Orphan Road

I think I posted this a while back, but I've updated my Google maps of Link and Sounder alignments based on the proposed 15-year plan from Sound Transit.

http://maps.google.com/maps/user?uid=103428233658015669918&hl=en&gl=us&p...

Putzing around on the internet in the wake of last night's elections, I saw this, the statement that Al Wynn, a congressman from Maryland:

This domestic policy should include providing universal health coverage for everyone, creating domestic jobs and transit projects (i.e., Purple Line), as well as fighting global warming with a cap and trade program to limit emissions. [emph. added]

It's interesting to see a congressman -- federal, no less -- be such a bold transit supporter like that. You don't typically see that sort of thing here in Washington. Don't get me wrong, Patty Murray's been great for Sound Transit, but it's certainly not the sort of thing you see pols bending over backwards to promise us come election time: "Vote for me and I'll make sure light rail gets to Redmond!"

I do remember Greg Nickels running on a vague, "all transit all the time" platform where he simultaneously embraced the Monorail AND Sound Transit. But generally pols treat the transit agencies here like a hot potato. Sure, they serve on the ST board, and they formally supported last fall's Prop. 1, but the typical face of the Prop. 1 campaign was the Washington Business Roundtable.

If this is indeed the case -- and I'm not convinced, just putting it out here for discussion -- I wonder how much it has to do with the initiative system. Because so much of our transit is approved by popular vote, it disconnects the pols from responsibility. And since their a** isn't personally on the line, they're less invested in the outcome. As a result, the debate drags on interminably and concrete never gets poured.

[The exception here might be the Seattle Streetcar, which pols were falling all over each other to take credit for. But that wasn't up for a vote: the exception that proves the rule?]

And yet, at the same time, the legislators who put Prop. 1 together assumed -- incorrectly it turns out -- that voters think like they do: they assumed we're willing to horse-trade: that I would, say, wheel and deal with my counterpart in Pierce County, supporting the Cross Base Highway in exchange for his/her support of my light rail. But voters don't think like politicians. We're more likely to just reject the whole thing if it gets too complicated.

I'm not exactly sure what to make of all this, it just sort of popped into my head as I was reading the results of tonight's elections. What do you think?

Richard Morrill's piece in Crosscut is pretty good, and he's on the right track. But I think he fails -- as many other anti-transit folks do -- to address the need for rapid transit within the city of Seattle.

But while Morrill and others argue that not everyone wants to live in dense urban centers, the fact is that the residential population of the urban core is skyrocketing. We're building thousands of new apartments and condos between Lake Union and SODO, and the existing street grid and bus networks simply won't be able to move these people around.

This comes via Mike at CIS, and I basically agree with his analysis.

Ted Van Dyk "reports" that regional leaders are coalescing around a post-Prop-1 transit plan that looks -- surprise! -- mirrors Van Dyk's personal wishes and desires almost to a tee. It's hard to know where the reporting ends and the navel-gazing begins:

In all of this, a new consensus is emerging about a post-Prop 1 agenda. It centers on moving aside turf-oriented, self-serving agencies such as Sound Transit and transferring power to a more objective, more responsive regional body. It would stress immediate priorities such as addressing the urgent Alaskan Way Viaduct and Evergreen Point Bridge, which are aging and structurally vulnerable. It would not stop light rail construction in place, but it would limit construction to a line running from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to either Convention Place, Husky Stadium, or Northgate. Future funding would be focused more greatly on express bus, bus rapid transit, and normal bus service; dedicated transit lanes; HOV lanes; tolling; and selective repair and expansion of long neglected local roads and lifeline highways. Citywide trolleys definitely would not be part of the scheme.

You've got to love the use of the passive voice here ("a consensus is emerging"), implying that the whole thing is just coming together as God and nature intended. It's a miracle!!

But I really have to take this opportunity to rant against this idea of a regional "superagency" that's getting so much press these days. The Puget Sound Regional Transportation Commission (PSRTC) -- which would combine RTID, Sound Transit, and the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) -- was the subject of the Rice-Stanton report (.pdf) that forms the basis of Van Dyk's article. It is an idea that is intuitively appealing, but fall apart spectacularly upon deeper examination.

Let's not mince words here: the PSRTC is not just a silly idea, it's a dangerous distraction from the real transportation problems facing our region. Like the Department of Homeland Security at the federal level, the PSRTC's main purpose will be to make us feel like we've accomplished something, while formerly effective independent agencies (e.g. FEMA) are gutted and politicized as part of the new, unwieldy mega-bureaucracy.

For example, the PSRC, Rice and Stanton argue, "is charged with planning regionally, but has limited authority. Although it articulates a regional vision and attempts to plan for the region, the PSRC lacks the power to prioritize needed projects due to its governance structure." But this is a feature, not a bug! The PSRC's insulation from politics and taxing is exactly what makes it so valuable and objective as a planning agency.

Also, the proposed PSRTC would have "life cycle responsibility" for construction and maintenance of "regional projects." I assume this means it would have its own construction crews and maintenance facilities, or at least be responsible for subcontracting them. But why? Ostensibly, the PSRTC is being created for regional priority road projects like the ones specified in the RTID: I-405 widening, the "Mercer mess," the 520 bridge, and others. But design and maintenance for those already rests with specific agencies. Unless you're going to abolish KCDOT, SDOT, and all the other local DOTs, you're adding bureaucracy, not removing it.

Finally, we don't need yet another elected board overseeing something. Our ballots are far too large already. As it is, we must elect a couple of Port Commissioners, a few city councilmembers, a school board, some county councilmembers, federal judges, state reps and legislators, and maybe soon an elections chair. We need fewer of what Knute Berger wisely derided as "designer governments."

What might -- might -- make sense is to combine the various regional transit agencies (Everett Transit, King County Metro, Community Transit and Sound Transit) into one transit agency, like Portland's Tri-Met or New York's MTA. But that would have the effect of giving Sound Transit even more clout, and that must be avoided at all costs, according to Van Dyk and his ilk (despite the fact that the people of the region view ST more favorably than, say, WSDOT).

To be sure, there is a real funding problem in the region. With round after round of anti-tax initiatives crippling the state's budget (which must also fund important things like education and health care), it's getting harder to fund transportation projects. But creating another agency doesn't solve this problem, it just redirects it. If the state, cities, and counties can't come up with the revenue, they need to raise taxes, or elect leaders who will. Redrawing lines on the map doesn't magically make money appear.

In other words, creating the PSRTC does not restore these funds. It simply proposes to acquire them from a smaller bloc of voters, including Tim Eyman (who lives within the PSRTC's proposed boundaries, let's remember). Does anyone think that he's just going to sit on his hands while we try to raise $70B or so in new revenue?

I encourage everyone to download the Rice-Stanton report and skip to Page 114, where Commissioner Dan McDonald writes a highly intelligent and accurate "minority report," that calls into question the logic of the whole thing. A monster bureaucracy like the PSRTC will face stiff political opposition that will be every bit as difficult as simply trying to raise the revenue through existing agencies.

All of which makes you wonder why we'd even do it in the first place.

This time, commisssioned by Sound Transit, and starring your well-informed electorate:

Among the poll participants who had voted no on Proposition 1, three-fourths cited "no cost control" and "cost too much" as major factors. However, only 5 percent of all those polled could accurately guess that the price fell somewhere between $10 billion and $100 billion. Most couldn't say what it would have cost them personally (roughly $200 to $300 a year, for an average household.)

Also interesting is that MVETs and gas taxes are viewed more favorably than sales taxes.

There are some differences here with the Sierra Club's poll from a few weeks ago, but the overall point still applies: people. want. transit. They just don't really want to pay for it.

Eric Earling, proving once again that he's the only interesting writer over at Sound Politics, has a very smart post on why things got to be the way they are:

The whole reason the RTID came into being is because Olympia refused to find a way to foot the bill for the road improvements this region so desperately needs. Once state government punted to the locals, the County Councils of King, Pierce, and Snohomish were able to cobble together a compromise that began to address the stunning backlog of overdue projects. That's why Prop 1 was so amazingly large to begin with.

Yet, we have the Joni Balter's of the world proclaiming the package just needs to be smaller. The problem is that the measure was so large to begin with because people like Balter have spent years saying "let's slow down and talk about it some more until we feel comfortable about this." As delightful as that Seattle-way of doing business is, at some point somebody has to start making tough decisions and living with the consequences.

Read the whole thing.

With Prop. 1 defeated, the debate is underway to define what it all means.

First up is the Sierra Club, with an exit poll that they claim shows that the roads portion was the real drag on the ballot. Erica Barnett cites pollster Tom Riehle's statement that "what was unique about this election was the decisive role of a small group of voters." Riehle and the Sierra Club's main data point is the 20% of "no" voters -- 11% of all voters -- who cited global warming as a reason for voting "no." That's theoretically enough to tip the election.

It's an interesting argument, but there's a few major caveats to keep in mind. First, in a close election, one could plausibly claim that any small group was the "decisive" one. Second, they oversampled Seattle and King County voters. Based on provisional ballot data here and here, I'm guessing an oversample of King County (esp. Seattle) by 8 points and an undersample of Snohomish by about the same. That could explain much of the global warming answer.

Still, I wouldn't call it bogus, necessarily. Groups tend to hire pollsters who will reaffirm their agenda. After all, that's why there are Democratic pollsters and Republican pollsters.

It's biased, sure, but there's still some interesting data.

First, people really didn't seem to want that Sea-Tac-to-Tacoma light rail! One could reasonably conclude that that project alone nearly sunk the whole package (if my math's right, 5% of all voters cited it as their No. 1 reason). Duly noted!

Second, among the "yes" voters, there were many more "transit only" supporters than "road only" ones. 35 vs. 11. That can't be explained away by the Seattle oversample. People. Want. Transit. And not just buses. They want rail, especially North and East, and they're willing to pay for it. That's a good thing.

I hope we see more exit polls in the near future, from different pollsters. A sample of 5,000 voters is pretty revealing, despite the flaws.

Update: Scotto in the comments offers a plausible explanation for the alleged oversample.

Mike Lindblom writes today in the Times that Sound Transit does not need to get permission from the legislature to get back on the ballot next year. This was the reason that many hypothesized the rapid re-emergence of a transit-only ballot initiative as early as next Spring.

Permission is one thing, protocol is another. I was going over this with a friend last night, and he reminded me that Sound Transit doesn't need any more enemies in Olympia right now. The knee-jerk reaction is going to be to blame the agency for the failure of Prop. 1.

Plus, there's more talk about creating the regional transit "super agency" that the Stanton-Rice report recommended earlier this year. Sound Transit has fought the creation of such an agency in the past, fearing that it would dilute ST's influence and create a huge new bureaucracy. If Sound Transit wants to keep lobbying against such an agency, it needs to stay in the legislature's (and the Governor's) good graces.

All of this is by way of saying that Sound Transit won't rush back to the ballot unless the legislature gives them the green light, or at least a wink and a nod.

Erica Barnett sums up, somewhat inadvertently, the problems with crafting another transportation package:

It was too big and too divisive, and hopefully the people who craft a replacement will have learned their lesson by the next time. (I would prefer, of course, that that lesson be: No more roads expansion; money for neighborhood streets, safety and maintenance; and more money for rail NOW, rather than in 20 years--but that's just me.) In any case, I think one lesson is definitely that an $18 billion, 50-year package is simply too big to pass--especially when, as with this package, it doesn't fully fund all the projects it includes, meaning that voters will have to pay tolls or additional taxes to finish major projects like SR-520.

In other words, this package was too big, but it wasn't big enough! Reminds me of that classic Woody Allen line, "the food was terrible, but the portions were so small!"

Any package that "fully funds" SR-520 would, by definition, have to include even more money for roads, something that Barnett and others seem dead-set against. So where does that leave us?

It should be said, though, that "fully funding" a new 520 bridge was never, and should never have been the point of a regional transportation initiative. 520 is a state road, and it's ultimately the state's responsibility. The point of the RTID was simply to have the 3-county region kick in a some extra money to fill in the gap between what the state was willing to pay, what tolling could provide, and what the new bridge will actually cost.

Now the state will have to kick in the rest. But with the current gas tax money on the decline, and I-960 looming overhead, it's unclear how they're going to do that.

The passage of I-960, which will requires a 2/3 vote of the people or the legislature to raise taxes, will certainly complicate future transportation proposals. Already the state is worried that the gas tax money is drying up, and it will be next to impossible to get the 2/3 majority required to raise revenue for any other projects.

So what does that mean for transportation? Do RTID or Sound Transit count as state taxes, since they were chartered by the state and the state is responsible for tallying the votes, or are they local taxes that can circumvent the 2/3 marjority? That will certainly be up for debate, and probably get tied up in court along with I-960 itself.