Washington Policy Center Poll Shows Nearly 70% of Voters are Unhappy with the State’s Performance on Reducing Congestion
New Statewide Survey Reveals How Important Traffic Relief is to Washington Voters
by Michael Ennis,
Director, Center for Transportation
January 16, 2008
Washington Policy Center has released the results of a statewide poll that asked voters about the importance of traffic relief both in the Puget Sound region and across Washington State.
The poll revealed the following key findings:
Traffic Congestion
* 70% of voters statewide say traffic congestion is an “extremely” or “fairly” important issue for state government to address
* But only 25% rate the state’s efforts as “excellent” or “good,” while 69% rate those efforts “not so good” or “poor.”
* On a statewide basis, voters place a higher priority on reducing traffic congestion (51%) than funding other transportation needs (38%).
Proposition 1
* Of those who voted against Prop. 1 in November in the Puget Sound area, 44% said they would have voted for it if they had been convinced the measure would reduce traffic congestion.
Tolling Policy
* State law requires that gas tax revenues must be used for road and highway projects. 81% of voters think that toll revenues should also be used only for road and highway projects, not for general spending.
* 57% of voters said the government should charge tolls on new roadways only, not on existing roads.
The finding that nearly half of those who voted against Prop. 1 would have supported the measure if it reduced congestion demonstrates to policymakers the importance of mobility.
Traffic congestion is not only on the minds of voters in the Puget Sound but also among those who live in Eastern Washington. According to the poll, 56% of voters in Eastern Washington also think that reducing traffic congestion is important.
Overall, these results show that voters think congestion relief should be a higher priority all across Washington.
The full poll results can be found on our website.
Washington Policy Center Traffic Congestion Poll
WASHINGTON VOTERS (N=500 + 140 OVERSAMPLE IN KING/PIERCE/SNOHOMISH)
DECEMBER 1-2, 2007
As you may know, there was a measure on the ballot earlier this month called Proposition One, Regional Roads and Transit System, also known as the Roads and Transit Measure.
Did you vote for or against Proposition One?
IF DID NOT VOTE: Regardless of whether or not you were able to vote, were you for or against Proposition One?
King/Pierce/
Snohomish voters
for
30%
don't remember/wouldn't say/don't know
29%
against
41%
Would you have voted for or against Prop One if you were convinced that it would have reduced congestion?
for
44%
don't know
8%
against
48%
In 1996, Sound Transit said they would roll back Sound Move taxes, the first phase of Sound Transit, if a second phase extension was rejected by voters. Prop One included this second phase extension and voters rejected it. Do you think Sound Transit should continue with their current tax rates, or reduce tax rates as they promised?
continue with current tax rates
30%
don't know
20%
reduce tax rates
50%
When spending your transportation tax dollars, do you think state government’s first priority should be to reduce traffic congestion, or to fund other transportation needs? Do you feel strongly about that?
All voters
strongly reduce traffic congestion
28%
reduce traffic congestion
23%
Total reduce traffic congestion
51%
don't know
11%
Total fund other transportation needs
38%
fund other transportation needs
17%
strongly fund other transportation needs
21%
As you think about the government’s role in transportation, how important to you personally is reducing traffic congestion?
extremely important
32%
fairly important
38%
Total extremely/very important
70%
Total somewhat/not at all important
29%
only somewhat important
23%
not important at all
6%
don't know
1%
How would you rate state government’s performance on relieving traffic congestion?
excellent
1%
good
24%
Total excellent/good
25%
Total not so good/poor
69%
not so good
40%
poor
29%
don't know
5%
Would you vote for or against a major tax increase if you were convinced the plan would actually reduce traffic congestion in your area? IF FOR/AGAINST: Is that definitely for/against or probably for/against?
definitely for
22%
probably for
32%
Total for
54%
don't know
9%
Total against
37%
probably against
16%
definitely against
21%
Which one of the following tax increases, if any, would you be most likely to support if you were convinced the tax increase would actually reduce traffic congestion?
tolls
27%
gas tax
16%
automobile sales tax
16%
vehicle license fees
13%
sales tax
9%
none
12%
don't know
6%
As you may know, state law requires that gas tax revenues must be used for road and highway projects. Which one of the following uses of bridge and highway tolls do you prefer?
All voters
use tolls only for road and highway projects
81%
place toll revenues in the state's General Fund to be used
for anything approved by the legislature
13%
neither
2%
don't know
4%
If state government were to charge tolls, would you favor charges on existing roadways or on new roadways only?
existing roadways
32%
don't know
11%
new roads only
57%
Here are two views on state government’s role in transportation.
Mr. Smith believes state government should try to get people out of their cars and that we need to focus tax dollars on public transportation, not building more highways. He says trying to fix traffic congestion with road improvements will result in more people driving more cars, more damage to the environment and more congestion.
OR
Mr. Jones believes state government should focus on fixing traffic congestion chokepoints. Congestion relief will help commuters get to work, help businesses move their products and help the environment because shorter commutes mean less air pollution.
Do you agree more with Mr. Smith or Mr. Jones? WAIT AND ASK: Do you feel strongly about that?
strongly Mr. Smith/focus on public transportation
26%
Mr. Smith/focus on public transportation
13%
Total Mr. Smith
39%
don't know
13%
Total Mr. Jones
49%
Mr. Jones/focus on traffic relief
27%
strongly Mr. Jones/focus on traffic relief
22%
On another subject, in order to place more money into projects that relieve traffic congestion, would you support or oppose reduced spending in other areas of the state’s General Fund? IF SUPPORT/OPPOSE: Do you feel strongly about that?
All voters
strongly support
21%
support
25%
Total support
46%
don't know
17%
Total oppose
38%
oppose
22%
strongly oppose
Transportation
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
70% Voters Dissatified with State's Efforts to Reduce Congestion
Protecting the Poblic Interest in Public Private Partnerships
The Value of Public/Private Partnerships By Michael Ennis In light of growing highway demand and the shrinking value of gasoline tax revenues, states are finding help in the growing trend of financing transportation infrastructure through public private partnerships (PPPs). PPPs are contractual relationships between the public sector and a private entity. These partnerships generally allow a company to build, operate and maintain transportation infrastructure. In return, the company is sometimes authorized to collect a toll on the road for a specified length of time. Other forms of partnerships allow the public to retain full control of the asset once the private contribution is fulfilled. There are many benefits associated with a PPP. They include leveraging private dollars for public use, shifting risk from taxpayers to the private sector, and lower costs. In January, Washington Policy Center published, "The Case for Public/Private Partnerships in Transportation Planning," which explains the many different forms of PPPs and their benefits.[1] In recent years, the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) has worked with states to enter into these partnerships with the private sector as another financing option for transportation projects. Highlighting this effort is the creation of the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion, which includes a PPP element. Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta remarked, "We will encourage more states to find ways to open up their transportation infrastructure to private investment opportunities…. Our goal will be to greatly expand the list of states that have flexible laws to permit greater private-sector involvement in transportation projects."[2] But in a recent letter to state transportation leaders, Congressman James Oberstar, Chairman of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Congressman Peter DeFazio, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit ostensibly want to eliminate, or at least limit this new tool for states. They warn that partnerships may not fully protect the public interest and jeopardize the integrity of the national highway system. The letter begins, "We write to strongly discourage you from entering into public-private partnership ("PPP") agreements that are not in the long-term public interest in a safe, integrated national transportation system that can meet the needs of the 21st Century. Although Bush administration officials have lauded PPPs at every turn, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives believes that many of the arrangements that have been proposed do not adequately protect the public interest. The Committee will work to undo any state PPP agreements that do not fully protect the public interest and the integrity of the national system."[3] This reversal of Congressional support not only jeopardizes dozens of existing partnerships across the country but also suggests doubt on the future of PPPs. There is little doubt that private sector participation is an effective instrument for building transportation infrastructure. Many states are facing the critical reality that without the ability to leverage private dollars, funding becomes insurmountable. And state policymakers are in the best position to decide which projects are important and how best to pay for them. Unfortunately, the letter by Congressman Oberstar and Congressman DeFazio suggests that state policymakers are incapable of making the right decisions for their own citizens and somehow require the federal government's assistance in correcting themselves. The letter goes on to define two main standards that decide whether a PPP meets their approval, 1) Does the PPP meet the long-term public interest? and 2) Does the PPP risk the integrity of the national highway system? The problem is these measures can be construed so broadly that virtually any partnership could fail their test. 1) Does the PPP meet the long-term public interest? The definition of a public interest can mean anything to anyone. Dr. Stephen King of the Public Interest Institute writes that some political theorists challenge the concept of the "public interest" because of its "vagueness and its need to be elastic, applicable to as many individuals and groups as possible." It is this "political elasticity" that Dr. King explains, "forces [the concept] to be effectively meaningless."[4] In other words, Congressman Oberstar's "public interest" test could be interpreted to render any public/private partnership outside the public's interest. 2) Does the private sector risk the integrity of the national highway system? There has never been a centralized landlord for the national highway system. These roadways "have always been under diverse control of the 50 state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, counties, cities, public toll authorities, bi-state agencies, and a few private facilities," says Robert Poole and Peter Samuel of the Reason Foundation.[5] In every example across the country, the private partner must meet strict permitting, design, construction and maintenance requirements defined by the state and federal government. Diversifying the financing model for public transportation infrastructure does not jeopardize an already decentralized roadway system. Furthermore, usurping the freedom of states to enter into legal and contractual arrangements to build local infrastructure perhaps violates state's rights and the spirit of the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution. The amendment recognizes local rights by declaring, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."[6] The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) agrees and opposes the Congressional effort to limit these partnerships. "It would be almost totally unprecedented and a violation of the principle of federalism for Congress to begin micro-managing the construction and funding of state highways at a time when our state governments are facing increasing demands for new roads."[7] Congressman Oberstar and DeFazio's letter is a unique window into a political debate that is taking place at the federal level on whether the private sector has a role in transportation financing and if so, whether the federal government should have a regulatory role in the process. The current administration and the USDOT have encouraged states to make it easier to enter these agreements and they have been tremendously effective at expanding local infrastructure. The market of public/private partnerships, if allowed to naturally evolve, is a powerful financing tool that states leaders choose to use to keep pace with the rising demand on their road system. A good manager does well when his leadership eliminates barriers-to-success within an organization. Much like this manger, the federal government's role should work with the same objective. Instead, Congressman Oberstar and Congressman DeFazio are working to build barriers, rather than remove them. The choice of whether or not to engage the private sector in public policy should rest with local leaders, not a single, centralized bureaucracy in Washington DC. [1]http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Transportation/LegMemo_publicprivatepartnerships.html [2] http://www.dot.gov/affairs/minetasp051606.htm [3] Letter from James L. Oberstar, Chairman, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and Peter A. DeFazio, Chairman, Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, May 10, 2007. [4] Stephen M. King, Ph.D., "What Is 'The Public Interest?'" Public Interest Institute: Facts & Opinions, Vol. 13, No. 2, May 2007. [5] Robert W. Poole & Peter Samuel, "Federal Interference in State Highway Public-Private Partnerships is Unwarranted." Reason Foundation, May 22, 2007. [6] http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm [7] http://www.alec.org/2/3/federal-affairs-news.html
Response on Congressional Resistance to States Using Public/Private Partnerships in Transportation Financing
Director, Center for Transportation
January 2008
Value of Public/Private Partnerships
Congressional Opposition
Analysis
Conclusion
Congestion relief must be top priority for transportation policy
Five Principles of Responsible Transportation Policy By Michael Ennis Washington Policy Center encourages five principles of responsible transportation policy to help guide policymakers in returning to a system that provides people's freedom of movement.
Director, Center for Transportation
January 2008
Tie spending to congestion relief
Respect people's freedom of mobility
Invest resources based on market demand
Improve freight mobility
Use Public/Private Partnerships
1. Tie spending to congestion relief
Congestion relief is the most basic tenet in transportation policy, yet most people are surprised to learn it is no longer a priority in Washington state.
In 2000, Washington's Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation identified several benchmarks to measure the effectiveness of the state's transportation system. These performance measures were very specific and some of them were adopted into law. They include:
Traffic congestion on urban state highways shall be significantly reduced and be no worse than the national mean.
Delay per driver shall be significantly reduced and no worse than the national mean.
However, during the 2007 Legislative Session, the legislature passed Senate Bill 5412, which repealed these precise benchmarks. Instead, the legislature substituted five broader policy goals: Preservation, Safety, Mobility, Environment and Stewardship.[1]
Likewise, the spending strategy for transportation taxes is defined in the Washington Transportation Plan 2007-2026.[2] This document, created by the Washington State Transportation Commission (WTC) and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), identifies five "Investment Guidelines" to help prioritize spending tax dollars in transportation.
The five priorities are nearly identical to the five goals passed in Senate Bill 5412: (1) Preservation (2) Safety (3) Economic Vitality (4) Mobility and (5) Environmental Quality and Health.
In both cases, Mobility should mean congestion relief, but instead state officials define it as a strategy to move people, rather than improving vehicle flows. This means spending shifts from actually fixing congestion to providing alternatives to congestion.
In other words, according to the Washington Transportation Plan, relieving traffic congestion is not an "Investment Guideline" in determining how transportation money is spent. Instead, the plan says policymakers should spend money on other forms of transportation, like buses or light rail.
Ironically, this strategy will always lead to greater traffic congestion.
According to the Federal Highway Administration, private passenger vehicles account for about 85% of all forms of transportation in the Seattle region.[3] This means all other modes like mass transit (6.2%), bicycles (0.6%), walking (3.2%), and other (5.3%) serve only about 15% of travelers.
Adopting a policy that disproportionately spends public money on only 15% of the market will always lead to greater congestion, because the system that supports the remaining 85% is left to languish.
The Washington State Auditor's Office (SAO) recently concluded that, "The Washington State Legislature should choose/identify projects based on congestion reduction rather than other agendas."[4]Strengthening the tie between spending and traffic relief does not sacrifice safety or preservation. These are not competing priorities. Traffic relief and safety/preservation can happen simultaneously, as long as regional leaders stop spending money in areas that do not relieve congestion. Washington policymakers should return to these specific performance measures and create a stronger link between spending and traffic relief.
2. Respect people's freedom of mobility
Government serves society, not the other way around. Policies that force citizens to behave differently than they normally would disregard the natural marketplace of society and ultimately threaten to take away political freedom from its citizens.
Likewise, government policies in transportation should be responsive to the market and improve the freedom of citizens to live and work where they choose.
Manipulating transportation policies to force a particular behavior coerces people to abandon their individual liberties in favor of a socialistic benefit where supposedly, a greater collective good is created.
These measures always fail because of what Milton Friedman called, "one of the strongest and most creative forces known to man," rational self interest; or people's desire to do what they believe is best for their own lives.
Instead, proponents of social change should work in the marketplace of ideas to persuade others to share their vision and work towards it. They should not use the power of government to force through their own ideas, but should seek to change policy, if that is needed, once reform is broadly supported by the public.
3. Deploy resources based on market demand
Transportation resources should be distributed based on natural market demand rather than the current system of building infrastructure that is somehow meant to attract demand.
In economics, supply is a function of demand. This means a willingness to use a service must exist before a supply of that service is created. Boeing executives do not make 300 airplanes knowing they will only sell 100. Likewise, governments should not spend a disproportionate amount of taxes in low demand sectors, where the public's willingness to use the service does not justify the investment.
European and U.S. transit systems provide good contrasting examples of how these economic concepts apply.
European countries are often believed to have highly successful public transportation networks and one of the more familiar systems is Switzerland Switzerland lies in the center of Europe and is an important transportation hub for both freight and passenger traffic throughout the continent. The Swiss system is primarily successful, not because of the amount of service or infrastructure, but because they have certain demographic and economic characteristics that induce demand.
In other words, there is an existing market with a natural customer base and Swiss policymakers responded with proportional infrastructure investments. As a result, mode share, ridership and fare box recovery are high.
In the United States, transit resources are distributed in just the opposite way.
Under the "build it, and they will come" theory, many policymakers think that increasing the supply of transit will somehow create more public demand. This speculative model fails because most U.S. cities do not posses the economic or demographic characteristics that create enough voluntary consumers for public transit.
Using the economic principles of supply and demand shows that building excess transit capacity before there is an equal amount of willingness to use it leads to an underperforming system. As a result, mode share, ridership and fare box recovery are low.
In any market, increasing the supply of a service or product before demand is available creates a large space between costs and benefits.
In the private sector, where benefits are measured by consumer choices, this type of behavior is unsustainable. A business will simply cease to exist once costs exceed benefits to consumers.
But in the public sector economic laws are not as strict. There is a higher tolerance for fiscal inefficiency because benefits are not always measured by consumer choices. There is also an element of public value.
In transportation policy, public value should be measured by freedom of mobility and traffic relief for the public. Therefore, policymakers can keep the space between costs and benefits small by separating projects that provide these values from projects that do not.
When prioritizing transportation projects, policymakers should use consumer demand to drive investments, not the other way around. Applying these time-tested economic principles in transportation policy will improve people's mobility and reduce traffic congestion.
4. Improve freight mobility
Freight mobility possesses a significant economic role in transportation policy but ironically, the state's investment strategy is an obstacle for improving the efficiency of moving goods.
The freight industry pays about 25% of the revenues the state receives from fuel taxes and vehicle registration and weight fees in Washington.[5]
washingtonpolicy.org/Transportation/PN_i90lightrail.html
5. Utilize Public/Private Partnerships Using the Public/Private Partnership (PPP) concept, policymakers can find effective ways to fund new projects, and to maintain the current transportation infrastructure. But relative to the rest of the United States , Washington has been slow to fully embrace the PPP strategy. These partnerships can take many forms and, according to the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, there are generally about a dozen types. They can range between mostly private to mostly public and several types incorporate a balance of both characteristics. There are many benefits associated with a PPP. They include leveraging private dollars for public use, shifting risk from taxpayers to the private sector, and lowering overall project costs. Other factors like public oversight, asset ownership, long-term maintenance, liability and labor, will dictate which PPP is a better fit. In Washington , these issues have been treated as obstacles and prevented partnerships from forming. Yet, these questions have been addressed by other states by adapting the various types of partnerships. Undoubtedly, these concerns are important but they should not deter the benefits of a Public/Private Partnership.
Using the PPP concept, a group of businesses in Pierce County have joined forces to pool financial and construction related resources from their membership to build and finance projects. Without the support of the partnership, it is unlikely there would be enough public money to build the projects. For more information, see the WPC publication The Case for Public/Private Partnerships in Transportation Planning. Partnering with the private sector is one way to increase financial resources and get roads built. Otherwise, funding problems become insurmountable, roads are not built and our system continues to deteriorate. Public/Private Partnerships have a proven track record across the United States and should be embraced by public officials in Washington.
Notes
[1]http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2007-08/Pdf/Bills/Session%20Law%202007/5412-S.SL.pdf [2]http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/083D185B-7B1F-49F5-B865-C0A21D0DCE32/0/FinalWTP111406_nomaps.pdf [3] Based on 2000 data. Available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ctpp/jtw/jtw4.htm
[4] http://www.sao.wa.gov/reports/auditreports/auditreportfiles/ar1000006.pdf
[5] Transportation Revenue Forecast Council, June 2007 Transportation Revenue Forecast
[6]http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/2D30E991-6159-4F2A-A84B-284622643B79/0/I90CenterRoadwayStudy.pdf [7] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Transportation/PN_i90lightrail.html
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Sound Transits Rising Costs Plague Light Rail
March 23-29, 2007
Sound Transit’s rising costs belie logic of light rail
By Michael Ennis
All sides can agree that the region’s transportation
system is woefully insufficient to handle the demand on
our road system. The state’s November Congestion
Report concludes that travel times increased on most
every major route monitored in the region. And
population estimates show the region will gain another
1.2 million more people in the next twenty years.
Elected leaders responded to this looming congestion crisis and urged the region to embark on expanding the public transportation system. In 1996, voters agreed to raise both the sales tax and the motor vehicle excise tax to fund the first phase of Sound Transit. Officials
promised it would cost $3.9 billion and take only 10 years to complete.
Today Sound Transit says it will cost up to $15 billion
and take until 2020 to complete the project — a total of
24 years. It says it will collect the 0.4 percent sales tax
forever, even after the first phase is complete in 2020.
In addition, Sound Transit officials are asking voters to increase the sales tax an additional 0.5 percent to raise up to another $20.2 billion to complete a second phase of projects, which would exhaust its current taxing
authority.
Combining both phases shows the total cost of Sound Transit would be $35.2 billion, taking inflation into account, according to my study of Sound Transit’s estimates. (Sound Transit hasn’t produced an updated inflation-adjusted estimate of total cost.)
It goes without saying that the proposed costs of Sound Transit are staggering. What does the public get for its $35.2 billion?
If Phase 2 is approved, Sound Transit predicts its total system would carry 351,000 riders a day by 2030.
This means Sound Transit will only capture about one in four of the predicted 1.2 million people that are expected to move into the region over the next twenty years. The remaining 850,000 people will spill onto our already
congested roadways.
Based on Sound Transit’s estimates, the cost to pull one
passenger vehicle off the existing roadway and into the
agency’s public transportation system is about $100,000
per person.
To put this in perspective, King County’s voter-approved
Transit Now initiative will remove an estimated 50,000
passenger vehicles from the roadways by adding 175
new buses. The expansion will cost taxpayers about $50 million by 2008. Under Transit Now, the estimated cost to move one traveler to the public transportation system is about $1,000 per person.
It would be cheaper for Sound Transit to pay these
people $100,000 each to stay home. The effect on
traffic congestion would be the same, we would not have
to wait until 2030, and it would save taxpayers more than
$100 million.
Traffic congestion is the result of policy choices, not an inevitable consequence of growth. Spending on transportation has tipped toward public transit, but congestion is worsening anyway.
Reverences to sound business principles free a
company from the pitfalls of failure and make long-term
sustainability more likely. If these values are violated,
the market will react and force more efficient decisions.
But in the public sector, when public money is at stake,
government officials poke at these time-tested values.
As a result, the public does not enjoy the protections of
the market and bad policy choices are allowed to live on.
Sound Transit’s plan to spend $35.2 billion to move less
than a quarter of the region’s projected population
growth by 2030 is not only expensive, it is not even
enough to reduce today’s congestion at today’s current
population. If Sound Transit’s second phase is
implemented, our daily commute will continue to get
longer.
Rather than pouring more money into light rail, we
should return to a policy of strategic increases in road
capacity, easing congestion and reducing travel times for
all citizens.
MICHAEL ENNIS is the Director of the Center for Transportation Policy at the Washington Policy Center, an independent research firm in Seattle.
Prop 1 wont reduce traffic congestion despite its high cost
Costly plan won't do much to reduce traffic congestion
by Michael Ennis, Director, Center for Transportation Policy
May 30, 2007
Public officials are asking voters to approve a multibillion-dollar roads and transit package in November that would increase the current transportation tax burden by $286 per year, or 22 percent per family.
The unbalanced tax proposal combines two areas of spending. The roads piece, commonly known as the Regional Transportation Investment District, would fund about $14 billion in regional road improvements. And the public transportation portion, Sound Transit Phase 2, would spend about $23 billion more on light rail, bus and commuter rail service.
So if voters approve the ST2/RTID ballot measure, they will commit to spending $37 billion.
Sound Transit's share of spending represents a majority of the total package and does away with a balanced roads and transit spending plan.
What does a $37 billion tax increase mean to the average family?
There are five types of public entities that have the authority to impose and collect transportation taxes in the Puget Sound region. These are the federal government, state government, counties, cities and special districts created by the state, such as Sound Transit and the RTID.
Those agencies have a variety of taxing powers that are used to support transportation services. Most of those assessments, however, do not affect many people and therefore do not have a consistent impact on a household budget.
Other taxes hit family budgets more consistently and can be measured in a household transportation tax index. They include sales and fuel taxes, annual vehicle registration fees and the motor vehicle excise tax.
On average, a Puget Sound family pays about $1,257 in transportation taxes.
Both RTID and Sound Transit attempt to illustrate their "bottom line" costs, but without the perspective of how much we currently pay, it is not easy for taxpayers to judge the actual burden.
Further, the agencies' estimates are not always accurate. For example, the RTID's revised Blueprint for Progress estimates that if the combined package is approved, the average cost per household would be $218 a year.
But this assumes a vehicle ownership rate of only one car per household. In reality, the average vehicle ownership rate in Washington is 2.01. That means the true household tax burden for the ST2/RTID package is actually $286 per year.
So what does the public get for their additional $286 in transportation taxes?
The Puget Sound Regional Council estimates that Sound Transit's full light rail plan will carry only 1.2 percent of all commuters by 2040 and traffic congestion simultaneously will rise 300 percent.
To look at it another way, Sound Transit will capture only about 14 percent of the predicted 1.2 million people expected to move into the region over the next 20 years.
Sound Transit's plan to spend $23 billion to move one-seventh of the region's projected population growth by 2030 is not only expensive, it is not even enough to reduce today's congestion at today's current population.
Most assume the RTID will handle the remaining 1 million people who will spill onto our already congested roadways. But with only one-third of the funding, the RTID package is unbalanced and does not even provide enough money for the region's most pressing road needs, the Evergreen Point Bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Sound Transit itself says its $23 billion package will increase the overall share of travelers using public transportation only from 3.5 percent to 4 percent.
In November, voters will have their chance to decide whether they want to spend $286 more per year on part of a plan that transportation experts already have concluded will not reduce traffic congestion.
Monday, March 10, 2008
Olympia Bill to Expand Sound Transit Role to Roads
Bill would expand Sound Transit's role
Agency would coordinate, finance regional projects
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Last updated 8:06 a.m. PT
By LARRY LANGE
P-I REPORTER
Could a larger regional transportation agency solve the Puget Sound area's congestion problems?
The chairwoman of the state Senate Transportation Committee thinks so.
Bills to eliminate an existing road-project agency and make Seattle-based Sound Transit the first agency to coordinate and help finance major transportation projects were proposed Tuesday by Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island.
Senate Bill 6772 would reduce Sound Transit's board from 18 members to 12, with seven elected by voters, including six from geographic districts, and serving six-year terms. The state secretary of transportation and the director of the Puget Sound Regional Council would be nonvoting members.
Currently, the board's members are appointed by executives in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties.
Haugen said the bill also would allow some regions to form new transportation entities similar to Sound Transit.
The proposal comes weeks after regional voters rejected Proposition 1, the $47.2 billion road-and-transit ballot measure.
But Haugen said she introduced it because the Puget Sound area and other heavily populated parts of the state need a regional entity to complete transportation improvements the state can't afford.
"We (the state) cannot fully fund everything that is needed across the state," she said.
Sound Transit and possible new agencies created regionally could, with voter approval, raise a variety of taxes to finance new road and transit projects -- up to 1 percent additional sales tax, up to 0.8 percent in motor-vehicle excise tax and annual car license fees of up to $100 for each vehicle. All are similar to those proposed in Proposition 1.
Sound Transit also could impose a local gas tax and use the proceeds for roads.
If the Legislature passes the measure and Gov. Chris Gregoire signs it, the new Sound Transit would develop projects that would be subject to voter approval.
Another measure, Senate Bill 6771, would eliminate regional transportation investment districts such as the one including King, Pierce and Snohomish counties that developed the road portion of last fall's ballot measure.
"It didn't work," Haugen said. "We need to take it off the books."
At least two state commissions have recommended in the past a regional transportation agency of some kind, saying it would prevent delays, reduce duplication and make certain officials more accountable.
But it's unclear if either bill will pass; hearings haven't been set, and legislative officials contacted Tuesday said they hadn't had time to analyze the measures.
A spokesman for Seattle Mayor and Sound Transit Chairman Greg Nickels said, "Our focus is going to be, do (the bills) fix the problem?"
Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick said the agency will "look closely" at how the change would affect its efforts to get a $750 million federal grant to extend light rail service to the University of Washington, though "there's nothing out of the gate that would suggest (the change) would endanger it."
Others weren't so sure.
"I'm concerned about adding to the scope of responsibilities and funding availability for Sound Transit, since its staff is so committed to light rail," said John Niles, a fellow at the Cascadia Center for Regional Development, a think tank involved in development and transportation issues.
King County Councilwoman Julia Patterson said it's OK for lawmakers to eliminate the districts, if it means the state is ready to fully finance needed highway projects.
Mike Ennis, director of the market-oriented Center for Transportation Policy, said organizational changes should help, but officials have "got to do more to relieve congestion" as well.
Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee, doubts the Sound Transit measure will get through the short session.
In previous attempts, backers of similar measures couldn't convince other lawmakers that the proposal would improve things.
And "if you can't convince people it would be better, it's hard to push forward," Clibborn said.
The Case for Public Private Partnerships
Legislative Memo 1/8/08 The Case for Public/Private Partnerships in Transportation Planning by Michael Ennis, Director, Center for Transportation Policy State legislators will likely make decisions regarding transportation funding during this Legislative Session. With the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) and the second phase of Sound Transit on the horizon, many questions remain unanswered about how the region will pay for the Alaskan Way Viaduct and the 520 floating bridge. To give legislators another tool, Washington Policy Center proposes looking at the private sector and encouraging Public/Private Partnerships (PPP's). Introduction With rising costs and the uncertainty around how future projects will be paid for, policymakers are looking for effective alternatives for funding new, and maintaining the current transportation infrastructure in Washington State. Using the Public/Private Partnership concept, a group of businesses have joined forces to answer the call of policymakers in the search for a new approach. The Plateau Transportation Partnership is laying the groundwork for Public/Private Partnerships in Washington This group calls itself the Plateau Transportation Partnership (PTP), and consists mostly of residential and commercial development companies around Pierce County. They include Quadrant Homes, Miles Sand & Gravel, Cascadia, Falling Water and Plateau 465 (a partnership between Investco Financial, Tucci & Sons, Inc., and Homeland Ventures). Their mission is to leverage public and private funds to improve transportation infrastructure. To do this, the PTP generally proposes to pool financial and construction related resources from their membership to build and finance projects. Commonly known as Public/Private Partnerships, these tools have been used across the country because of their effectiveness and ability to reduce costs and construction times. The PTP is laying the groundwork for Public/Private Partnerships in Washington State and lawmakers should take notice. Traditional funding sources are insufficient to cope with rising project costs and transportation needs. Since the fuel tax is not indexed with the value of the dollar, its purchasing power slows as inflation rises. And as the price of oil climbs, its demand falls; further eroding revenues produced from taxing the sale of fuel. In addition, the state has raised the gas tax 14 ½ cents, since 2003. Other traditional funding sources for transportation include the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) and sales tax. Overall, there is very little political support to draw on these traditional sources further. Nationally, trends point to a growing popularity in tolling and various forms of congestion pricing. But alone, these concepts are no panacea. They could be incorporated into a larger strategy of PPP's. Public/Private Partnership Relative to the rest of the United States, Washington has been slow to fully embrace the PPP strategy. Relying on traditional funding mechanisms such as the fuel tax, sales tax and the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET), officials have generally ignored the private sector for support. Yet, across the United States, many public transportation projects have succeeded through private partnerships. For example, in 1988, New York officials partnered with three development and leasing firms to redevelop Union Station for $170 million. Other large Public/Private Partnerships include: A PPP is defined as a contractual relationship between a public agency and an organization from the private sector. These partnerships can take many forms. According to the National Council for Public-Private Partnerships, there are generally about a dozen types of PPP's. Attached to this report is an appendix explaining the different PPP's. Partnerships can range between mostly private to mostly public and several types incorporate a balance of both public and private. The following chart measures several common types of partnerships and their degree of involvement between the public and private sectors.[1] There are many considerations that must factor into which type of partnership is right. Public oversight, asset ownership, long term maintenance, liability and labor are all important matters that will dictate which PPP is a better fit. In the past, these issues have been treated as obstacles and prevented partnerships from forming. Yet, these questions have been addressed by other states by adapting the various types of partnerships. Undoubtedly, these concerns are important but they should not deter the benefits of a Public/Private Partnership. Partnership Benefits Creating mechanisms that loosen the reliance on public dollars by encouraging private sector spending produces a winning answer for taxpayers, consumers and road users. Without the support of a PPP, it is unlikely there would be enough public money to build the transportation projects our region needs. Partnering with the private sector is one way to leverage resources and get roads built; otherwise, funding becomes insurmountable, roads are not built and our system continues to deteriorate. In some cases, the private sector can avoid unnatural costs that are commonly found in government projects. Transportation planning in the public sector is required to overcome two barriers, natural and unnatural. Natural costs include geography, construction, materials and labor. Unnatural costs are those that are manufactured by the government and include prevailing wages and environmental and labor regulations. It is estimated that these unnatural expenses can inflate a public sector project by up to 40%. Depending on the relationship, and with proper oversight, a PPP can avoid many of these unnatural increases and complete a project cheaper and faster than a government agency working alone. Recently, The Seattle Times reported that project costs planned by the RTID have risen 31%. As a result, many of the original improvements are in danger of not being funded. A PPP could preserve some of these projects. For example, the Plateau Transportation Partnership has proposed partnering with RTID and the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to contribute toward the State Route 162 project. Through its membership, the PTP wants to provide the local match of several million dollars. The PTP has also proposed a partnership with Pierce County to extend Rhodes Lake Road East. The PTP would contribute resources to complete the planning, environmental review, design and construction of an extension and realignment of the road. In both cases, the PTP would only contribute resources to complete the projects and ownership of each asset would remain with the public sector. The PTP does not plan to impose tolls or congestion pricing. Improving transportation infrastructure not only promotes economic development but it also accomplishes some of the land use conditions in the Growth Management Act (GMA). A PPP can create the concurrency required by the GMA while at the same time providing extensive public benefit. A private developer can leverage its traffic mitigation dollars to expedite project approvals and, more importantly, to produce more efficient and meaningful traffic improvements. These partnerships are a winning combination because taxpayers save money, transportation projects are built and if desired, the state maintains control of the assets. Conclusion Public/Private Partnerships have a proven track record across the United States and should be embraced by public officials in Washington. The Plateau Transportation Partnership is one example of how PPP's can work in our region and they should be encouraged. There are several types of partnerships that can be tailored to address the concerns associated with including the private sector in transportation projects. The transportation system in Washington is in a state of crisis. The population in the Puget Sound is projected to increase by 1.2 million people by 2030. As a result, commute times and delay, two common measures of congestion are predicted to become worse than they are today. Our region is paralyzed by the current process and Public/Private Partnerships can get things moving again. [1] Information adapted from the Types of Public-Private Partnerships. The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. Available online at: http://ncppp.org/howpart/ppptypes.shtml. Appendix: Types of Public/Private Partnerships Build/Operate/Transfer (BOT) or Build/Transfer/Operate (BTO) The private partner builds a facility to the specifications agreed to by the public agency, operates the facility for a specified time period under a contract or franchise agreement with the agency, and then transfers the facility to the agency at the end of the specified period of time. Build-Own-Operate (BOO) The contractor constructs and operates a facility without transferring ownership to the public sector. Legal title to the facility remains in the private sector, and there is no obligation for the public sector to purchase the facility or take title. Buy-Build-Operate (BBO) A BBO is a form of asset sale that includes a rehabilitation or expansion of an existing facility. The government sells the asset to the private sector entity, which then makes the improvements necessary to operate the facility in a profitable manner. Contract Services A public partner contracts with a private partner to provide and/or maintain a specific service. Under the private operation and maintenance option, the public partner retains ownership and overall management of the public facility or system. Design-Build (DB) A DB is when the private partner provides both design and construction of a project to the public agency. The public sector partner owns the assets and has the responsibility for the operation and maintenance. Design-Build-Maintain (DBM) A DBM is similar to a DB except the maintenance of the facility for some period of time becomes the responsibility of the private sector partner. The public sector partner owns and operates the assets. Design-Build-Operate (DBO) A single contract is awarded for the design, construction, and operation of a capital improvement. Title to the facility remains with the public sector unless the project is a design/build/operate/transfer or design/build/own/operate project. Developer Finance The private party finances the construction or expansion of a public facility in exchange for the right to build residential housing, commercial stores, and/or industrial facilities at the site. The private developer contributes capital and may operate the facility under the oversight of the government. The developer gains the right to use the facility and may receive future income from user fees. Lease/Develop/Operate (LDO) or Build/Develop/Operate (BDO) Under these partnerships arrangements, the private party leases or buys an existing facility from a public agency; invests its own capital to renovate, modernize, and/or expand the facility; and then operates it under a contract with the public agency. Lease/Purchase A lease/purchase is an installment-purchase contract. Under this model, the private sector finances and builds a new facility, which it then leases to a public agency. The public agency makes scheduled lease payments to the private party. The public agency accrues equity in the facility with each payment. At the end of the lease term, the public agency owns the facility or purchases it at the cost of any remaining unpaid balance in the lease. Sale/Leaseback This is a financial arrangement in which the owner of a facility sells it to another entity, and subsequently leases it back from the new owner. Both public and private entities may enter into a sale/leaseback arrangements for a variety of reasons. Tax-Exempt Lease A public partner finances capital assets or facilities by borrowing funds from a private investor or financial institution. The private partner generally acquires title to the asset, but then transfers it to the public partner either at the beginning or end of the lease term. Turnkey A public agency contracts with a private investor/vendor to design and build a complete facility in accordance with specified performance standards and criteria agreed to between the agency and the vendor. The private developer commits to build the facility for a fixed price and absorbs the construction risk of meeting that price commitment. Source: Types of Public-Private Partnerships. The National Council for Public-Private Partnerships. Available online at: http://ncppp.org/howpart/ppptypes.shtml.
Building transportation projects in Washington
State
January 2007
State
and lawmakers should take notice.
Impact of replacing the viaduct with surface road will congest I-5
3/8/07Viaduct Plan Could Leave Only One North/South Freeway for Seattle
Next step should include a north/south corridor study State
March 2007
Choosing an option for the Viaduct that permanently removes freeway capacity will increase congestion on I-5. This will likely have a negative influence on the economy, endanger public safety and further restrict freedom of movement. Similar to the highly successful I-405 Corridor Plan, public officials should partner with local jurisdictions and develop a north/south corridor study through Seattle to evaluate these impacts and identify solutions.
Lost Capacity
If the Viaduct is torn down and its traffic-carrying capacity is not replaced, I-5 would become the only north/south freeway corridor through, in, or out of Seattle. Having only one freeway presents a number of regional mobility, safety and economic issues.
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) agrees that “the viaduct plays a major role in sustaining our economy and maintaining our citizens' ability to move to and throughout Seattle. One quarter of all north-south traffic through Seattle (110,000 vehicles) use the viaduct every day. Extreme congestion on I-5 and in the downtown city grid following the 2001 Nisqually Earthquake closures made it clear this is a critical route that needs replacing.”
Relying on a single north/south freeway through Seattle could create a variety of traffic, safety and economic impacts.
- In the event of an emergency, where mass evacuations are ordered, a single north/south corridor would fail to absorb the high demand.
- Without another north/south corridor or capacity improvements to I-5, freight mobility into or through Seattle would be negatively impacted. These impacts would increase the costs of moving goods-to-market and have a rippling economic affect throughout the state.
- Without another north/south corridor or capacity improvements to I-5, passenger vehicle mobility would be negatively impacted. This increased delay would be on top of the daily congestion travelers already endure.
- Increasing mass transit along the waterfront, without other increases in road capacity will not relieve traffic congestion. Ninety-four percent of daily trips are in private automobiles, a percentage that has not changed in 25 years. Nor will transit prevent the inevitable increases in delay for commercial vehicles or freight traffic.
A Successful Model
Between 1999 and 2002, the WSDOT partnered with more than 35 agencies, local municipalities, and public and private sector experts to complete a corridor plan for I-405. The purpose was to develop a strategy for reducing traffic congestion for both passenger and commercial vehicles. It included a Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement and a long term master plan. The study identified a cost of $11 billion and more than 300 projects to improve the Eastside corridor over the next 20-30 years. Construction on several of the projects identified in the plan began in 2004 and it continues to serve as the blueprint for long term improvements for the Eastside.
In light of the Governor’s plan to tear down the current Viaduct by 2012, it only makes sense for state officials to perform the same type of analysis on I-5 through Seattle. The corridor plan should provide transportation planners with ideas on how the region will react to Washington’s largest city having only one north/south corridor and more importantly, how that will affect passenger vehicle mobility, freight mobility and public safety. The I-405 Corridor Plan was a successful model and leaders should implement a similar strategy on I-5 through Seattle.
Conclusion
The Governor’s plan to spend $915 million on the Viaduct appears to be the first step in replacing the current structure with some form of surface option. Reducing the supply of freeway capacity will result in negative impacts not only in Seattle, but regionally. Relying only on I-5 to support all of the north/south mobility demands through Seattle will jeopardize public safety, create negative economic fallout and increase traffic congestion. Transportation leaders must consider these implications and fund a corridor study to define these new demands and how to best address them.
About the Author
Michael Ennis is the Director of the Center for Transportation Policy. Before
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Nickel and TPA Gas Tax Projects are way behind
Despite Claims, Gas Tax Projects Are Not on Track
by Michael Ennis
Director, Center for Transportation
March 2008
In 2003 and 2005, state officials raised the gas tax by 14.5 cents to pay for 432 Nickel and Transportation Partnership (TPA) projects. Now, state leaders are not fulfilling what they said when they imposed these tax increases.
Despite overestimating revenues and underestimating costs by $3.8 billion, state policymakers assert this year’s supplemental transportation budgets preserves these projects. Through a series of accounting adjustments, lower interest rates and overhead reductions, leaders claim they have funded the gap.
The following remarks illustrate how state leaders explain their assurances to the public:
“We followed the governor’s lead, scrutinized every last project and were able to produce a budget that keeps projects on track...”
-Rep. Judy Clibborn, February 20, 2008
“The House Chair’s proposed budget maintains the commitment to the Nickel and Transportation Partnership projects.”
-Budget Highlights, House Transportation Budget, February 20, 2008
“The Governor’s 2008 budget proposal keeps these projects moving forward and addresses immediate safety needs.”
-Statement on the Governor’s website for her proposed Transportation budget
“Democrats…said their budget keeps all of the 400-plus planned highway and bridge projects moving forward.”
-David Ammons, AP article, February 22, 2008
Upon reviewing each of the proposed budgets however, shows that state policymakers are not maintaining their commitment. In 2003, state officials promised taxpayers that 158 Nickel projects would be complete by 2013 and that the 274 TPA projects would be completed by 2021.
The Governor’s budget delays ten projects beyond these original promise dates; the Senate delays eleven and the House delays fifteen. Some projects are delayed more than fourteen years, which implies they may never be built. Pushing projects beyond their original completion dates breaks the promises made to voters when the tax increases were first adopted.
The following table shows the delays in each of the budget proposals.
Michael Ennis is director of the Center for Transportation at Washington Policy Center, a non-partisan public policy research organization with offices in Seattle and Olympia. Nothing here should be construed as an attempt to aid or hinder the passage of any legislation before any legislative body. For more information contact WPC at 206-937-9691 or online at washingtonpolicy.org.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Too Much Light Rail, Too Little Roads in Prop 1
Part V: The Imbalance of Roads and Transit By Michael Ennis, Director, Center for Transportation Policy This is the fifth chapter in an ongoing series of analysis on the RTID/ST2 ballot measure. The previous installments include: Part I: The Cost of Sound Transit, Part II: Your Transportation Tax Burden, Part III: Cost Exceeds Benefits in Sound Transit's Light Rail Expansion, and Part IV: Light Rail and Interstate 90. Summary Introduction Today, population increases have led to higher demand on the region's road system and, because policymakers have shifted spending away from increasing road supply, traffic congestion is expected to double or triple in the next twenty years. Leaders have tried to respond to the growing congestion by funding more than 400 road projects with two recent gas tax increases, worth about $10.5 billion,[1] and a $15 billion expansion of the public transportation system with the first phase of Sound Transit in 1996.[2] This November, voters in Pierce, King and Snohomish counties will decide on a $47 billion transportation package, commonly known as "roads and transit." The measure combines Sound Transit's second phase (ST2), which includes additional spending on light rail, commuter rail and buses, and the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID), which includes general road improvements. The legislature combined the two packages in order to gain support from two competing philosophies in transportation policy, roads and transit. Essentially, those who support roads over transit would vote to pass the combined package because of the RTID projects. And public transportation advocates would back the measure because of ST2. This compromise however, assumes both sides are balanced, with identical spending amounts. Certainly the name, "roads and transit," suggest the two sides are equal. Yet, examining the two plans shows their sums are unbalanced and reinforces the message from some regional leaders of favoring transit over roads. Spending Favors Transit Over Roads The total price tag of the ST2/RTID package can be illustrated in a variety of ways. Sound Transit, for example, advertises just the ST2 proposal as $10.8 billion.[3] But this figure does not account for inflation or the costs of bonding. Accounting for both variables through 2027, places the cost of projects for ST2 at about $23.6 billion. Figuring through 2057, which is the estimated time all ST2 projects will be paid for, places the total cost of ST2 at $30.9 billion. Other estimates focus on revenue and calculate ST2 costs at $141 billion through 2057.[4] The following table compares the different types of cost estimates of ST2 and the RTID and shows the spending distribution between roads and transit. In every measure, transit spending represents nearly two-thirds of the total package. In addition, the RTID contains about $451 million in transit related spending and the sales taxes for both Sound Transit phase 1 (ST1) and ST2 do not expire. [5] The RTID tax increases do expire once the projects are completed and the debt interest is paid. In other words, the roads and transit plan is not balanced and favors public transportation by 3 to 1. The Inefficiency of Sound Transit Weighing Sound Transit's cost and benefits shows that its ST2 proposal is extremely inefficient when compared to other public transportation alternatives. For example, King County recently began to expand its bus service through a successful ballot measure called Transit Now. King County officials estimate Transit Now will add up to 60,000 new daily riders and 175 new buses to the county's transit system.[6] Adjusting for inflation, the cost of Transit Now in 2030 will be about $140 million per year. This means the total cost for King County to move one rider to its system would be about $2,333 per person. Sound Transit estimates its total system ridership for ST2 would be 168,000 riders by 2030.[7] Sound Transit also estimates that the cost of ST2 in 2030 would be about $23 billion. This means the total cost for Sound Transit to move one rider to its system would be about $136,904 per person. The following table compares the cost and ridership benefits of the ST2 proposal with Transit Now. To put this in perspective, the region could purchase the equivalent of 164 Transit Now packages for the same cost as ST2. This new service would have an estimated ridership of more than 9.8 million daily riders and add 28,700 new buses. Washington only has a population of about 6.4 million people and adding more than 28,000 buses to the tri-county region would be unrealistic. But this comparison illustrates how expensive and inefficient Sound Transit's plan is. ST Express Bus Service Plan is also Flawed Sound Transit plans to spend an additional $328 million for its ST Express bus service in the ST2 proposal. The package would add new park-and-ride stalls, transit centers and up to 96,000 additional bus service hours.[8] Yet Sound Transit says ridership on its Express bus system, after a temporary increase, will actually fall if ST2 passes. Sound Transit calculates that if ST2 does not pass ridership on its ST Express bus system would be about 51,000 in 2030.[9] If ST2 passes, Sound Transit estimates ridership would continue its average climb but then drop to about 33,000 riders per day, by 2030.[10] This means ST2 will actually reduce demand on its bus system by 35% in 2030. In fact, if ST2 passes, ridership on the ST Express system will be 12% less than it is today.[11] This decrease in demand is logical considering that both ST1 and ST2 light rail lines once finished will compete against Sound Transit's own bus service. This means the same public agency would be spending money to compete against itself. Yet, the ST2 plan proposes a $328 million increase in spending with an additional 96,000 hours of bus service, rather than asking for reductions that are commensurate with the lower demand. Conclusion State leaders tried to find compromise in the political debate between roads and transit with a combined measure, but RTID and Sound Transit officials did not deliver the balanced conciliation state policymakers were hoping for. With disproportional spending and the fact that Sound Transit taxes never end, the proposed plan clearly demonstrates a preference towards public transportation. Ironically, Sound Transit and RTID officials strengthened the very division state leaders were trying to solve and, as a result, no matter what voters decide, traffic congestion will continue to worsen. Michael Ennis [1] http://wsdotblog.blogspot.com/2007/05/project-delivery-how-are-we-doing.html [2] Sound Transit, University Link Financial Plan, June 2006. [3] http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/st2/Freedom_to_Move_trifold.pdf [4] http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi-bin/texis.cgi/web/vortex/display?slug=rtid16&date=20070816&query=don%27t+believe+the+hype [5] http://www.rtid.org/docs/FINAL_RTIDBlueprint.pdf [6] http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Transportation/PB_EnnisTransitNow.htm [7] http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/st2/Freedom_to_Move_trifold.pdf [8] http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/st2/ST2Plan_08_07.pdf [9] http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/st2/Freedom_to_Move_trifold.pdf [10] Ibid. [11] The most recent ridership report from Sound Transit shows that average ridership for the ST Express bus system is about 37,588 riders per day. This report can be found here: http://www.soundtransit.org/Documents/pdf/newsroom/Ridership_Q2_2007.pdf
2007-17
