Hold onto your wallets; widespread tolls are coming

Wide use of tolls could unclog roads, Seattle study says

By Eric Pryne

Seattle Times business reporter

ELLEN M. BANNER / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Pat Christenson, a mail carrier who works in Kirkland, participated in the nine-month study, and she has continued to take back roads to work instead of I-405.

Widespread tolls could make chronic traffic congestion in Seattle and other cities "a thing of the past," a pioneering study says.

Tolls could cut the average late-afternoon commute time from downtown Seattle to Tacoma by perhaps 40 percent. A typical rush-hour drive from Bellevue to Lynnwood could be trimmed by more than one-third, the Puget Sound Regional Council's "Traffic Choices" report concludes.

But those results would be achieved only by imposing tolls on a scale never attempted anywhere before.

Drivers would pay a toll on almost every mile they drive — every freeway, every significant arterial. Global Positioning System (GPS) and cellular technology would track their travels. Tolls would be deducted from prepaid accounts.

Matthew Kitchen, the study's principal author, acknowledges the region's not ready for anything like that now. While such a regional "congestion-pricing" system is technologically feasible, he says, the big public-policy questions it raises — fairness, privacy — haven't yet been answered.

And any proposal would encounter stiff opposition from people like former state Sen. Jim Horn, R-Mercer Island, a longtime toll skeptic. He says regionwide tolling is really about "rationing your roadways and harming your quality of life."

But transportation policymakers are more open to tolls now than they were a decade ago. Drivers began paying a toll of up to $3 to cross the Tacoma Narrows Bridge when it opened last year. Next month "HOT" lanes — HOV lanes that commuters driving alone can use for a toll — will open on a stretch of Highway 167 in South King County. In London, all cars now pay a stiff toll to enter the central city.

Someday, says former state Transportation Commission Chairman Aubrey Davis, politicians will embrace regional congestion pricing, for two reasons — to generate revenue for transportation improvements and to help unclog roads by reducing demand.

"We're going to have to lose a couple elections [on new transportation-tax proposals] before people will take this seriously," Davis says. "I have no doubt we're going to go down this road. I just don't know how far, or how fast."

The Puget Sound Regional Council, a four-county planning agency, spent six years planning and conducting the $3.1 million study, funded largely with federal dollars. It attracted international attention because it was the first effort anywhere to explore just what impact regionwide congestion pricing might have on driver behavior and traffic. The final summary report was released this month.

At the core of the study was a groundbreaking experiment: Researchers recruited drivers in 275 Seattle-area households to pay virtual tolls — with real-world economic consequences — then observed how their driving patterns changed.

The volunteers had devices mounted on their dashboards that tracked their trips and transmitted the information to a central computer. For about eight months in 2005 and 2006 they paid "variable" tolls, linked to congestion levels, that ranged from nothing late at night to 50 cents a mile on freeways during the late-afternoon peak.

The charges were deducted electronically from accounts funded by the study's sponsors that were sized to match how much participants had been driving before the study.

Volunteers got to keep whatever was left in their accounts when the experiment ended. That gave them a real-world incentive to drive less, or drive at "cheaper" times or take "cheaper" routes.

For many, money proved a powerful motivator. Overall, participants took fewer trips and drove fewer miles.

Mail carrier Pat Christenson stopped taking Interstate 405 and started driving less-expensive back roads from her home between Totem Lake and Kingsgate to her job at the Kirkland Post Office.

She and her husband made other small changes in their driving habits. When the experiment ended, they pocketed about $500.

While there's no longer any money in it, Christenson still drives the back roads to work. "I got used to it," she says. "I think about the freeways and not wanting to be on them." Plus, I-405 isn't really any faster, she adds.

When the experiment was over, Kitchen and others plugged the results into the regional council's computerized traffic model, which projects how traffic in King, Snohomish, Pierce and Kitsap counties is likely to change under different scenarios.

The model calculated that, for some corridors, improvements in average peak-period afternoon commute times in 2010 could be dramatic:

• Downtown Bellevue to Tacoma, without tolls: 78 minutes. With tolls: 46 minutes. Average toll: $13.41.

• Downtown Seattle to Lynnwood, without tolls: 33 minutes. With tolls: 22 minutes. Average toll: $6.17.

Kitchen says the travel-time savings the model produced probably are conservative. If regional tolling actually were adopted, he says, some people probably would move closer to work, or work closer to home, reducing overall traffic volumes. The model didn't account for that.

And real-world tolls would be different — perhaps lower — because planners would devise a toll schedule that is more nuanced than the relatively simple one the Traffic Choices study employed, he adds.

The final report concludes that, while it would be costly and complex, there are no technological barriers to implementing a Traffic Choices-type tolling system across the region. It estimates startup costs at about $750 million, annual operating costs at about $288 million.

Those costs could drop steeply as cellular technology advances, Kitchen says.

Over 30 years, the report estimates, tolls could generate $87 billion in today's dollars. The fairness of any regional road-tolling scheme would depend to a great extent on how those dollars are spent, Kitchen says.

The study confirms higher-income people — people who could most afford the tolls — would benefit most if regionwide road pricing were adopted for real. As for the less affluent, "they're worse off unless you do something beneficial with that [toll] revenue," Kitchen says.

It could be used for road improvements, or better transit service. Or it could allow policymakers to roll back other taxes, perhaps the gas tax or vehicle-excise taxes.

The final report explores the question of privacy — the discomfort many feel about a system that could collect and store detailed information about their driving — but offers no solutions.

"I don't think there is a magic bullet," Kitchen says.

Safeguards against disclosure could be established, he says, but there's no way to make them foolproof. It comes down to trust, Kitchen says, and that's in short supply.

Davis suspects many people wouldn't have a problem: "How many people don't have a cellphone because of the privacy issue?" he asks.

Kitchen says the Traffic Choices results will be considered by the regional council's planners and elected officials as they develop a regional transportation plan for 2030. That plan could call for no tolls, or a network of HOT lanes, or something more extensive, he says.

The study also could influence policy elsewhere. The Dutch government, which plans to adopt systemwide tolling, has followed it closely, Kitchen says.

To Horn, regional congestion pricing would signal a major cultural shift. "Our lives have gotten so much richer because of our ability to travel," he says.

"What you're saying here is, 'I want you to stay home.' Or, 'I want you to live in cages, stacked on top of one another. I want you to live where you work, like in a company town.' "

But Davis says that because driving is widely perceived as "free," everyone pays — in wasted time, wasted gas and increased pollution.

"We don't get anything for nothing," he says. "We just think we do."

Eric Pryne: 206-464-2231 or epryne@seattletimes.com

Seattle Taxis Fare Badly

Seattle Times 22 March 1996

SEATTLE CABS FARE BADLY IN REPORT

Experts rank city's taxis on 'low end' in service, cost

By Peter Lewis
Seattle Times Staff Reporter

A new report bashes Seattle's taxi industry - citing poor service, drivers who don't know their way around town, junky cabs and inconsistent tares - and calls for major changes to let the city regain control of the industry.

The report, to he presented to a Seattle City Council committee today - reaffirms what other recent studies have found: Seattle's taxi industry is fraught with problems.

"In general we all agreed that Seattle was definitely on the low end of cities that we're familiar with, which includes quite a few," said Barbara Lupro, taxi administrator with the Metropolitan Transit Development Bard in San Diego.

Lupro and two other industry experts - Sandi Avants, who recently retired as the regulator of taxis in Las Vegas. and Gorman Gilbert, former commissioner of taxicabs and limousines in New York City - visited Seattle for three days last fall.

They interviewed more than 25 people - public officials, independent taxi operators and fleet operators, representatives of the hospitality industry, the transit system, the Chamber of Commerce and the riding public.

Categories of problems they identified include:

# Service: Some customers were unable to hail taxis; cab availability was poor in some areas, such as West Seattle; there were too few cab stands, especially in busy areas; response times were slow; there were fights over passengers and refusals to take short trips.

# Drivers: Some were unable to find landmarks or other common destinations; some were unable to communicate in English; some were unclean, had a poor attitude toward customers, were unsightly or were rude.

# Fares were sometimes inconsistent between the city and the county, from one operator to another, and for trips between the same two points; and wait times and traffic-delay charges were sometimes excessive.

# Vehicles: Some were in poor condition, old or dirty inside and out.

# Discrimination: Some drivers passed up African-American customers.

# Image: Some cabs and drivers present a poor image to business, convention and tourist visitors, littering and engaging in nontaxi-relat- ed activities in front of hotels and at other stands.

# Enforcement: A sense that enforcement of industry regulations was nonexistent, inadequate or ineffective.

Joe Young, owner of Pioneer Cabs, said yesterday the taxi industry in Seattle had declined after it was deregulated in 1979 and hasn't yet recovered. He disagreed that the situation is worse here than anywhere else, but acknowledged that the industry is being hurt by drivers who don't know English well and don't know their way around town.

It was because of such conditions that the Westin Hotel last year established its own taxi-enforcement program, refusing to let cabs that didn't meet its standards serve its guests, an action other hoteliers envy, according to the report.

The report recommended a radical restructuring of the industry, away from the current approach, in which the city regulates individual drivers and vehicles, to an organized approach, in which it would deal with companies, associations or cooperatives.

In Seattle today, there are nearly 640 licensed cabs and about 1,000 drivers.

The recommended strategy also envisions setting up franchises in which individual companies or associations would bid for exclusive rights to serve parts of town, or for a limited number of citywide franchises.

The report's findings and recommendations are consistent with those of a Seattle-area advisory group whose membership includes the same stakeholders interviewed in the peer-group report, according to Mel McDonald, an advisory-group member who is also division director in the city's Finance Department, with responsibility for taxis.

The group has been meeting since late last year to solve the city's taxi problems, he said. He expects legislation to be drafted that would force all cabs to join associations, which, in turn, would be responsible for enforcing standards.

"Now," McDonald noted, "only owners and drivers have responsibilities. It's a subtle change with a dramatic effect.

Back to the Taxi-L Regulation Page

Dont Believe The Prop 1 Hype!

Don't believe the hype: Tri-county transit package is flawed

By Jim MacIsaac

DEAN RUTZ / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Special to The Times

Northbound Interstate 5 is congested

much of the day.

In November, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties will decide on a joint roads-and -transit package that seeks all-ornothing approval of new taxes to support the transportation needs of the three-county region.

What is touted as a "balanced" roads and transit package is anything but. (Never mind that we currently are spending 52 percent of every transportation tax dollar in this region on public
transit.) A zeal for expanding Sound Transit's light-rail system (Sound Transit 2, or ST2) has doubled the transit "half" of the combined package. The roads-and -transit package will cost $38.1 billion through 2027, with $14.5 billion going toward the Regional Transportation Investment District (roads) and $23.6 billion toward ST2.

While the RTID program will be completed and its bonds will be paid off by 2037, ST2 will have debt and large ongoing operations and maintenance costs that will likely require that taxpayers keep paying for ST2 through 2057.

If the roads-and -transit package is approved, it means Sound Transit's Sound Move (ST1) sales tax levy will be extended. By 2057, Sound Transit will have collected a whopping $141 billion in extended ST1 plus ST2 local tax revenues. In the combined RTID/ST2 package, only 10 percent of the total revenue is dedicated to roads.

In talking about its light-rail expansion, Sound Transit hasn't been accurate or forthcoming about the true costs and projected effect on congestion. I've spent the past two years closely examining ST2 and cutting through Sound Transit's financial fog and rosy talk. Here is what I've discovered:

• The real cost to households is extremely high. Sound Transit claims that the per-household costs of the roads-and -transit package will be $150 per year plus $80 per vehicle. This is a lowball estimate that claims only 40 percent of sales -tax revenues are paid by household taxpayers and consumers. The combined ST1, ST2 and RTID taxes will actually be $888 per household in 2008 and then inflate at Sound Transit's estimated 5.2 percent annually thereafter.

• ST2 light rail will have minimal impact on our region's traffic congestion. Sound Transit claims that its ST2 light rail will greatly reduce congestion. But the ST2 plan will result in a minuscule 0.5 percent shift of the region's estimated 16.4 million person-trips a day to transit by 2030.

• Sound Transit's claim that ST2 transit will serve 40 percent of all peak -period trips is a huge exaggeration. ST means that, by 2030, transit will serve 40 percent of work trips to downtown Seattle, where only 10 percent of the region's jobs are located. It will serve 9 percent of all other Seattle work trips, but only 2 percent of the work trips for the rest of the region, where 70 percent of the region's jobs are located. It's unconscionable and inexcusable to put forth what is essentially a Seattlecentric light-rail plan that will serve only a small portion of the region's work force.

• The ST2 light-rail program will run where express buses currently operate. That in itself is mindboggling. Why would you remove an effective transit mode and replace it with an expensive mode that will hardly reduce congestion?

• In its exuberance to maximize light rail, the Sound Transit board eliminated 27 of 33 proposed Regional Express Bus (REx) projects and 11 of 18 Sounder commuter-rail projects that were in the January 2005 ST2 project list draft. The shift from the REx projects in effect eliminated the Bus Rapid Transit program for the heavily used Interstate 405/Highway 167 corridor.

If approved, the RTID/ST2 package will hamper the ability of the governor and Legislature to enact any statewide transportation packages for many years.

There is a better solution to our region's transportation problems than what ST2 offers. The combination of a freeway high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) network (which is approaching completion) and well-funded and coordinated local bus systems (including Bus Rapid Transit enhancements) can do far more to alleviate our congestion problems than light rail can, at one -tenth the cost. It makes sense to continue expanding the bus -transit system that has placed our region eighth in the nation in share of work trips served by public transit.

Voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties should reject the flawed RTID-ST2 proposal and demand that our region's transportation leaders immediately craft a more-sensible, cost-efficient package that will accomplish our top transportation priority — reducing highway congestion.

Jim MacIsaac is a professional transportation engineer who has spent 45 years in the planning of the Puget Sound region's transportation systems.

C

DOT say No to Reverse Spikes to stop wrong way drivers

Q&A | DOT spikes idea | Light on Broadway 2/3/08

By Charles Brown

Seattle Times staff reporter

Q: From time to time, readers like Scott and Deirdre Zema of Seattle and Randy Davidson of Redmond have taken note of reports of drivers entering a freeway the wrong way and ending up in a head-on, often fatal, collision.

The Zemas and Davidson are on similar wavelengths. "Has anyone thought of installing the reverse spike gates in the road on freeway offramps to prevent people from entering the wrong way?" asked Davidson. "If all four tires were flattened, they wouldn't get very far."

They're even on similar wavelengths when it comes to emergency access. "If emergency-vehicle access is required on occasion to use these exit ramps for freeway access," the Zemas wrote, "couldn't they be equipped with radio-controlled disabling devices to allow entry?"

Davidson even proposes spike strips could be separated to accommodate emergency vehicles the same way some speed bumps are.

A: Interesting proposition. But state Department of Transportation traffic engineer Mark Leth says he envisions too many issues with tire-puncture devices to install them on freeway ramps. For one, those devices are typically designed for low-speed driving conditions, such as at driveways or parking-lot exits.

"Vehicles traveling at high speeds on freeway ramps over tire spikes would pose a huge risk," he said. "If the spikes were designed to let the air out of the tires slowly, the vehicles would still enter oncoming traffic. If the spikes were designed to immediately deflate the tires, the vehicle could skid, flip or roll into oncoming traffic."

In short, driving over those devices in either direction would affect drivers' ability to safely control their vehicles, he said. And there's concern whether motorcyclists could safely drive over the tire-puncture devices.

From a highway-maintenance standpoint, such devices would require high maintenance to keep them free of debris and functioning properly in all driving conditions, including ice, he said. And, yes, they would limit road crews and emergency responders' ability to access the freeway.

"Our strategy to combat wrong-way drivers includes many visual notices on each ramp to alert the driver they are entering the wrong way."

There are directional signs on streets next to ramps. There are red "Do not enter" signs on either side of ramps, along with reflective markings that appear red when approached from the wrong direction.

But it's obvious no foolproof solution has been found.

"We are currently working with the State Patrol to review a number of locations to determine if there might be additional ways to alert drivers," said Leth.



Q: Matt Gosline of Seattle wonders if the city has any plans for dedicated left-turn traffic signals at Broadway and East Olive Way on Capitol Hill when new "red-light" traffic cameras are installed. "It is virtually impossible during the evening hours to make a left-hand turn safely due to the high number of jaywalking pedestrians at that intersection," says he. A dedicated turn signal, in his opinion, would do a lot to improve safety at that intersection.

A: "There would be some benefit to providing a protected left turn [green arrow] there," said Wayne Wentz, the Seattle Transportation Department's traffic-management director. "However, there are substantial obstacles that cause us not to.

"To begin with, there is not enough space to build a left-turn pocket. As a result, we considered running the east and west traffic flow separately. While this would allow for a green arrow, it would increase delay to all users of the intersection, including pedestrians, and cause gridlock along the Broadway corridor."

Are there other alternatives? The city thought about taking away a through-lane from eastbound Olive and turning it into a left-turn pocket, but that would also increase delay since the through-traffic volumes are higher, said Wentz. Local businesses depend on street parking, so gaining roadway capacity there would be a problem.

"However, requests from the public have prompted us to re-evaluate the signal timing at this intersection," he said. "We're going to see if we can add a little more time to the east/west movement without negatively impacting traffic flow on the corridor

Asphalt Rubber reduces 520 road noise; no greater cost

12/17/07
Listen closely: Our roads are getting quieter. Highway 520's sweet spot — a sliver of freeway near the eastern end of the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge — is so smooth and quiet even an ancient Geo Metro feels like a first-class cabin.

This is a test. This is only a test.

But to Walter Scott (see pic at bottom), those 2.25 miles between Hunts Point and Medina sound a lot like success.

Thanks in part to Scott's advocacy, the state Department of Transportation (DOT) is testing materials there designed to turn down the din of traffic.

The DOT calls them "quieter pavements."

Those who drive the highway or live nearby call it a huge improvement: "People who live along 520 are like, 'You are a godsend,' " Scott said.

Another test site is set up on Interstate 5 near Lynnwood, and next year workers will begin laying quieter-pavement sections on I-405 in Bellevue.

If the results are promising, Scott and others are hoping freeway noise will someday drop from a scream to a whisper.

The new materials, already being used in a half-dozen states and a handful of countries, contain tiny voids, like a Rice Krispies bar, that trap sound waves rather than letting them bounce around on the surface.

The tests will compare the new materials with existing ones to determine how long they would last, how much they would cost and how quiet they are.

Scott is optimistic.

Six years ago he sought a noise wall to block the constant drone at his Beaux Arts home from cars crossing the I-90 bridge. When that effort failed, he switched to ground-level technology and a grass-roots approach. Together with civic groups, city councils, state representatives and a host of individuals, he organized a coalition of advocates who asked Gov. Christine Gregoire to direct the DOT to test quieter pavements.

It worked.

Now when people assume residents of Hunts Point and Medina got a test section on 520 because they're rich, Scott is quick to respond.

"They got it because they asked for it," he says.

Noisy "tire slap"

Grab a friend. Go outside, stand 3 feet apart, and speak in normal tones.

If you can't understand each other, ambient noise has likely exceeded 66 decibels. When freeway sound gets that loud, the state will often try to mitigate it with noise walls, trees or earthen berms.

The problem is the pavement. "Tire slap" — the sound produced when rubber meets the road — accounts for about 70 percent of all noise on roads where speeds exceed 30 miles per hour.

When workers in Phoenix paved the city's potholes with crumbs of recycled tires in the 1960s, they accidentally discovered a way to decrease the impact of tire slap. The recycled rubber not only smoothed the streets, but it also dampened sound. Asphalt rubber was born.

Since 1988, the Arizona Department of Transportation has used asphalt rubber in more than 3,000 miles of pavement overlays. Arizona now recycles 70 percent of its used tires back into the highways, eating up about 1,500 tires per lane mile of highway.

Although the federal government doesn't recognize pavement types or textures as a form of noise mitigation, that hasn't kept asphalt rubber from oozing into California, Arizona, Texas, Florida, Alabama and Georgia.

Washington joined them in August 2006, paving 1.07 miles of asphalt rubber and an additional 0.77-mile strip of polymer-modified asphalt on southbound I-5 in Lynnwood, alongside conventional, dense-graded asphalt. In July of this year, the Washington state DOT installed similar test sections on Highway 520, between Hunts Point and Medina.

Next year, the agency will do more testing on I-405 in South Bellevue. That project will include 1.25 miles of rubberized asphalt and 1.25 miles of a polymer quiet pavement on northbound I-405 from Southeast Eighth Street to Coal Creek Parkway and southbound from I-90 to Coal Creek Parkway.

The biggest obstacle to quiet pavement's success here is the state's cool, wet climate, said Linda Pierce, the state's pavements engineer.

The extra air holes in asphalt rubber increase sound absorption but also let in more water and air. Pressure from air and water, both inside and outside the pavement, can loosen the aggregate.

Studded tires in the winter make it worse, picking away at the loose aggregate, Pierce said, so that "like a piece of wallpaper on a wall, you get one little piece of it and you can tear the whole thing down."

Earlier rubber trials

It's not the first time the DOT has put rubber in the road. In the 1990s, the agency added crumb rubber from recycled tires to a dense-graded asphalt south of Olympia to see whether it would cut down on cracking.

That material added 20 to 30 percent more to the cost, Pierce said, "and we weren't seeing a 20 to 30 percent improvement in pavement life."

Quieter pavements may be another story. The DOT is using a different mix of asphalt rubber with the goal of determining whether any of the new pavements are quiet enough, and last long enough, to justify the cost.

Pound for pound, asphalt rubber and polymer asphalt are more expensive than conventional asphalt, but since they're placed at half the thickness, they end up costing about the same. However, asphalt rubber's life span tends to be several years shorter, Pierce said.

To measure sound and compare results with those in other states, the DOT mounts a microphone on a rear wheel of a vehicle, about 2 inches above the pavement.

Recent tests show older asphalt registers about 105 decibels; brand-new conventional asphalt registers about 100 decibels, and new rubberized asphalt tends to be about 95 to 96 decibels.

States using asphalt rubber have reported it reduced road noise by nearly half. Recent test results on 520 showed new rubberized asphalt and a new polymer paving product also cut noise by about half, although road wear and weather could diminish this effect over time.

Shawn Gilbertson, the DOT acoustics special-studies manager, said his team is trying to get the best, most accurate data.

"Increasingly, WSDOT has to listen to what the public is saying," said Gilbertson, who acknowledges Scott's contribution to the push for quiet pavement. "Part of the reason we are looking into this technology is because people were asking us to do so."

If transportation corridors improve the environment and neighborhoods, people also may be more likely to support paying for them, an argument made by several state legislators in a letter to Gregoire last year urging tests of quieter pavement.

It will be five years or more before the DOT can tell how well the quieter pavements perform, but Pierce, the materials engineer, said there's reason to be hopeful. "I've spent the last nine months of my career on quiet pavement," she said. "This is what we do now."

Even if the tests are successful and the state finds a use for quieter pavement, repaving is an incremental process. It could be decades before it comes to a roadway near you.

The important thing, Scott said, is the state is taking a serious look at the new technology.

"WSDOT is now seen as the darling child for being innovative — and they should be," he said.

"It was the good idea that couldn't be killed."

KEN LAMBERT / THE SEATTLE TIMES

Walter Scott, of Beaux Arts, pressed the state to try paving materials that might reduce road noise. The state has responded, including a test stretch on Highway 520.

Testing 2 kinds of quieter pavement

In the 1960s, when most of the state's freeways were built, Portland-cement concrete — a strong but noisy material — was the standard. Some roads have since been overlaid with conventional asphalt. Here's what the state is testing:

Asphalt rubber: Is standard asphalt with granular rubber particles used to bind the aggregate together. Since asphalt rubber is usually 15 to 20 percent air — compared with about 4 percent in conventional asphalt — it has more spaces to trap sound waves than conventional asphalt.

Polymer-modified asphalt: An asphalt that uses polymer, a synthetic fibrous material, instead of rubber to bind the aggregate. Like asphalt rubber, it contains a greater percentage of air voids than conventional asphalt, enhancing its ability to absorb sound.

By Amy Roe

Seattle Times Eastside bureau

Port to pay for workers legal fees in fraud probe

By Bob Young 2/8/08

Seattle Times staff reporter

The Port of Seattle wants to pay the legal fees for employees drawn into the federal Department of Justice probe of possible fraud in Port construction projects.

The elected Port Commission will be asked next week to approve the payment of legal-defense fees, which is allowable under state law and something the Port has done to defend employees against past suits.

The Port believes it's important to support its employees during interviews with prosecutors and make sure they understand the investigation process, said a Port spokeswoman.

"The Port does not want employees to bear the financial costs of legal representation necessitated by their employment at the Port, nor should they go without representation if they cannot afford it," said the Port's Charla Skaggs.

The Port won't cover employees if it finds out they acted badly or outside their duties.

The Department of Justice announced its investigation last month after a state audit found the Port violated state contracting procedures, misled commissioners and wasted $97 million in public money. The audit said the Port was vulnerable to fraud because of lax contracting practices.

Port Commissioner Gael Tarleton said the vast majority of Port employees are not implicated by the audit "and are now pretty much in shock." The Port has told all employees to cooperate fully with the investigation.

"We have a moral obligation to show them that they are not out there by themselves," Tarleton said.

The Port's position is not unusual among public employers; but it's not universal, either.

The University of Washington has provided legal defense for employees facing federal investigation. And a UW policy mirrors the Port's — the UW will provide legal defense for employees facing lawsuits and criminal investigations if they acted in good faith and within their job duties.

The city of Seattle, however, would not pay legal fees for police officers under federal investigation, said Rich O'Neill, president of the Seattle police officers union. When officers at the West Precinct were questioned by the FBI several years ago about alleged misconduct, they had to pay their own legal fees, even though they were never charged with a crime, O'Neill said.

Federal prosecutors have not yet interviewed any Port employees or asked for interviews, Skaggs said.

But the Port administration also is lawyering up, hiring the Seattle firm Danielson Harrigan Leyh and Tollefson, at a minimum rate of $400 per hour, and a lawyer from Yarmuth Wilsdon Calfo.

Port employees would be represented by Jon Zulauf, a longtime Seattle lawyer specializing in white-collar criminal defense.

The Port doesn't have a budget for legal defense, Skaggs said. Employees can hire any lawyer they want but the Port will only pay for Zulauf, Skaggs said, because of his "significant experience in this area of law."

New ferry chief has no maritime experience; has divinity degree

State's new ferry chief says building boats is first priority

Seattle Times staff reporter

David Moseley, (see pic...he's first left), new head of Washington State Ferries, was riding a ferry the other day when a bike commuter offered a suggestion.

Why not put lockers at Colman Dock, so commuters like himself could leave a change of clothes from his sweaty biking gear?

The idea was intriguing to Moseley, who began his job Monday and plans to spend the next few weeks riding the boats and talking to commuters.

He hopes to generate ideas such as the lockers to engage ferry riders and temper concerns about recent problems with broken-down boats and disrupted schedules.

"I want to get their ideas how to make their lives better," said Moseley, who acknowledges righting the ferries won't be an easy task. The system is $500 million in the hole, the aging fleet needs to be replaced, and fares are so high Moseley doesn't think they can be raised any time soon.

At the same time, the state is moving forward on building six new ferries and is engaged in several studies that could decide how the ferries are run.

"A strategic thinker"

Moseley, 60, former head of the Seattle Department of Community Development, was appointed last month to head the agency following the resignation of Mike Anderson. Moseley will be making $141,000 a year.

Moseley has no maritime experience and was not even a finalist for the job when the four contenders were brought to Seattle in January for interviews.

Those on the search committee said Moseley's name didn't appear until three days into the interview process. Although Moseley was appointed, it wasn't by a unanimous decision by the search committee.

Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond said there were 20 applicants for the job and when her chief assistants Steve Reinmuth and David Dye chose those to interview, Moseley wasn't on the list.

"They came back and said we're not in love with anyone yet," Hammond said. "David Moseley was not on their list, but I thought they should interview him so he was added to the list. I liked his city-management experience and wanted a strong manager, a strategic thinker."

Job one: new boats

Moseley's first priority will be shepherding the construction of the new ferries. Bids on boats to replace the Steel Electric Class boats taken out of service in November are scheduled to come out March 20, with the first boat expected to be finished next year.

While the state initially planned to build three boats modeled after the Pierce County boat Steilacoom II, now loaned to the state for the Port Townsend-Keystone run, the state now thinks only one of the boats will be that design and the other two will be modeled after the so-called Island Home design for boats that run in the Nantucket area of Massachusetts. That boat is larger and considered more stable.

The state also plans to build three 144-car boats; they should be designed by fall, with construction starting next year.

Moseley knows his job won't be an easy one. "There's no question sufficient sustainable resources is the key question," he said. "We're at the edge of what we can expect from the fare box."

Much of his job will be courting legislators to try to win money for the ferry system, which he acknowledges won't be easy with all the other competing causes. He said he met with legislators Monday, "and they are stepping up to the plate."

Moseley said while he knows he faces a daunting task with the state ferry system, it's not the first time he's entered a bleak situation. He said when he was hired as city manager of Ellensburg, he faced severe financial problems and a troubling audit, but when he left the city was in strong financial shape.

Moseley said the ferry system needs more riders, which is difficult with high fares and all the disruptions that have been plaguing the system lately.

Moseley is a graduate of Willamette University in Salem, Ore., and has a master's of divinity degree from the Golden Gate Theological Seminary in Mill Valley, Calif., which led one DOT worker to say, "I am impressed that at least he has a degree in divinity — because WSF will now need help from someone not of this world."

His other goals

Asked what he hopes to accomplish in the first six months on the job, Moseley said he wants to convince riders that the ferry system is listening to them.

He said he wants to work with his staff to encourage innovation and make sure the right people are working on the issues.

And he wants to work with the local ferry communities to put together a legislative package for the 2009 session.

Moseley said he doesn't feel overwhelmed by the job he faces and says he isn't daunted by critics who fault him for having no maritime experience.

"They liked my management and leadership," said Moseley. "I thought I had something to offer, and that's why I submitted my résumé."

Governor edges closer to Republican demands for 520 by 2013

New 520 bridge by 2014, state says

By Andrew Garber

Seattle Times staff reporter

OLYMPIA — Gov. Christine Gregoire on Monday said the state expects to replace the Highway 520 floating bridge by 2014, four years earlier than planned.

http://unsoundtransit.blogspot.com/2008/02/bridge-for-520-not-ready-until-2018.html

Gregoire and the state Department of Transportation (DOT) said the work can be done faster in part by expediting the environmental review and starting construction of the pontoons sooner.

The move is expected to shave millions of dollars off the cost of the project, Gregoire said. New estimates peg the cost at $3.7 billion to $3.9 billion. Previously the bridge was projected to cost $4 billion.

The state Legislature is moving ahead with a financing plan, supported by Gregoire, to replace the 520 Bridge. The plan calls for early tolling — as soon as next year — on the existing bridge to help pay for construction.

The new bridge would be built near the existing structure. No highway closures are expected during the work.

As envisioned, the bridge would have a single row of pontoons supporting six lanes of traffic. The plan has drawn criticism from Eastside groups and legislators who are concerned the design could preclude adding high-capacity transit lanes in the future.

However, Gregoire on Monday promised that the bridge would be expandable. And the DOT also said any lids at Foster Island or on the Eastside would be wide enough to add light rail or separate bus lanes.

"We cannot and will not foreclose a decision in the future to expand," she said. "We will construct it in a manner that will allow that future decision to be made. The pontoons will be done with that in mind."

In addition to completing the floating bridge faster, the DOT expects to finish related work, including the fixed section over Portage Bay and the Seattle exit ramps, by 2016, two years earlier than projected.

DOT officials also believe the environmental review won't take as long as originally thought

Public will balk at paying tolls on I-90 to pay for 520

Adding tolls to pay for bridge would take a toll on the public

By Jim Horn

Special to The Times

Months after the region's voters rejected a joint roads-transit measure that included part of the funding needed to replace the Highway 520 Bridge, Gov. Christine Gregoire is trying to persuade the Legislature to try a different funding approach to replacing it.

While it's good to see the governor show some belated leadership on this important transportation need, her proposal contains a major flaw and should be rejected by legislators. The flaw in her plan is tolling the Interstate 90 Floating Bridge to help pay for a future 520 Bridge.

I believe the public will reluctantly accept tolls for new infrastructure that adds capacity across water. But the public is not willing to accept tolls over existing roadways built with their taxes, be they over water or land!

To get public acceptance, one must first talk about how tolls are going to be protected — before talking about what the tolls are.

A recent Washington Policy Center poll showed that 81 percent of voters think tolls should only be used for road and highway projects, not for other governmental needs. How will that be ensured?

On what exactly will the money be spent? According to the poll, 70 percent of voters say traffic congestion is the problem. The public expects toll money to be spent on new infrastructure that adds capacity needed to reduce congestion.

One should remember a bit of history: Many years ago, a toll was proposed to pay for added capacity and improved safety on Highway 18. Tolling an existing highway caused such an uproar from communities depending on Highway 18 that it was eliminated from the proposed-projects list.

I would hope that we don't make the same mistake by trying to impose tolling on existing highways, namely I-90. Otherwise, we risk seeing replacement of the aging 520 Bridge take another major step backward, costing us years in the process.

Some people argue that if you put a toll on the existing 520 Bridge to pay for a new one, you also have to put a toll on the I-90 Bridge to deter motorists from crowding the free span.

I don't think it's a persuasive argument. I think few drivers would change their preferred driving route across Lake Washington. People living north of Highway 520 wouldn't come further south on Interstate 405 to go west across the I-90 Bridge and then back north on Interstate 5. They'd still go across the 520 Bridge or go around the north end of the lake.

Only that relatively small percentage of Eastside residents who live between the Highway 520 and I-90 corridors would have a choice. If the I-90 Bridge were to become too crowded, some people living south of I-90 may choose to go around the south end of the lake. With the proposed improvements to I-405, some people may choose that route over I-90 anyway.

The I-90 Bridge is different from the 520 Bridge because the former has Mercer Island dividing it into two spans. I-90 is the only way on and off the island. There is no way Islanders would accept tolling on that existing infrastructure.

Since I-90 runs across the continental U.S., tolling may also pick up opposition from Eastern Washington interests that depend on this highway to move their products to markets or ports.

I know the governor is searching for a solution to the challenge of paying for a new 520 Bridge, but her tolling plan, embodied in Senate Bill 6754, isn't fair.

People who depend on the I-90 Bridge shouldn't be forced to pay a costly toll day after day to help fund a new bridge in another corridor. And we certainly shouldn't toll an existing roadway, which would totally run counter to how we have paid for prior highway projects.

Jim Horn is a former Mercer Island mayor and the former chairman of the Senate Highways and Transportation Committee. He represented the 41st Legislative District

KingCo Metro fires 8 guards with criminal records

KingCo Metro fires 8 guards with criminal records

King County Metro fired eight private security guards for the Seattle bus tunnel after the sheriff's office discovered they had criminal records.

The records came to light after one guard filed a police report in which she was the victim.

King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart (URK'-hart) says that turned up an arrest warrant on a drug offense, prompting the broader review. Another guard was wanted for domestic violence and six others had misdemeanor convictions.

The sheriff's office runs a transit police unit, which has two commissioned officers in the tunnel. Metro also hires two private guards for each bus tunnel station.

Private security guards are allowed to work 60 days on a temporary permit while their background is checked.

___

Did Port break laws to award contracts to cronies?

Did port contracts go to favorites?
Some corrections already made to program, official says

By JENNIFER LANGSTON
P-I REPORTER

Years ago, electrician Harold Wright got good jobs as a Port of Seattle subcontractor, working for other companies on everything from high-voltage lines to lights in Sea-Tac Airport terminals.


But he never had much luck bidding on small contracts granted directly by the port -- a program created in part to help small-business owners such as himself.

Harold Wright, president of Wright Inc. electrical contractors, says he didn't have much luck bidding on small Port of Seattle projects and eventually stopped bothering to bid altogether. "They were giving this stuff to their friends, and that's what I think today."

A recent state audit reinforces long-held perceptions among some small businesses that the port fails to offer a level playing field, finding loopholes to steer business to favored companies again and again.

"The port has always been funny," said Wright, who eventually stopped bothering to bid on port jobs. "They were giving this stuff to their friends, and that's what I think today."

In one example that auditors believe could point to fraud, port staffers awarded a bid to a contractor in a way that may have limited competition. The new contract seems to have allowed port officials to alter invoices to avoid disclosing that three other contracts with that same contractor had gone over budget, the report found.

Port officials have agreed to investigate that case in 2004, as well as how many similar situations may have occurred.

The scathing state audit, which concluded the port squandered $97 million in its construction program and became overly cozy with contractors, has also spawned a federal criminal investigation.

"It may be innocent, and it may be nothing, but they (auditors) see these things, and it gets their attention, and that's why they're looking," said State Auditor Brian Sonntag, whose office undertook the audit.

Port officials say they're legally bound to award competitive contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, meaning the most efficient, experienced companies may be more successful. But the audit found numerous problems with the port's procurement process for airport contracts under $200,000, which don't have to be advertised:

# It was easy to circumvent the process designed to guarantee that the 1,370 companies who asked to be on the port's "small-works roster" get an equal opportunity to bid, the report said.

# Port staffers could add select companies to a "randomly" generated list of seven small-works contractors that were invited to bid on each job.

# During 2004, 87 percent of the port's small electrical contracts worth nearly $3 million went to the same two firms, Prime Electric and SHJ Electric. State law encourages agencies to distribute work equally among contractors "whenever it would not violate the public interest."

# Port staffers appeared to be steering contracts to a small number of preferred contractors, auditors wrote.

Port Commission President John Creighton called the port's handling of less-scrutinized small contracts -- and efforts to provide opportunities for small businesses -- "a vast area that needs improvement."

Though businesses of any size can bid on contracts under $200,000, state legislation was drafted in part to give smaller businesses a fair shot at winning pieces of public works projects.

"Our actions need to match our words," Creighton said. "We're saying the right things, but in my mind, one of our primary missions as a port is to really foster local small business, and we've been falling down on the job."

The port has already made changes to its small-works contracting program, said Dakota Chamberlain, a seaport manager overseeing the agency's response to the audit. To prevent surprise cost overruns, staffers can no longer authorize more work once 90 percent of a contract's funds have been spent. Contract language warning companies not to accept work exceeding the original amount will be strengthened, he said.

Legislators also have moved to close a loophole in state law, which requires most government agencies to notify all qualified companies on a small-works roster of contract opportunities between $100,000 and $200,000. Port districts, however, are exempt.

In October, the Port of Seattle voluntarily abandoned its practice of only sending bid invitations to certain companies on its small-works roster, Chamberlain said. Depending on what kind of job needs to be done, it now notifies every qualified electrician, plumber or underwater diver on the list.

"It eliminates the discussion that we're showing favoritism and that people aren't aware of opportunities," Chamberlain said.

Altered invoices

In August 2004, Port Construction Services created a new contract for open electrical work -- a catchall category that could cover small jobs that cropped up at the airport.

A port project manager manually added Prime Electric Inc. to a list of randomly selected companies that should have been invited to bid on the work, the state audit found.

Prime Electric, a Bellevue contractor that works on everything from Boeing Co. hangars to high-rise condo buildings, previously had won six small-works electrical contracts at Sea-Tac Airport that year, according to the audit.

The contract files contained no evidence that the other eight contractors received invitations to bid, the audit said, though port staffers said those notifications happened automatically.

Documents later provided by the port showed four companies may have been sent a fax on a Friday afternoon requesting responses by 11 a.m. Tuesday, allowing less than two days to prepare bids, auditors said.

Prime Electric was the sole bidder and was awarded the contract in October for $185,000. There was one problem: Port staffers had been stockpiling invoices for work Prime Electric had performed well before October, auditors found.

Those invoices totaling $75,588 would have pushed the work performed under three previous Prime Electric contracts above the legal $200,000 limit for small-works projects, the audit said.

Port employees should have disclosed the unforeseen cost overruns to the port commission, officials have said. Instead, according to the audit, they altered contract numbers on 12 invoices from Prime Electric and issued new work orders so the company could be paid from the new pool of money.

"They overrun the contract amounts and it puts them in a position where they ... steer contracts to the contractor, because they know they have to pay invoices, and it appeared to me to be intentional," said Patti Jones, president of CDR Consultants, one of two auditors who wrote the state report.

Prime Electric officials said they weren't privy to how the port chose contractors or managed its own internal bookkeeping. Any work they performed was covered under a contract they had bid on, and any job they billed for had to be authorized by port employees each day.

"They were the ones who were dictating," Prime Electric President Wayne Tyrrell said. Because the company had experienced employees working at the airport who were already drug-tested and badged, certain efficiencies allowed them to submit competitive bids, Tyrrell said.

But company CEO Eric Reichanadter said for every contract Prime Electric won at the port during the time, it lost three or four others.

"It's our position that not a single scope of work done at the Port of Seattle was awarded or issued to Prime Electric in any discretional manner whatsoever," he said. "We were asked to bid on the work, we accomplished the work and when our contracts were finished we moved on."

In fact, Prime Electric hasn't done any port work for the past 2 1/2 years, Reichanadter said. For a company that does nearly $40 million a year in business -- he said the voluminous paperwork and delays in getting paid at the port weren't worth the trouble for relatively small contracts.

'Same firms doing the work'

Fred Anderson, who has built Leajak Concrete Construction into a $7 million-a-year business, believes the small-works program should be limited to companies even smaller than his.

Most can't begin to compete with a company such as Prime Electric.

"You don't need to feed those guys any more food," he said. "They're big enough."

Small-business advocates would like to see the port take advantage of legislation passed last year, allowing some small-works contracts to be awarded competitively among similar companies with revenues of under $1 million.

An audit last year of the port's small-business initiative adopted in 2003 found the port had not met internal goals to spend 10 percent of contracting dollars on qualified small businesses. Though it varied widely by division, the overall number for 2006 was 6.7 percent.

Two-thirds of port employees interviewed could not describe any successes from the initiative, the audit found.

"Everybody knew it was a joke the whole time," said Eddie Rye Jr. of the local Community Coalition for Contracting and Jobs, which works to increase opportunities for small and minority businesses. Small-business owners surveyed said "the odds are stacked against new faces since the same firms seem to be doing the work" and "it feels like a huge entity that has its contractors chosen already."

To change those perceptions, the port recently hired Elaine Ko, who previously headed the Inter*Im Community Development Association in the International District and the city's Office for Women's Rights, to head its small-business initiative.

Stephanie Harper proves a savvy small-business owner can succeed. Her company -- SHJ Electric -- was the other awarded a disproportionate share of airport electrical contracts in 2004.

She launched her business in 1993 by winning small contracts at the port. Her business now brings in $2.5 million a year. "Our thought process has been to ... charge the port lower rates and get exposure to work on other projects," she said. "That's where we make our money. Alaska Airlines, Southwest, Delta are all our customers now"

Growth Management Act adds $200,000 to price of average Seattle home

UW study: Rules add $200,000 to Seattle house price

ByElizabeth Rhodes

Seattle Times business reporter

Backed by studies showing that middle-class Seattle residents can no longer afford the city's middle-class homes, consensus is growing that prices are too darned high. But why are they so high?

An intriguing new analysis by a University of Washington economics professor argues that home prices have, perhaps inadvertently, been driven up $200,000 by good intentions.

Between 1989 and 2006, the median inflation-adjusted price of a Seattle house rose from $221,000 to $447,800. Fully $200,000 of that increase was the result of land-use regulations, says Theo Eicher — twice the financial impact that regulation has had on other major U.S. cities.

"In a nationwide study, it can be shown that Seattle is one of the most regulated cities and a city whose housing prices are profoundly influenced by regulations," he says.

A key regulation is the state's Growth Management Act, enacted in 1990 in response to widespread public concern that sprawl could destroy the area's unique character. To preserve it, the act promoted restrictions on where housing can be built. The result is artificial density that has driven up home prices by limiting supply, Eicher says.

Long building-permit approval times and municipal land-use restrictions upheld by courts also have played significant roles in increasing Seattle's housing costs, he adds.

(While his data reflect owner-occupied homes within the city of Seattle only, Eicher thinks the same basic findings may apply to surrounding cities.)

Eicher's $200,000 conclusion doesn't surprise Kriss Sjoblom, staff economist for the Washington Research Council, a nonpartisan organization that examines public-policy issues.

"It's actually pleasing," Sjoblom says, "that we finally have data that allows us to show things we thought were there all the time."

A UW professor for 13 years, Eicher is also the founding director of the UW's Economic Policy Research Center. Its goal is to provide analysis that will inform regional policy debates.

Eicher says the research center long wanted to analyze the impact of regulation on housing prices, and found a way when researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed the Wharton Residential Land Use Regulatory Index. Based on a survey of more than 2,500 U.S. municipalities, it provided the first nationwide analysis and comparison of the effects of land-use regulation.

Eicher requested Seattle's data from the Wharton Index and analyzed it further. That led him to put a price tag on local land-use regulations.

He received no outside funding for the project and stresses he makes no value judgments about whether regulation is good, bad or needs to change.

Rather, Eicher wants the public to "understand the impact of their choices. There's always a cost associated with the cityscape. Who wants to have no parks in the city? Or, a 10-story high-rise in Blue Ridge? But there's a cost to that."

Compared with 250 major U.S. cities, he says, Seattle:

• Is first in terms of the impact of state political involvement in land issues.

• Is in the top 3 percent for approval delays for new construction.

• Is in the top 10 percent in local political pressure influencing land use.

As an example of how this plays out, Eicher explains that "the statewide growth-management plan gave King County few options but to require that landowners in rural areas that haven't already cleared their land to keep 50 to 65 percent of their property in its 'natural state.' This forced greater density in Seattle."

Then a King County referendum to repeal some of the county's land-use restrictions was judged illegal in 2006 by the state Supreme Court because it violated the state's Growth Management Act.

"The state is intervening to restrict supply. It's not that there's no land at all," Eicher says.

Economists hold that housing costs are driven by supply and demand, and say those factors have certainly influenced the cost of Seattle's housing.

But Eicher argues that "demand does not need to drive up housing prices."

Cities such as Houston and Atlanta, which have few growth restrictions, have shown that. They've been able to add enough housing to meet demand, so their home prices have risen more moderately than heavily regulated San Francisco and Boston, which have a harder time increasing housing.

According to the Wharton study, cities such as Seattle that have high median incomes, high home prices and a large percentage of college-educated workers tend to have the most land-use regulations.

Sjoblom says that makes sense: "People with higher incomes want the kind of amenities that regulation provides," he says. "If you're a homeowner and growth controls are imposed and housing prices shoot up, you're grandfathered because you own the place. In theory people will say it's [rising prices] a bad thing, but in practice it's not hurting them."

Sjoblom says that's why making the changes that would foster affordability are so hard to get past the public, some 68 percent of whom are homeowners. "When you bring up specific things, like allowing multifamily housing in their neighborhood, they have misgivings."

That frustrates renters, who suspect they're being priced out. And they're right, according to a housing-affordability index created by the Washington Center for Real Estate Research at Washington State University.

Last summer, King County's potential first-time buyers earning the median family income ($75,143) had just 37 percent of the financial wherewithal to buy the median-priced single-family house ($477,000) at the prevailing interest rate (6.47 percent).

Five years earlier, when King County's median-priced house cost $282,500, median-income, first-time buyers possessed 72 percent of the income needed.

(No breakout statistics are available for Seattle.)

But various government regulations make it challenging to add more affordable housing, notes Sam Anderson. He's executive officer of the Master Builders Association of King & Snohomish Counties, which has pushed government to rethink some of the regulations.

Anderson estimates that regulatory costs comprise up to 30 percent of the total cost of building a new house (land costs included). The laundry list of fees and requirements can run to 30 or more, depending on where the house is built.

Among them, Anderson says, are transportation, school and park impact fees, stormwater management fees, critical-areas mitigation and monitoring, pavement requirements and rockery permits.

And then there's the dollar cost of the process itself.

Building in Seattle can be very time-consuming compared with nearby cities, because of Seattle's neighborhood-based design-review process, says Linda Stalzer, project development director for the Dwelling Company, an Eastside homebuilder.

Design-review committees, composed of citizens interested in architecture and development, are located throughout Seattle; their job is to review commercial and multifamily housing designs before they're approved.

"Depending on how complicated your project is, it might take you three or four times to get through it," Stalzer says.

Add together all the various review and comment periods, and it can take 12 to 18 months to get to the point of applying for a building permit, she says.

On a 25-unit Capitol Hill town-house project now under way, Stalzer estimated the various fees (including consulting and mitigation costs, but not building permits or land prices) have totaled about $650,000.

"I think there's value in going through the process because we're building things that have an impact on communities," Stalzer says. "The difficult part is the process isn't very efficient."

In the final analysis, Eicher believes Seattle's regulatory climate exists because its residents want it. "My sense is land-use restrictions are imposed to generate socially desirable outcomes," he says. "We all love parks and green spaces. But we must also be informed about the costs. It's very easy to vote for a park if you think the cost is free."

The Case for More Road Capacity

Seattle's Congestion Future Is Bleak Without More Road Capacity
We can build our way out of this mess
By David T. Hartgen and Robert W. Poole, Jr.
3/29/06


When it comes to traffic jams, the Seattle-Tacoma area is the most congested in the Northwest, just ahead of much-smaller Portland, and ranks 12th nationwide. The area has a congestion index of 1.38, meaning that trips at rush hour take 38 percent longer than off-peak journeys. But if you think that's bad, just wait until 2030.

Over the next 25 years, after absorbing almost 1 million more residents and even more car and truck trips, that same rush-hour trip will take 79 percent longer than a trip made at off-peak times, making Seattle's congestion even worse than the gridlock experienced in Los Angeles today. A trip in Seattle that is supposed to take 30 minutes, will take over 52.

And by 2030, Seattle will have jumped up to the 8th worst commute in the nation.

This forecast comes from our new Reason Foundation study and assumes that all transportation projects in the region's current 25-year plan are actually implemented. The Seattle transportation plan proposes to spend $102 billion over 25 years, including $46 billion for transit and $49 billion for highway projects.

Many motorists or taxpayers might well be asking: do you mean that we are going to spend $102 billion over the next 25 years, and our congestion will be significantly worse after all the spending? Sad to say, the answer is yes.

That's because local transportation planners have bought the idea that we can't build our way out of congestion, so it's hopeless to try. In keeping with recent trends around the country they focused more on reducing driving, proposing mass transit systems and high-density housing projects intended to get people out of their cars. They know that the demand for highway travel will be greater than the supply, but instead of increasing road space in response to what people want they hope to reduce the demand instead to fit within the limited available road space.

This is the approach California tried for 20 years. In the 1980's California stopped building freeways and poured billions of dollars into rail transit systems in Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose and San Diego. Unfortunately, the planners couldn't close the door: people kept moving to California and they brought their cars with them. Transit use and carpooling today handle a smaller fraction of trips than they did 20 years ago. The result is that Los Angeles and San Francisco top the national charts in congestion. Other cities that have lately tried the California model have seen their congestion soar, as well. Seattle is one of them.

But the tide may be turning. To its credit, Seattle is among a handful of cities that have gingerly begun to investigate the costs and benefits of expanded highway capacity. And our new research suggests that adding highway capacity is the most important part of an effective effort to reduce traffic congestion.

Our study modeled the hypothetical addition of enough capacity in every U.S. metro area to eliminate the worst congestion by 2030. Seattle was one of the participating cities in that analysis. We found the Seattle region would require adding 704 lane-miles to the existing highway system over the next 25 years, on freeways, arterials, and local roadways. We estimate the cost of that as $4.8 billion in today's dollars. That amounts to a bit under $34 per resident per year, but is less than a tenth of what Seattle plans to spend anyway. So, just by re-focusing its present spending, Seattle could actually reduce congestion if it chose to do so. That investment would save 200 million hours of delay per year that would otherwise be spent stuck in traffic, and the cost, just 96 cents per hour of delay saved – and that is 1/ 20th the minimum cost for light rail proposals.

Where would the new capacity go? While our study did not get into this level of detail, one of most likely possibilities is to add a complete network of HOT or express toll lanes to the existing freeway system. Another possibility is adding truck-only toll lanes in selected corridors, as Atlanta and Los Angeles are now planning to do. Many major thoroughfares that serve growing suburbs should also be widened to handle the traffic that we know is coming.

The Seattle region is at a crossroads in transportation planning. Pulling one way are those who favor the California model: try to get people out of their cars by diverting transportation funds away from highways and into transit and land-use densification. On the other side are harried commuters just trying to cope. In reality, there is no realistic alternative to highways for personal mobility, goods movement, and bus transit, so we need to keep growing the highway system in step with demand for vehicular travel. Cities like Atlanta and Houston – and now Seattle - are beginning to re-think their planning to focus more on congestion relief, and we applaud this trend.

The Seattle region is in competition with other cities as a place to live, do business and play. Seattle's ace cards are its great environment and easy access to the world stage. But these will not be enough. A key factor in people and companies' location choices is mobility: does the transportation system permit smooth and reliable commuting, goods movement and personal trips for recreation and tourism? Those metro areas that can offer such mobility will break out of the pack, ahead of those whose systems are increasingly gridlocked.

Which future do you want for Seattle?

Justifying the 405 expansion at NE 8th

2/10/06 On the Road
I-405 corridor project

By Karen Gaudette

Seattle Times Eastside bureau

Q: Why is it that the state will pour highway funds into the Bellevue area on Interstate 405 while nothing is being said or done about alleviating congestion along the stretch of I-405 south of I-90 to I-5? I am referring to the recent improvements and additions to I-405 at Northeast Eighth, Northeast Fourth and Northeast Sixth streets in Bellevue, and now adding an additional lane in each direction from I-90 to Bellevue.

A: The state Department of Transportation says it'll begin work on congestion relief for the commute from 112th Avenue Southeast to I-90 in 2007. Kim Henry, chief engineer for the state's I-405 corridor program, says the project will add one northbound lane to ease the bottleneck at the I-90 interchange and will, in turn, improve traffic flow between Renton and Bellevue.

In 2008, construction will begin in Renton to add one lane in each direction between I-5 and Highway 169 to ease congestion at the Highway 167 interchange. Henry says the next priority is getting funding to add two lanes in each direction between Highway 169 and I-90.

Visit http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/I405/ to learn more about the I-405 corridor master plan, which calls for more than 300 improvements from Renton to Bothell. One reason all the improvements can't happen at once is funding — the state estimates all the projects will cost close to $11 billion in 2002 dollars, more than the amount it's received so far through gas-tax increases and other sources.

• I-405 in Kirkland

After hearing from many of you upset about bumpy conditions along the Northeast 85th Street bridge deck on I-405 in Kirkland, we followed up with the state Department of Transportation. And good news — the state now plans to repave the stretch this coming summer, rather than in 2008.

Chief engineer Kim Henry said the recent work done on the deck was a temporary fix to deal with a worsening pothole problem and to avoid further deterioration