Comments on: BREAKING: Senate Moves a Little

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 08:24:04 +0000

I could be wrong, but I think an appropriate conference solution would be to remove both changes since they effectively cancel each other out. What actually will happen, none of us know, but I think passing an amendment is requires more agency than simply making a pledge, you know?

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 07:29:23 +0000

The problem is, this process is already established. ST and WSDOT have been using it for ages. Jarrett’s amendment still makes a change, which means a legal review, etc. – he should have simply pledged to fight it in committee, I think.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 02:03:22 +0000

Yeah, it’s not really any help.

By: cuyahoga

cuyahoga — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 01:31:02 +0000

While this helps a little you still need the money to get moved up to finish the project.

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 23:09:18 +0000

Jarret’s amendment would put the process back in WSDOT’s hands. It is language added, likely, so that in conference either this section or Clibborn’s section has to be removed. Jarret wants Clibborn’s section to be removed.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:53:23 +0000

How is Senator Jarrett’s amendment appropriate? Unless you have dubious intentions, what’s the point of intervening on air space negotiations between ST and WSDOT? Especially – as Ben has pointed out – since it’s not Frank Chopp’s / Judy Clibborn’s floating bridge to sell in the first place.

Rep. Clibborn’s House transportation budget (which Rep. Eddy voted for) took $25 million from a $40 million transit fund, and jacked around the list of compettive grants.

That’s not a “cash flow problem,” especially since the Senate left the Mobility Grants list alone.

That’s a Representative-Who-Dislikes-Transit problem. And a House-Speaker-Who-Could-Care-Less-About-Transit problem.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 22:18:31 +0000

The no money argument might hold a little more weight if there wasn’t $3B in the budget for a tunnel under Seattle. Is the only reason the tunnel is funded because it’s a pretty safe bet little to none of it can be spent in the next two years? I sense the “budget game” has become push the pea. When it comes time to actually cut the check funding commitments are suddenly a victim of “not enough cash”.

I will gladly pay you on Tuesday for a hamburger today. – Whimpy

By: Deb Eddy

Deb Eddy — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:58:42 +0000

I’ve got my intern working on a full explanation, analysis of the problems you outlined in an earlier post, so that I can know what’s what. Our funds are shrinking, too, and some of these changes may have been driven by cash flow problems. I think that’s the likely explanation for the regional mobility grant changes, because we have very limited multimodal funds and a list of asks that just keeps growing. Stay tuned, guys, because the situation is fluid. And Fred’s amendment seems appropriate.

By: Brian Bundridge

Brian Bundridge — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:11:01 +0000

The house version is tomorrow, correct?

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:58:05 +0000

The Senate has approved the transportation budget, so we’ll see if anything changes in the house. Otherwise we’ll be following conference pretty closely.

By: Brian Bundridge

Brian Bundridge — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 19:51:58 +0000

Holmquist attempted to get the rail capital funding back but it was rejected.

http://apps.leg.wa.gov/documents/billdocs/2009-10/Pdf/Amendments/Senate/5352-S%20AMS%20HOLJ%20S2857.2.pdf