Tacoma Coalition sets outs local priorities for Roads

Monday, January 7th, 2008

Transportation: A local game plan?

Posted by David Seago @ 04:16:23 pm

A “go it alone” stance on new highway construction is favored in a legislative priority list Pierce County officials will consider Wednesday.

The final draft document, released today, calls for creating a new transportation benefit district – perhaps along with another county – to pay for big projects like extending SR 167 and building the Cross Base Highway.

The draft clearly rejects the idea of creating a regional Transportation Board to rule all transit and highway planning in the Puget Sound metro region. (See my Sunday column on a regional governance plan state lawmakers will consider this session.)

A coalition of county business and government leaders called RAMP will consider the proposed legislative priorities Wednesday. But first they will hear a pitch from top advocates of regional governance. The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. at the Fabulich Center (formerly the World Trade Center) at 3600 Port of Tacoma Road.

Here's what the draft says about creating a new taxing district:

RAMP believes that a Transportation Benefit District is the most viable vehicle for advancing towards the next voter-approved funding package, whether Pierce County moves forward unilaterally or in cooperation with other counties; consequently, RAMP asks the Legislature to grant TBDs authority allotted to the Regional Transportation Investment District, as well as removing the ten-year limitation on voter-approved tax collections

Click below to see the full document.

[More:]

Priorities
o RAMP believes that a Transportation Benefit District is the most viable vehicle for advancing towards the next voter-approved funding package, whether Pierce County moves forward unilaterally or in cooperation with other counties; consequently, RAMP asks the Legislature to grant TBDs authority allotted to the Regional Transportation Investment District, as well as removing the ten-year limitation on voter-approved tax collections
o RAMP maintains that transportation governance revisions are secondary to the provision of adequate financial resources for transportation (both roads and transit); to that end, RAMP will support Legislative goals and recommendations that make adequate financing their top priority
o RAMP believes that subarea equity is important for any regional transportation investment plan and will seek to maintain Pierce County's fair share of funding while working collaboratively with the rest of the region
o RAMP will work to ensure that projects funded within Pierce County via the 2003 Nickel package and the 2005 Transportation Partnership package are completed without delay

Projects
RAMP will work to develop regional, state and federal funding for the following priority transportation projects:
o SR-167 - RAMP seeks to secure full funding for this critical link from Puyallup to SR-509, including right-of-way acquisition for the full-width corridor, and supports high capacity vehicle lanes being added to the portion north of Sumner

o SR-704 - RAMP is an advocate for the construction of the “Cross-Base Highway” and believes that this transportation corridor should be renamed the “Armed Services Highway” to reflect the importance of the military and their families

o SR-162 - RAMP supports allocation of State funding to the SR-162 corridor between the City of Orting and SR-410 in such a manner and amount as to leverage the use of private funding being identified by the Plateau Transportation Partnership for transportation improvements

o Sound Transit - RAMP supports the following additions to regional transit services:
1. Connecting light rail from Tacoma Dome Station to SeaTac Airport
2. Contingency fund for ridership growth (e.g., additional parking, shuttle service, new stations, pedestrian facilities, signalization)
3. Extending Sounder service to DuPont
4. Expanding Sounder service to all-day or expanding express bus service to all-day
5. Linking downtown Tacoma to TCC via light rail
o Pierce Transit - RAMP supports completion of the Peninsula Park & Ride facility
o Rail Improvements - RAMP supports construction of grade separations that will serve Sounder, Tacoma Rail and Port of Tacoma infrastructure needs
o Regional Mobility Grant (WSDOT's Office of Transit Mobility) - RAMP supports funding for proposed Pierce County projects

Policies
In addition, RAMP supports transportation policies essential to our region's economic development, which include the following:

o RAMP supports the recommendations of the Washington Transportation Commission in its 2006 Comprehensive Tolling Study and believes that the state should use tolling to encourage effective use of the transportation system through congestion management as well as to provide a supplementary source of transportation funding; moreover, tolling represents the most direct way to charge system users for the cost of the highway system without singling out one specific class of user; however, RAMP believes transit should not be tolled or be subject to congestion pricing and that this should be reflected in the Transportation Commission's tolling policy.

o RAMP opposes cargo taxes that would hamper the state's competitiveness, driving economic activity from Washington to neighboring states and countries, and harming Washington ports, manufacturers, growers, and exporters: RAMP supports mechanisms for funding freight infrastructure that rely either on user fees or on general purpose taxes through which the broader community invests in freight mobility.

o RAMP supports financial incentives, such as tax credits, for new construction and infrastructure improvements on the state's rail lines

o RAMP supports allocation of all multimodal funds to public transportation and opposes any efforts to allocate federal transit funds to highway purposes.

o RAMP seeks full funding for the recommendations of the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board (FMSIB) to improve freight mobility and the state's competitiveness

o RAMP supports keeping the state accountable for efficiencies in the construction of transportation projects by producing verifiable and quantifiable results through cost savings, project prioritization, benchmarks, planning and project streamlining

RTID plan a disaster for Pierce County

March 15, 2007
Tacoma News Tribune op ed

Pierce County RTID plan risks becoming a road to nowhere

By Sen. Jim Kastama

“The Road to Abilene” is an old story that relates the dangers of groupthink. In this story, a family decides to embark on a road trip. Unfortunately, family members fear speaking up to avoid confrontations — even when they become aware of glaring, obvious problems. They wind up traveling a road littered with anger, frustration, blame and eventual failure.

Sadly, our own version of “The Road to Abilene” is taking place right here in Pierce County in the form of the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) road package that will go before the voters next November. Community members, business leaders and elected officials are so afraid of pointing out the obvious flaws with this package that they have created a false sense of agreement.

Let me give you an example. The current RTID proposal would extend State Route 167, the major highway that streams down from Auburn, passes through Sumner and dead-ends in an old strawberry field in Puyallup. Its extension from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma is vital because it will connect the Port to warehouses in the Auburn/Kent valley and provide up to 80,000 high-paying port-related jobs.

What is not mentioned when 167 is discussed is that RTID proposes to extend this highway to the port with only one lane in each direction for most of its length, with no interchanges at Interstate 5. In addition, the plan leaves the project more than $150 million short of funding, so it may never actually be built even if voters approve it.

An equally obvious deficiency in the RTID plan is the funding for the Cross Base Highway, which will connect I-5 near Lakewood to Frederickson, the largest industrialized zoned area in Western Washington. This is a good economic investment, as it will open this area to truck traffic that will allow for further business expansion in Pierce County. Yet, as with the plan for 167, the RTID proposal is more than $100 million short of the funds needed to build the Cross Base Highway. Again, it may never actually be built, even if voters approve it.

With such glaring problems, why are our Pierce County leaders so hesitant to point out these flaws? Partly because they fear any public disagreement will lead voters to reject RTID’s proposal next November. In other words, the plan may be flawed, but it’s better than nothing.

The other reason is that they believe the governing board for RTID is so inflexible, and so dead-set against prioritizing its project list, that it will do little good to argue with them or offer alternatives.

An example is RTID’s insistence on widening State Route 162, the old Sumner/Orting highway. The cost of this project is approximately $250 million — almost the exact amount by which the other two projects are underfunded. Unlike the other two projects, however, SR 162 does not rank in the “Top Tier” category for economic impact as determined by the South Sound Chambers of Commerce. Nor is SR 162 considered “a Highway of Statewide Significance” by the Legislature.

The question is why are we sacrificing State Route 167 and the Cross Base Highway — projects that will provide high paying jobs in a time of increasing global competition — for a project that brings little or no economic benefits to the region? It is argued, in fact, that expanding SR 162 will lead to more sprawl, more congestion and more crowded schools, leading ultimately to an increase in everyone’s taxes.

This question, and others, needs to be asked. If not, RTID’s package is certain to be voted down by the voters next November and there will be a lot of anger and finger pointing by the leaders and citizens of Pierce County.

Instead, we need to start debating alternatives now. In the Senate I have offered two different options. One would give RTID the taxing authority to completely build all three projects in their plan. The other would re-prioritize projects within RTID’s current funding formula to fully build State Route 167 — with four lanes and an intersection at Interstate 5 — and the Cross Base Highway. Thus far, RTID has shown little interest in either option.

I have been fiercely criticized by proponents of the current package who would prefer I ignore these problems, as others have. But I grew up in Pierce County in a time when neighbors looked each other in the eye, and I think voters deserve a healthy debate to discern the truth. And you deserve roads that work for you instead of another “Road to Abilene.”

Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup, chairs the Senate Economic Development, Trade & Management Committee and sits on the Senate Transportation Committee.

RTID Board approves skinned down package for Prop 1

RTID Moves Forward

Posted by Erica C. Barnett on May 31 at 15:26 PM

The executive board of the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) approved the joint RTID/Sound Transit package this afternoon sans the dreaded Cross Base Highway, a proposed new four-lane, $477 million highway in Pierce County that would have cut through Fort Lewis and the McChord Air Force Base—and destroyed the last remaining oak-woodland prairie in western Washington. Pierce County Executive John Ladenburg, a Cross Base supporter, vowed to veto the entire proposal when it comes to Pierce County if it didn’t include the highway; Cross Base supporters and opponents each claim they have the votes to override the executive’s veto (all three counties have to approve the joint measure to put it on the ballot in all three counties). If Ladenburg does veto the joint ballot measure, and if the county council fails to overturn the veto, the ballot measure could still move forward in King and Snohomish Counties, but that’s hardly an ideal scenario.

Today’s lengthy meeting was a mix of praise (from environmentalists), criticism (from Pierce County officials and commuters) and mutual back-patting (from the board). “The package you’re looking at today is something we think we can advocate for,” said Rob Johnson, political director for the pro-transit Transportation Choices Coalition. “The environmental community is willing and excited to get this package on the ballot this fall.” However, Mary Ann Lincoln of the Spanaway Community Association, who lives in Spanaway and works in Redmond, insisted that Pierce County residents need the Cross Base Highway to commute. “I have spent five hours a day in my car. I have arrived at work angry and frustrated and that’s no way to arrive at work,” Lincoln said. She added that the number of drivers the new highway would serve “is probably a lot more people than the environmental community has in their organizations.”

The joint ballot measure includes $1.1 billion to replace the aging SR-520 bridge across Lake Washington, plus anywhere from $700 million to $1.2 billion in tolls. (Currently, RTID is using the higher number; more on that in a moment.) Additional funding for the $4.4 billion project—up to $1 billion—could come from a $1 billion “pool” of future state and federal money anticipated by the legislature; however, the more of that money pays for the 520 replacement, the less will remain for replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the other recipient of funding from the “pool.”

RTID adopted the higher toll revenue estimate, according to a story in yesterday’s P-I, because the agency now predicts that evening peak-hour traffic on the bridge will be 28 percent higher than anticipated. (That’s cars, not people, so that figure doesn’t indicate higher transit use.) However, that increased revenue estimate also assumes that tolls will be around $3 each way—the highest toll level RTID considered. Given that tolls have a diversionary effect—people find other routes, or avoid trips during peak hours—you’d expect that higher tolls would mean fewer bridge users, not more. And if it doesn’t, it’s hard to see what problem building a wider (six-lane versus four-lane) bridge is going to solve—if single-occupant car traffic is just going to go up and up no matter what, what’s the point of building a larger, more expensive bridge?

The proposal now goes to the RTID Planning Committee for final adoption on June 8. From there, it goes to the Snohomish, Pierce and King county councils for placement on the November ballot