel raised some topics for the former senator to speak upon as well. Shelly Fayette, a senior theology and religious studies major brought up the topic of mass transportation several times, asking why more money wasn't going to mass transit when it presented a more viable solution to the problem of traffic congestion. She also mentioned that Referendum 51 didn't present a very cost-effective solution for those with lower incomes. "Public transportation is a social justice issue that our state legislature should be concerned with," said Fayette.

"Under Referendum 51, a greater percentage of money will go to buses than the actual percentage of people who use the bus," replied Gorton. "The legislature is concerned with it [mass transit]. You'll soon have the option of a monorail . . .the problem is, you can't ask the people of Spokane to pay for a monorail in Seattle." Gorton also went on to state that a large amount of opposition towards Referendum 51 stems from the fact that it is not a "perfect" solution. "Perfection is the enemy of good," said Gorton. "I suspect that many people have better ideas� I have better ideas� but we aren't going to destroy them all by voting for this modest proposal in front of us right now."

Argument for and against Referendum 51 in 2002

CHAPTER 202, LAWS OF 2002

Vote cast by the 2002 Legislature on final passage:
Senate: Yeas, 30; Nays, 17; Absent, 0; Excused, 2.
House: Yeas, 75; Nays, 23; Absent, 0; Excused, 0.

Official Ballot Title:
The Legislature has passed House Bill No. 2969, financing transportation improvements through transportation fees and taxes. This bill would increase highway capacity, public transportation, passenger and freight rail, and transportation financing accountability through increased fuel excise taxes, sales taxes on vehicles, and weight fees on trucks and large vehicles.

Should this Bill be:
Approved [ ] Rejected [ ]



Argument For




2,037 "HIGH ACCIDENT" LOCATIONS—950 BRIDGES NEED REPAIR—FIX DANGEROUS ROADS/BRIDGES— RELIEVE TRAFFIC CHOKEPOINTS

The state Department of Transportation identified 2,037 "High Accident" locations where improvements will save lives. 950 bridges in danger of significant damage in the next earthquake require retrofits. And traffic congestion takes too big a toll on our nerves, pocketbooks and economy. In Central Puget Sound, one of the most congested areas nationwide, rush hour drivers waste $1,605 and 82 hours in traffic every year. The price tag statewide? $2 billion annually. Washington’s Competitiveness Council says gridlock is the huge obstacle in attracting and keeping jobs and employers.

THE LONGER WE WAIT TO FIX OUR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, THE MORE EXPENSIVE IT’LL GET

…and the more dangerous and congested our roads will get. R-51 won’t solve all these transportation problems, but it’ll help fix the most dangerous roads and bridges, improve street safety near schools and relieve traffic chokepoints. R-51 funds a high priority list of safety and traffic relief projects on our roads, bridges, rail and public transportation systems — in every part of the state.

HOLD GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE TO TAXPAYERS— MAKE SURE THEY SPEND OUR TAXES PROPERLY AND PRODUCE RESULTS

R-51 has checks and balances to track revenues and project delivery from start to finish. Revenues must be deposited into transportation-only accounts. The State Constitution requires gas tax revenues be spent only on highway improvements. R-51 requires mandatory audits to track revenues and the delivery of improvements from start to finish — with all of it reported to taxpayers.

STATE TROOPERS, FIREFIGHTERS, BUSINESS, LABOR, SHERIFFS, GOVERNOR GARY LOCKE, FORMER SENATOR SLADE GORTON: "R-51: YES!"

A "yes" vote is recommended by a statewide, bipartisan coalition that includes the Washington State Patrol Troopers Association, Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs, Seismological Society of America, Firefighters, Association of Washington Business, Washington State Labor Council, agriculture and seniors.

For more information, call 206.352.8255 or visit www.YesonR51.com.


Argument Against

R-51 IS FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AND POORLY PLANNED

R-51 starts dozens of new road construction projects it can’t finish without multiple future tax increases. Just completing R-51’s seven largest projects would require four more tax increases the size of R-51, according to Department of Transportation data. Most R-51 projects do not have realistic budgets or plans.

REFERENDUM 51 HAS THE WRONG APPROACH AND THE WRONG PRIORITIES -- NEGLECTING TRANSPORTATION CHOICES, SAFETY, AND MAINTENANCE

For example, in King County, 93% of R-51 money goes toward highways, but only 7% to buses and vanpools. R-51 tries to "build our way out of congestion" with new highways, instead of improving transit and fixing existing roads. This approach doesn’t work.

LESS THAN 10% OF R-51’s MONEY WOULD BE SPENT ON SEISMIC SAFETY AND MAINTENANCE

R-51 neglects critical safety and maintenance needs. It spends billions to start new freeways before completing vital safety and maintenance projects like repairing crumbling bridges and viaducts before they collapse.

We need highway improvements, but neglecting safety and maintenance is foolish. We can’t afford to waste billions on low priority projects that don’t solve our problems when the state, particularly rural Washington, is struggling economically.

R-51 IS THE WRONG WAY TO SOLVE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS—THERE IS A BETTER ALTERNATIVE

The coalition opposing R-51, Citizens for Real Transportation Solutions, proposes a more effective alternative:

1) Make safety and maintenance the highest priority; 2) Improve mass transit, and add innovations like discounted bus passes, telecommuting and other incentives to reduce traffic; 3) Invest in "smart road" projects like completing HOV lanes and fixing chokepoints, and efficiencies like better signal timing and rapid-response tow trucks to clear accidents quickly; and 4) Reform the Department of Transportation to ensure our tax dollars are spent wisely.

Support a better approach. Vote "no" on Referendum 51.



Rebuttal of Argument Against


Rebuttal of Argument For

Washington has some very dangerous, congested roads. Opponents say "wait" to do anything about them. But the longer we wait to fix them, the more expensive it’ll be, and the more dangerous our roads will get. R-51 won’t solve allour problems, but it’ll help fix the most dangerous ones, repair and maintain roads and bridges, relieve traffic chokepoints and expand public transportation. Vote yes on safer roads, traffic relief and accountability. Yes on R-51.
R-51 addresses fewer than 10% of these 2,037 safety and maintenance hotspots, funding new road construction instead. R-51 also neglects transportation choices that are critical to reducing traffic.

R-51 fails the accountability test: its projects lack realistic budgets or plans and cannot be completed without multiple future tax increases.

We shouldn’t waste tax dollars on the wrong projects.

Demand a better alternative now. Demand better priorities, financial responsibility and real solutions. Vote no on Referendum 51.



A


Argument Prepared by:

BOB THURSTON, President, Washington State Patrol Troopers Association; STANLEY E. MILLER, President, Inland Automobile Association (AAA); KELLY FOX, President, Washington State Council of Fire Fighters; MIKE AMOS, President, Washington Council of Police and Sheriffs; DON BRUNELL, President, Association of Washington Business; JUDY A. HEDDEN, President, League of Women Voters of Washington.

Argument Against
VIRGINIA GUNBY, President, Washington Retired Citizens; T.J. JOHNSON, Alliance for Public Transit; PAULA DEL GIUDICE, Regional Director, National Wildlife Federation; STEVE FUHRMAN, former State Representative; ROBERT PREGULMAN, Executive Director, Washington Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG); TIM McGRUDER, Conservation Chair, East Lake Washington Audubon Society.

Analysis of Ref 51 by the Washington Policy Center

Will Referendum 51 Solve Our Traffic Problems?


by Eric Montague
October 2, 2002


The need for increasing the capacity of our state's 80,000-mile network of roads, highways and bridges is clear. Over the past 30 years Washington's road system has not kept pace with the needs of a population that has grown nearly 75% during that time. While there are many opinions about how to keep up with growing roadway demand, few will argue that seemingly endless congestion and hazardous safety conditions severely hamper the state's social and economic development.

Attempts to ease congestion through higher public transit spending and strict Growth Management rules have failed. Despite the efforts of planners to alter people's preference for auto travel, people in Washington continue to choose the freedom of a car for more than 93% of daily trips. After all, at no point in history have people wanted less mobility. So in November the governor and legislature are asking voters to decide if Referendum 51, or some future alternative, is the best solution for meeting the state's increasing transportation needs.

Referendum 51 is a statewide ballot measure that raises taxes and fees to pay for road building improvements. Money from the referendum would be distributed to a list of about 100 projects approved by the legislature. Here is a brief summary of what the referendum says. (A full, plain-English description is in our study "An Overview of Referendum 51," available at www.washingtonpolicy.org under "publications," or by calling (206) 937-9691.)

The measure has five parts. Part one would create a Transportation Accountability Board, with nine members appointed by the governor and confirmed by the legislature, to assist in monitoring the new spending. Part two would increase truck and license fees by 30% over two years, bringing in an estimated $232 million.

Part three would increase the gas tax by nine cents over two years, raising $3 billion. The current gas tax is 23 cents a gallon, the thirteenth highest state tax in the nation. The federal government imposes an additional 18.4 cents per gallon. Referendum 51 would increase the state gas tax to 32 cents per gallon, making our state tax the highest in the nation.

New and used auto sales are now subject to a 6.5% sales tax. Part four of the referendum would raise the tax to 7.5% beginning April 1st, bringing in $1.16 billion more, most of which would be used for subsidized mass transit.

Part five of the referendum authorizes the state to sell $4.5 billion in bonds. Proceeds would be used to pay for highway construction and maintenance. This section also authorizes a separate sale of $100 million in bonds, most of which would be spent on mass transit.

An additional source of funding not mentioned in the referendum would be the interest earned on new revenue, which would bring in about $78 million over ten years. Total revenue from all sources under Referendum 51 is estimated at $7.8 billion. Here's a summary of the new revenues.

Summary of New Revenues Under Referendum 51
9-cent gas tax phased in over two years
$ 3,039,269,000
30% increase in vehicle weight fees $ 232,989,000
1% sales tax increase on new and used autos $ 1,160,178,000
Sales tax on transportation construction $ 165,204,000
Interest earnings $ 78,106,000
Bond proceeds
$ 4,600,000,000
Less debt service $(1,460,805,000)
Total new revenue $7,814,941,000

If voters approve Referendum 51, the new tax money would be spent on projects across the state. The projects fall into twelve categories.


Referendum 51 Planned Spending
% of Total
Roads - GP $4,292,776,000 53.2%
Roads - Improvements $ 299,781,000 3.7%
Roads - HOV $ 733,531,000 9.1%
Public Transit $ 819,900,999 10.2%
Planning $ 25,315,100 0.3%
Freight Mobility $ 133,000,000 1.6%
Safety $ 92,622,160 1.1%
Environmental Retrofit $ 26,253,000 0.3%
Ferries $ 711,192,000 8.8%
Rail - Passenger $ 809,938,000 10.0%
Rail - Freight $ 96,940,000 1.2%
Economic Development $ 30,000,000 0.4%
Total Planned Spending: $8,071,249,259 100.0%

Definitions for Figure Above

· Roads - GP: These are General Purpose (GP) lanes open to all traffic.
· Roads - Improvements: These are upgrades of existing roads, such as better surfaces, road widening, adding climbing lanes on steep grades, etc.
· Roads - HOV: New High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.
· Public Transit: Government operated transit services.
· Planning: Planning includes engineering, environmental studies and other regulatory requirements that must be completed before road construction can begin.
· Freight Mobility: Projects designed to improve the movement of freight.
· Safety: Projects designed specifically to improve the safety of certain roadways and transportation corridors.
· Environmental Retrofit: Upgrades to meet current environmental regulations.
· Ferries: Dock improvements and new ferries for the State Ferry System.
· Rail - Passenger: Rail projects designed for passenger rail improvements, primarily high-speed commuter rail corridors in the Puget Sound region.
· Rail - Freight: Projects designed to improve the movement of freight by rail.
· Economic Development: Projects intended to spur economic growth in certain areas.

You might notice there is a $257 million difference between the revenue projections and planned spending. That is because some projects will take longer than ten years to complete, and because budget planners assume the federal government will provide money for passenger rail service.

Referendum 51 would fund major new projects and would help transportation spending keep up with inflation, but by itself it would not allow us to build our way out of traffic congestion. Determining whether Referendum 51 offers the best solution, or whether legislators will have to tackle the issue afresh when they meet in January, will be up to
Washington voters on Election Day.