Because being there is what's most important, WPC's Center for Transportation researches and analyzes the best practices for relieving traffic congestion by recapturing a vision of a system based on freedom of movement.
Michael Ennis, Director, Center for Transportation
,
September, 2008
This November, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties will again decide on whether to expand Sound Transit’s regional mass transportation system. The new Sound Transit proposal (ST2) would add 36 miles of light rail, expand the Sounder commuter rail by four daily round trips between Tacoma and Seattle and expand the Express bus system by 17 percent. Sound Transit officials say that, if passed, ST2 would cost about $17.8 billion through 2023 and $22.8 billion through 2037. The proposal would impose a 0.5 percent sales tax increase within the Sound Transit district, which incorporates most of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The total sales tax rate would vary among jurisdictions, but Seattle would rise from 9 percent to 9.5 percent.
On Crosscut, David Brewster questioned whether Sound Transit's first phase, which won voter approval in 1996, is one of the "word's biggest boondoggles?" He compares the agency's initial promises to voters with the fact they are now billions of dollars over budget and many years late.
While Sound Transit's troubles are well documented, the philosophy that led to the agency's woes is even more outrageous. Brewster says:
Are you shocked? If so, consider that most of these projects are in
fact wildly popular, even if the public had to be gulled to go along
with building them. It's standard practice to low-ball cost estimates,
in order to get the bond issue passed, and then to add on costs as
politics requires and the public demands more than the bare-bones model.
So basically, the publisher of Crosscut is saying that taxpayers shouldn't be "shocked" when large public works transportation projects run late and over budget. In fact, according to Brewster, voters and taxpayers should somehow expect and appreciate being misled:
Meanwhile, voters confronted with bond issues for such
mighty plans might keep in mind the same rule of thumb that works when
you call an architect to remodel your house: Double the budget and
double the estimated time. And remember, it's usually worth it, if you
somehow get it built.
Ummm, this is not entirely analogous....unlike a homeowner hiring an architect, taxpayers do not have the option to stop the flow of money when things go wrong.
Nevertheless, according to Brewster, deliberately underestimating costs and overestimating revenues to sweeten the appearance of a large public works transportation project is ok and we should be thankful for not being told the truth because the means will always justify the ends....right???
The PI reports ST2 will cost $22.8 billion and be completed by 2023. Applying Brewster's new methodology means that voters should expect ST2 to cost $45.6 billion and not be completed until 2038.
So do you still think moving less than one percent of all trips by the year 2038 is worth $45.6 billion?
On the ballot this
November will be Initiative 985 (I‐985), the Reduce Traffic Congestion Act of
2008. The measure is sponsored by Tim Eyman and is an effort to implement some of
the recommendations made in a recent performance audit conducted by the
Washington State Auditor’s Office (SAO).
Key Findings
·I‐985 would not
raise taxes and would generate about $1.7 billion for transportation
infrastructure every ten years.
·I‐985 would
increase the projected statewide budget deficit by about $290 million during the
next two year budget cycle and about $284 million in the 2011‐13 biennium.
·I‐985 would
reduce the state’s reliance on the fuel tax for transportation infrastructure.
·I‐985 would shift
the state’s current policy back toward one that ties public spending to traffic
congestion relief.
·I‐985 would open HOV
lanes during non‐peak hours, which would reduce overall delay, because more
drivers would be able to pass through the system. It may also increase
congestion on sensitive direct access lanes and ramps.
·Opening HOV lanes
during non‐peak hours would also increase travel times for buses and cost
transit agencies higher fuel and labor expenses and the loss of up to $20
million in federal grant money.
·I‐985 would
expand the emergency roadside assistance program and could reduce minor
accident clearance times by nearly 10 percent.
·I‐985 would
synchronize most traffic signals and reduce travel times up to 20 percent on
major arterials and up to 7 percent overall.
·I‐985 would
protect toll revenues in the same way the Washington State Constitution
protects gas tax revenues.
In order to respond to critics of the new ST2 plan, Sound Transit officials have created a Quick Reaction Webpage. It's called, "Setting the Record Straight." (This seems to cross the line of what a public agency can do once their issue is on the ballot but...)
Currently, there are only three entries, but it's the one that responds to the light rail impact on I-90 that really needs to be highlighted.
During the run up to Prop. 1 last November, WPC released this policy note that shows replacing the center lanes on the I-90 bridge will increase traffic congestion by 27 percent during the morning peak commute and 24 percent during the afternoon peak commute. This negative impact has made others, including state lawmakers and FHWA officials, wonder whether reconfiguring the center lanes on I-90 is worth it or even legal.
Sound Transit's response:
There will be no loss of lanes on I-90 between Seattle and Bellevue to accommodate Link light rail service.
This is not entirely accurate. During the morning peak commute drivers
have a total of five westbound lanes (three general purpose and two HOV
lanes). With Sound Transit’s reconfiguration, capacity would fall to
only four westbound lanes. The same reduction would occur during the
eastbound commute in the afternoon. This is a 20% reduction in lane
capacity during the morning and afternoon peak commute hour. And as our report shows, Sound Transit's plan on I-90 will significantly increase congestion.
Instead of trying to sneak a major policy change past voters, Sound Transit must be honest with light rail's impact on one of the most travelled corridors through the Puget Sound.
Earlier I wrote that OFM's fiscal note for I-985 overstated costs. Basically, OFM assumed that I-985 would cover costs incurred by transit agencies as a result of opening HOV lanes during nonpeak hours. Upon our analysis, we concluded that nowhere within the text of the initiative does it claim to cover these incidental costs. In fact, if you accepted OFM's logic, the state would have to compensate every consumer of the HOV system, which of course is not required under the language found within the initiative.
The Office of Financial Management agreed and yesterday sent out a revised fiscal note removing the assumption that I-985 would cover the incidental costs from opening the carpool lanes.
The new fiscal note also corrects an error in how the OFM calculated sales tax revenue. OFM used revenue data from 2013-15 biennium, instead of the 2011-13 biennium. The new estimate shows the impact on the general fund decreases from $620 million over five years, to $573.9 million over five years.
Accounting for both changes, the new estimate shows that I-985 would redirect about $622.6 million over five years, instead of $669 million.
The revised fiscal note has been transmitted to the Secretary of State and will be the official language listed in the voter's pamphlet. But you don't have to wait because you can read it here first. Also, WPC's analysis is complete and will be officially release early next week.
In researching for WPC's guide to I-985, OFM's fiscal note may have overestimated some of
its costs.
For example, the OFM claims that local transit agencies
would incur costs (about $15 million over 5 years) due to the loss of what
amounts to a dedicated transit lane on the freeway system. While the impact to
the transit agency is probably correct, the OFM fiscal analysis goes further
and assumes these costs would be covered from the Reduce Traffic Congestion
Account because they are a result of the initiative’s requirement to open HOV
lanes.
This is not accurate.
I-985 would cover costs related to the physical act of
opening HOV lanes during nonpeak hours including, “new and modified electronic
and nonelectronic signage, lane striping, improvements, and maintenance, and
shoulder maintenance and improvements, including bumpers.”
The cost to transit agencies or any other group or
individual is incidental and not associated with the physical action of opening
the HOV lanes. If you accepted the OFM's logic, then the state would have to
compensate every consumer of the HOV system. There is no language within the
initiative that says it would cover secondary impacts. The OFM’s fiscal
analysis should not include reimbursement from the Reduce Traffic Congestion
Account as a cost to implement the initiative.
The OFM also claims that transit agencies would lose
about $20 million over five years in federal funds if carpool lanes are opened
during non-peak periods. But the State has explored opening HOV lanes during
nonpeak hours before and Federal Highway Administration officials concluded the
change would not jeopardize any federal money. Here is an excerpt from a Seattle Times article written in 2002 that quotes
an FHWA official:
State officials initially were concerned that opening up
the HOV lanes could jeopardize federal funds. But the Federal Highway
Administration, which would have to approve any change in the use of HOV lanes,
said money would not be at risk.
"It would not jeopardize any federal funds if the
state went to part-time HOV lanes," said Dan Mathis, division
administrator for the federal agency's Washington state office.
I currently have a call in to the local FHWA office for
more information.
By the way, the cost to open the HOV lanes in 2002 was
estimated at $2 million. The OFM fiscal note claims the cost is now $239
million!!!
WPC's Citizens Guide to I-985 should be ready next week.
Michael Ennis, Director, Center for Transportation
,
August, 2008
On the ballot this November will be Initiative 985 (I-985), the Reduce Traffic Congestion Act of 2008. The measure is sponsored by Tim Eyman and is an effort to implement some of the recommendations made in a recent performance audit conducted by the Washington State Auditor’s Office (SAO).
The Office of Financial Management just released their fiscal note on I-985.
It shows that over five years, $668.6 million would be redirected from current projects and activities to congestion relief activities, or about $133.7 million annually. The fiscal note also estimates that over the same time period, it will cost the state about $324.6 million to implement I-985. This would leave about $344 million, which according to the language in I-985 would be available for projects that would reduce congestion.
Most of the cost to implement I-985 will occur in these early years and once completed would only need general O&M dollars; thus, significantly increasing the annual revenue available for the legislature to spend per the guidelines in the initiative.
As with most fiscal notes, there is also a critical review on the impact of shifting funds:
Estimated revenue loss to cities from red light traffic camera infractions would be $40 million over five years.
Not charging tolls during off-peak hours on SR-167 HOT lanes would result in a 33 percent loss of funds, or a total loss of $3.1 million over five years.
Washington State transit agencies are estimated to lose about $20 million over five years in
federal transit funds due to the opening of carpool lanes to general traffic during non-peak periods.
The Washington State Arts Commission would lose $500,000 over five years.
The state general fund would be reduced by $620 million over five years. The general fund is used for education, public safety, social services and general government.
Washington Policy Center is conducting a more comprehensive look at I-985 and will release a full report in the coming days. In the mean time, here is a copy of OFM's analysis.
Here is a story of a woman in Michigan who creatively sent the state's department of transportation (MDOT)
a $16 bill for fuel cost she incurred while sitting in traffic created by an MDOT construction project. She claims the MDOT should have done more to warn motorists of the impending traffic delays so they could avoid the area.
MDOT claims the work was an emergency repair that was caused just that morning and there was no time to warn drivers. MDOT further adds:
"It is not MDOT's policy to reimburse motorists
for lost time, wages, or gas when traveling through or near a work
zone. Please understand, if we paid out for one, we would have to pay
out for all and that is simply not feasible,"
Fair enough. But what about a policy that reimburses drivers for lost time, wages and gas when state officials refuse to make congestion relief a priority? In Washington there is no policy goal or financial relationship between spending and traffic relief. Because the public sector maintains a monopoly on the transportation system, they have accepted the responsibility of ensuring mobility.
As long as the public sector continues this transportation monopoly, public officials are obligated to fix problems, like when the ability to get from point A to point B takes fifty percent longer than it should.
Sending WSDOT, the legislature or the governor a bill for lost time, wages and gas seems reasonable when congestion relief continues to not be a priority.
During the run-up to the Roads and Transit vote, WPC completed
a year long, six-part series of studies on the measure. WPC will continue that breakdown once the Sound Transit Board
makes its decision to place a new ST2 proposal on the ballot. Here is a preview
of that analysis:
ST2 proposal is on the “off-the-chart” side of inefficient
The agency says it will carry an additional 163,000 daily
trips if ST2 passes. But Sound Transit also estimates that about two thirds of
those trips will come from the existing transit system. That means only about
54,333 daily trips will be new.
Trips do not equal riders. Because daily trips can
double, triple and sometimes quadruple count the same individual, the figure
needs to be adjusted to estimate unique riders. The standard conversion factor
is 45% (To look at it another way, 45% assumes slightly less than half of total
trips in a day will be the same person making a round trip to and from work).
So the number of new individual riders will be about 24,450.
Comparing new daily riders (24,450) to how much taxpayers
must pay ($17.8 billion) shows that the cost is about $728,016 per new rider!
Using the most expensive market in the Puget Sound
(Eastside King County), the average cost of a condominium is about $320,000.
Sound Transit could purchase every new passenger a condominium within walking
distance of their employment ($7.8 billion) and still have enough left over
($9.8 billion) to purchase 4,000 articulated buses ($4 billion), fully fund the
520 bridge replacement ($3.8 billion), and the tunnel option for the Alaskan
Way Viaduct ($4 billion).
The new ST2 plan is redundant and will not have enough passenger demand to justify the cost.
Less is more?
Sound Transit is quick to claim that the new ST2 package
is smaller than its version in Prop. 1. While the scope of projects is smaller,
the sales tax rate is the same (.5%), it will be collected forever, and it allows
ST1 taxes to carry over for ST2 projects, again in perpetuity.
This means voters are getting much less for the same tax
increase Sound Transit proposed in last year’s failed Proposition 1.
Another ST2 proposal violates Sound Move policy
With a new proposal, the Sound Transit board is violating
its own promise to roll back Sound Move taxes. As part of ST1, which passed in
1996, Sound Transit said this:
Any second phase capital program which continues local
taxes for financing will require voter approval within the RTA District. If
voters decide not to extend the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to
a level sufficient to pay off the outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the
investments made as part of Sound Move.
Since voters already rejected ST2, Sound Transit must
roll back ST1 taxes to O&M levels. If Sound Transit moves forward with
another ST2 program that contains ST1 taxes, then Sound Transit is violating
its own tax payer protection clause voters authorized in 1996.
By reconfiguring the center lanes, Sound Transit’s plan
to place light rail on Interstate 90 will reduce overall vehicle capacity on
the bridge by 15% during the morning peak commute and 8% during the afternoon.
Light rail will increase vehicle delay on the bridge by
27% during the morning peak drive and 24% during the afternoon peak.
ST2 will cause average westbound vehicle speeds to fall
21% during the morning peak commute and eastbound drivers in the afternoon
would see a 17% decrease.
Freight vehicles would suffer the most. During the
morning peak drive, the number of freight trucks able to cross into Seattle
would drop 24%. Leaving Seattle during the afternoon peak drive, trucks
would see a 19% reduction in capacity.
Bob Pishue is director of WPC’s Center for Transportation. Prior to joining Washington Policy Center in 2013, Bob interned at the Washington Research Council where he produced policy briefs on initiatives and referenda. His last role was the IT and HR Manager for a Bellevue-based retailer. A Washington resident throughout his life, Bob grew up in Everett and graduated from Central Washington University with a bachelor’s degree in economics. Bob serves on his church’s annual audit committee and is also an avid golfer. He lives in Kirkland.
