Yesterday House transportation leaders released their 2011-2013 biennial budget. From their press release.
The $8.9 billion transportation budget proposal for the 2011-13 biennium takes a multi-modal approach to planning for future needs with investments in highways, ferries, commercial and passenger rail, transit, and bicycle and pedestrian improvements. More than 43,000 jobs are expected to be created or sustained through the budget’s $4.9 billion capital construction plan.
….
Taking into account the diversity of transportation preferences across the state, the budget makes significant multi-modal investments, including $402 million for passenger rail, $237 for ferry terminals and vessels, $88 million for urban and rural transit, $44 million for freight rail and $11 million for the Safe Routes to School and bicycle-pedestrian safety programs.
The Times is reporting, as many have been expecting, that the state legislature is looking to next year for new transportation revenue.
State legislators will neither cut nor add big highway projects this year, but voters can expect a mix of road and transit taxes on the ballot in 2012, the House Transportation Committee chairwoman said Monday.
Rep. Judy Clibborn, D-Mercer Island, said she wants lawmakers to suggest the “bare bones” of the 2012 package by the end of this spring session.
At least four factors explain the push for new taxes:
• In the past decade, the number of miles driven has flattened, while cars are more fuel-efficient, so gas-tax income is forecast to gradually decline.
• Lawmakers overpromised what the 2003-05 gas and car-tab revenues could deliver, so more cash is needed for postponed projects such as the redecking of Interstate 5 in Seattle.
• Demand still exists for new routes, such as extensions of Highway 167 serving the Port of Tacoma, that stalled when voters rejected the 2007 Roads and Transit measure.
• Finally, transit boosters are frustrated by sales-tax losses that are forcing bus agencies to freeze or cut service — and some would like to hasten new rail and bus-rapid transit.
The Senate should be releasing it’s budget later today.
” $402 million for passenger rail, $237 for ferry terminals and vessels, $88 million for urban and rural transit, $44 million for freight rail and $11 million for the Safe Routes to School and bicycle-pedestrian safety programs.”
And what is the revenue source for that total of $771 in non-road spending?
That $237 million cannot reasonably be considered non-road as the primary purpose of the ferries is to move cars. I would consider only $490 million of that to be transit spending. I realize that reasonability is not a criteria in your comments, of course.
Ferries are not roads. A lot of people who take the ferries do not take cars onto the ferries.
And cars do not “drive” on ferries. Drivers don’t even sit in their cars during ferry trips (at least most WA State Ferry trips). Ferries are boats. I didn’t say ferries are transit — I said ferries are not roads, and they aren’t.
Nonetheless, where is the entire $8.9 billion in transportation revenues for 2011-13 coming from? There is no detail on the funding sources?
Also, I assume that $771 million in non-road spending detailed here is just the “capital” non-road spending. What is the non-road “operations” spending in the 2011-13 transportation budget?
In the 2009-2011 WA State Transportation Budget, out of a total of $1.4 billion in operating expenditures, there was:
$427.5 million for ferry operations (mostly paid for with ferry fares)
$134.6 million for “public transportation” (transit)
$37.4 million for “rail”
$8.1 million for “aviation”
That is a total of $607.6 million in non-road operating expenses out of $1.4 billion total operating expenses in the 2009-2011 WA State Transportation Budget. Also, some of the approximately $300 million in “support services” under operating expenditures must have been for non-road things, like rail, transit, etc.
Ferries are road spending. Deal with it.
The ferry it’s self and the parking lot for the ferry terminal are part of the highway system. If you don’t drive on the ferry how do you get your car on board, container crane? BTW, the State Patrol will enforce the open container law even when you’re parked. The only portion of the ferry budget that isn’t rightfully highway spending would be passenger only ferries. BTW, a highway “system” is a lot more than just roads. It requires signs, bridges (same reason ferries were considerd part of the highway system), storm water retention and drainage (although no mitigation of air polution), maintenance vehicles, law enforcement, removal of dead animals, etc.
“If you don’t drive on the ferry how do you get your car on board, container crane?”
Lot’s of people ride the ferries without their cars. I suspect you actually are aware of this. Or not?
Foot passengers are by far the minority on all routes except Bainbridge, Bremerton and Sidney. The marginal cost of a foot passenger is pretty trivial compared to that of a car, as they consume few additional resources and require almost no facilities that would not be present on the boat anyway. Yet at least on Seattle-Bainbrige they pay about a third of the price of an SOV for a round trip.
Nothing you have said, Norman, undercuts my statement that the primary purpose of the ferry system is to complete the road network and move cars.
I’ve never once had to wait for the next boat because there was no room for more walk on passengers. And I’ve never seen a ferry held at the dock because it wasn’t finished loading pedestrians. In addtion to the 200 or so square feet taken up by the car how many crew are there to direct pedestrians vs cars driving onto the ferry? And as you point out, most people then get out of their cars and take advantage of the passenger decks. Foot passengers that are using transit are significantly driving down the cost of ferry service vs if everyone used a car. In fact the Vashon to DT Seattle passenger only ferry was a direct replacement for what would have been a much more expensive increase in automobile capacity.
FWIW I dug through the Transportation Revenue Forecast Summary and there are about 10 million car+driver and 12 million passengers. Passengers include both walk on and auto passengers so if you figure 1.2 people per car (it’s probably a bit higher) the number of walk on passengers is roughly equal to the number of cars. On a typical route the foot passengers are paying ~60% of the fare revenue while accounting for less than 7% of the weight being transported.
Why do you guys bother arguing with our friend? That’s precious time that you could spend on something more productive, like arguing with your stove for example.
It amuses the masochist in me.
The ferries that connect Finland to Sweden do or did have the sign of the highway that they completed painted on the side of the vessels; I think it is/was the E18?
WSF should have such a sign on its vessels, albeit one with Washington’s silhouette and a variable number display since the boats do move around the system.
The State Routes transported by ferry are clearly indicated on the official WSDOT highway map.
The way money is spent, operating big boats with a large carrying capacity is a priority. Providing decent transit connections so people can use the ferry system without driving on is considered a much lower priority, with the possible exception of peak-hour weekday commutes for Bainbridge/Vashon Island residents working downtown. This makes the ferry budget, for all intents and purposes, road spending, whether there is a physical road there or not.
Norman find out yourself.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/budget/2009-11ExpendituresTable.htm
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Finance/budget/BudgetPieCharts.htm
I know for the current budget. Here it is. Show me where in WA State roads are “subsidized” by the general fund. It looks to me as if transit is subsidized by taxes on motorists. Roads are not subsidized.
So, Adam, you have no problem finding out for this blog what the expenditures are, but you refuse to find out for this blog what the revenue sources are? Why is that?
No Norman. I told you to look it up because I simply don’t want to waste time looking up things for trolls. You have the internet just like me.
“I simply don’t want to waste time looking up things for trolls.”
In other words, you have no interest in how roads or transit are paid for. You only want your transit, and don’t care who pays for it?
Norman, you still haven’t answered my question below, regarding how much money cities and counties spend on roads, and how much of it comes from car owners and users. I’m sure we’re all dying to hear.
No. I’m not going to waste time talking to someone like you. I have better things to do. No matter what anyone says to you it doesn’t matter. I rather spend my time talking to someone that is actually interested in talking about the issues at hand and has both good points and is open to my points.
“And what is the revenue source for that total of $771 in non-road spending?”
My guess would be taxes.
Right! Gas taxes, licenses and fees on motor vehicles. Taxes paid by motorists to subsidize transit. Tolls on roads and bridges paid by motorists (but not transit users). There is no general fund revenue going into the WA state transportation budget.
The transportation budget revenues come almost entirely from taxes and fees on motorists, plus some ferry fares. But a lot of that revenue is used to subsidize non-motorists.
Transit does pay tolls on the Narrows. What other roads are currently being tolled in Washington.
While you’re at it Norman, how about you tell us how much all the cities and counties in Washington spend on roads, and how much revenue they get from gas tax, MVET and tab fees?
Out of the $8.8 billion in transportation funds collected during the 09-11 biennium, WSDOT retains $6.8 billion. The remaining $2.0 billion is distributed to cities, counties, Washington State Patrol, the Office of the Treasurer (for debt service) and other agencies.
While you’re at it, why don’t you collect the total for all that city and county road spending. I’m sure we’d find it interesting.
If you have a problem with how the Department of Transportation is funded, take it up with your legislator, but please spare us another one of your never-ending tirades. We all know how you feel, and you know that none of us care!
I don’t have a problem with how it is funded. I have a problem with some of the things it is fundING.
Tough shit. It’s not the department of highways anymore.
I thought the State Patrol is no longer funded out of MVET since Timmy came along? And of course the emergency services (how often does a Fire Engine go to a house fire anymore?) are paid for entirely by property taxes, including property owned or rented by people who never use the highways.
Rail spending is mostly Federal stimulus award capital spending – though the award was around $600m in total. It must be that it can’t all be spent during the next two years – probably not a limitation on the funding, more likely what can reasonably be designed, permitted and completed in that time frame.
Toll baby toll!
402 million for passenger rail? I wonder exactly how they “divy” the funds? As for the ferry, which I walk onto everyday, using public transit btw, it is indeed a part of our highway system.
I can’t be bothered to look up the details (I’m sure Norman will be along to break it down for us any minute now), but I bet the lion’s share for that is for the Point Defiance bypass.
I think the passenger rail money includes federal grant money from ARRA and the FY10 appropriation, so to a first approximation, see http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Funding/stimulus/passengerrail.htm
What? You don’t drive across the water in your car on the ferry?
Think of it this way:
1. The ferry is like a highway bridge. For example, the Anacortes Friday Harbor ferry is a “bridge” along Highway 20.
2. Walk-on passengers are like pedestrians crossing the bridge.
Do you propose eliminating sidewalks on all bridges? Do you consider pedestrians crossing bridges, such as the Narrows Bridge, to be a strain on the highway budget?
Honest question.
Norman is just [ad hom] enough that he might.
Every dime of transit-related tax levied on my car, I consider a maintenance item. Every passenger aboard a transit vehicle counts as one less automobile in my way when I need to drive somewhere. And every trip I take on transit is one fewer day’s depreciation.
I also hate suburban driving almost as much as I hate suburbanization, at least in its present form. Not arguing land-use in the abstract- I’m sure it’s possible to build dispersed communities where life isn’t an ugly, boring wasteland subject to the dictates of homeowners’ associations who make North Korea look libertarian. Just still waiting.
Just had a thought, Norman, that could explain why you’ve got such a hard time imagining that the same person can sometimes use a car and sometimes ride transit. Tell the truth. Are you really a car?
Mark Dublin
Mark, why is it that you have a hard time imagining that when a person drives a car he should pay for the cost of that trip, and does, and that when a person takes transit he should also pay the cost of that trip, but does not? Tell the truth. Are you really a trolley?
Still waiting with baited breath for an accounting of how much non-gas non-MVET money our cities and counties spend on roads, Norman. Pretty sure those roads are an integral part of our road network.
Norman, I drive a car to and from work 5 days a week. I will gladly pay taxes on my car for transit. In fact when I found out that part of my car tabs pay for the light rail, I was pretty excited that I was doing my part. In fact if they ask to raise taxes on gas to pay for transit, I will happily vote yes!
It is really too bad that the passenger capacity of the typical Washington State Ferry vessel is greater than that which would be used if every vehicle came aboard with a full load (which they don’t because the average vehicle holds only 1.2 humans).
Why do we subsidize Todd Shipyards in this manner?
You have not been on a boat so full that they’ve turned away passengers. I have.
I know you’re being sarcastic, but subsidizing Todd shipyards is a real issue.
Norman, Ferries are by law part of the State Highway System.
47.17.080
State route No. 20.
A state highway to be known as state route number 20 is established as follows:
Beginning at a junction with state route number 101 in the vicinity of Discovery Bay, thence northeasterly via the most feasible route to Port Townsend; also
From the state ferry terminal at Port Townsend via the state ferry system northeasterly to the state ferry terminal at Keystone; also
From the Keystone ferry dock on Whidbey Island, thence northeasterly by the most feasible route by way of Deception Pass, Burlington, Sedro Woolley, Concrete, Newhalem, Winthrop, Twisp, Okanogan, Tonasket, Republic, Kettle Falls, Colville, and Tiger; thence southerly and southeasterly to a junction with state route number 2 at Newport.
[1994 c 209 § 1; 1973 1st ex.s. c 151 § 13; 1970 ex.s. c 51 § 17.]
47.17.081
State route No. 20 north.
A state highway to be known as state route number 20 north is established as follows:
Beginning at a junction with state route number 20 in the vicinity southeast of Anacortes, thence northwesterly to the state ferry terminal at Anacortes; also
From the state ferry terminal at Anacortes via the state ferry system to the state ferry terminals at Lopez Island, Shaw Island, Orcas Island, and Friday Harbor.
[1994 c 209 § 2; 1973 1st ex.s. c 151 § 17.]
47.17.175
State route No. 104.
A state highway to be known as state route number 104 is established as follows:
Beginning at a junction with state route number 101 in the vicinity south of Discovery Bay, thence southeasterly to the vicinity of Shine on Hood Canal, thence crossing Hood Canal to a junction with state route number 3 in the vicinity of Port Gamble; also
From that junction with state route number 3 in the vicinity of Port Gamble, thence to Port Gamble, thence southerly and easterly to the state ferry terminal at Kingston; also
From the state ferry terminal at Kingston via the state ferry system easterly to the state ferry terminal at Edmonds; also
From the state ferry terminal at Edmonds, thence southeasterly to a junction with state route number 99 in the vicinity of the Snohomish-King county line; also
Beginning at a junction with state route number 99 in the vicinity of the Snohomish-King county line, thence southeasterly to a junction with state route number 522 in the vicinity of Lake Forest Park.
[1994 c 209 § 3; 1970 ex.s. c 51 § 36.]
I think you get the point. If you’d like a complete reference:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=47.17&full=true
[...] the release of the House’s transportation budget on Monday, the Senate released their budget yesterday. The Tacoma News [...]
Norman, I thought that your generation understood the concept of shared sacrifice and working together. That’s how you folks got through the depression and won the war! I don’t know why you have such a problem with pedestrians and people who ride the ferry or take the bus. Don’t a lot of your buddies ride the bus these days? My Grandma doesn’t drive any more. She really needs the bus!