[Update 9:37am: We’re hearing that a smaller $5 billion package might be unveiled instead, with a larger share dedicated to road operations and maintenance as well as some county authority for local transit funding. We won’t know for sure if this is the case until the Governor actually delivers her speech.]
In her annual State of the State address this morning, Governor Gregoire is expected to propose a rather bold statewide transportation package– $21 billion in total, purported to cover roads, ferries, and transit. With the gas tax revenues largely dried up and new funding needed, much would seem to hinge on a vote to the people, at least as current prospects stand. And with a significant emphasis on road expansion, it’s less than clear how voters might react any differently than they did, say, to Roads and Transit (RTID) in 2007.
The real loser in this package would be transit. Of the $21 billion under a likely scenario, only around $2.5 billion would be siphoned into “direct” transit investments– less than one-seventh of the whole pie. While the Governor is expected urge lawmakers to approve new “funding options” for local agencies, that will likely come in the form of self-taxing authority instead of direct help. The hint of such a proposal is already drawing ire from transit opponents (acting on misguided principles, to be sure).
It’s hard to see this as anything but a giant statewide manifestation of the RTID vote. Many of the projects proposed under such a package would certainly accelerate sprawl and run counter to the Governor’s own pledge to reduce greenhouse emissions in half by 2050. And the measly acknowledgment of transit would do little to assuage our financial woes let alone provide a solid footing for strong capital investment in the long-run.
I certainly would like to see some money sent over to buses since that would have an almost if not immediate, positive impact.
Man the road building lobby is strong in this state.
A state-wide RTID scares me a little. The only force that would balance rural WA’s love of roads would be their fear of taxes.
I hope the Governor mentions the fact that as a result of tolling on 520, WSDOT is now in violation of several RCW’s dealing with HOV lane performance standards.
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/HOV/Policy.htm
It basically says the lanes must be maintained to provide 45 mph speeds, at least 90% of the time, during peak hours of operation.
Today, and since tolling started, I-90 HOV lanes have been averaging 20 mph during most of the peak period.
It seems like 3+ should be the order of the day, otherwise transit gets screwed again.
Which RCW do you believe is WSDOT violating?
I’ve always been fond of RCW 46.61.65, sec.(1):
(1) The state department of transportation and the local authorities are authorized to reserve all or any portion of any highway under their respective jurisdictions, including any designated lane or ramp, for the exclusive or preferential use of one or more of the following: (a) Public transportation vehicles; (b) private motor vehicles carrying no fewer than a specified number of passengers; or (c) the following private transportation provider vehicles if the vehicle has the capacity to carry eight or more passengers, regardless of the number of passengers in the vehicle, and if such use does not interfere with the efficiency, reliability, and safety of public transportation operations:
I like the part about not screwing transit.
I don’t think 45mph is actually codified, just a guideline.
I believe 45 mph is usually talked about because its the speed at which vehicle throughput is maximized.
From my ref. above:
“The current performance standard states that a driver in an HOV lane should be able to maintain an average speed of 45 mph or greater at least 90% of the time during the morning and afternoon rush hour. The I-5 and I-405 HOV lanes are not meeting this performance standard, nor is SR 520 during the afternoon peak in the westbound direction.”
Just add I-90 to the other HOV lanes NOT meeting the standard. Nobody gives a fuck, just like greenhouse gas emission reduction.
15303 days until the end of oil
http://www.worldometers.info/
Keep it up Contractors! Won’t it be fun when we figure out that electric cars ain’t gonna be the panacea everyone thinks the will be?
I didn’t realize the Aztecs had a calendar for that :=
I was worried until I realized that’s over 40 years away. If we don’t have Mr. Fusion by then, I’ll be very disappointed. :-)
All kidding aside, that’s a great website…
I’m sure humanity will be all in favor of the massive nuclear build-out required for their flying electric cars, and that they definitely will not go on a coal and natural gas burning spree.
Washington needs new roads like Easter Island statues.
Speaking of statues, what’s up with the 1% for the arts when building highways? If the 520 do over is costing $3 billion that’s $30 million we have for statues. Maybe a nice bronze of Albert D. Rosellini at the old toll plaza?
That’s what, 4000 short tons of copper? My vote would be for Rosellini and Kemper as the Gates of Argonath.
Does 1% for art actually apply to highways? I’ve been searching around, and haven’t found any evidence that it does. I’ve found some evidence that it doesn’t, like this:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M22-01/950.pdf
Evidently there’s no-one else, NOT A SOUL in the WHOLE FUCKING STATE to get a transpo quote from other than Michael Ennis.
Epic fail.
Would you even need to ask Ennis to get that quote? I am pretty sure you could just guess it. Lindblom is clearly sleeping on the job.
He might not have. Ennis has been ranting about it on the WPC blog for some time now.
There’s also Tim Eyman.
Maybe the Seattle Transit Blog senior staff needs to politely e-mail the “mainstream” media that they exist…
They know us.
You mean the Seattle Transit Blog is the lone candle in the darkness?:)
Is this where I point out the folly of just voting for someone b/c they have a D or an R behind their name?
Or do I need to bring up Freeway Haugen’s comments over the weekend that she won’t support Gay Marriage without a popular vote.
There’s considerable money for ferries, too. The state should just toll all the highways to make the revenues for roads.
Ferries, too, are tolled. They *could* be congestion-priced, also.
How incredibly depressing. Why can’t the state just own up to it?: “Our vision for Washington involves new lanes and more new lanes, as we tap into the inherent aesthetic pleasures of asphalt. That greenhouse gas pledge? It was a feel-good pander when climate change was hip, one for which we sincerely apologize. The Commute Trip Reduction law? Again, an administrative inconvenience for employers which we must necessarily maintain at minimum funding levels to keep progressives quiet. Dangerous social experiments in demand reduction — transit, tolling, etc– have been far too successful, and thus today we recommit ourselves to personal vehicular travel as the only prudent form of transportation in this state. Since demand for road capacity has fallen, today we take the bold step of massive highway investment in order to induce unprecedented new demand for vehicle travel. While we have already resurrected the golden age of urban bypasses with the Deep Bore Tunnel, we will boldly press on, fighting the scourge of reduced demand on SR 520 by widening it by 50%. We will carve a new freeway extension between Tacoma and Puyallup, as no one deserves the indignity of a mere four-lane arterial. Even in a post-GMA world, we will follow new residential developments whereever they lead, dutifully providing the asphalt they so desperately need.”
Gov to Writers Tank: “Go Where no man has gone before.”- Stardate 2012
… via cars.
Remember one thing about both the lady elected officials mentioned above: their careers are both over. However, remember another thing about both of them and the Highway Lobby: they understood from the get-go that political power arises from electoral legislative politics.
I like the new generation of voters very much. But based on hundreds of conversations these last several years, many of them aboard LINK trains, I’m sensing an almost universal aversion- where it isn’t outright “gag-me-with-a-spoon!” revulsion for exactly the kind of politics that are presently the prized possession of transit’s enemies.
Whatever else is wrong with 2012, this year is an opportunity to change that equation. When precinct elections start to go visibly for people with a strong transit agenda, the rest of politics will follow.
Mark Dublin
A bad plan at a bad time. Schools need to be funded first, public safety second, transit third, road maintenance fourth, and new roads fifth.
Transit overwhelming rides on roads. Bump road maintenance to third.
Agree on new roads. We have plenty.
If you don’t like sprawl per se, perhaps we could think more about “recentering”.
Seattle downtown, located on a narrow isthmus is geographically the absolute worst place to locate density. It’s restricted by water, has high hills, ageing infrastructure.
Nearby, it would be much better to move the centers of population southward towards the Oly area and beyond. Centralia would make a much better city than Seattle.
Inland Washington — Yakima, Pasco, Spokane areas — need to be developed.
I think we’ve hit an asymtote with Seattle. There just isn’t anything left to exploit that won’t hurl it into a downward spiral making it more unlivable than it already is.
I’m pretty impressed with that HSR system England is building for a mere $26 billion, 10 years, 100 miles.
Why can’t we get one of those running East-West, Seattle-Spokane and another going Seattle to Portland.
Seems like we’re just pouring too much capital into the Seattle money pit rather than sprawling into the rest of the state.
Geographical constraints, far from being an obstacle to density, are its best ally. Seattle’s hills and coasts are the only reason that we’re not even more sprawling than we already are.
John, I encourage you to consider participating in the City Builder Book Club. They’ll be reading Jane Jacobs’s “Death and Life of Great American Cities”. I think that you would really enjoy that book, and you might find it easier to understand why (among other things) the kind of mass migrations that you sometimes predict or prescribe aren’t very realistic.
Hmm, because … Spokane, Yakima, etc, are almost universally reviled and considered the butt-end-of-nowhere, whereas people kinda like Seattle? … and given that Seattle is not dense at all, there’s plenty of opportunity for increased density?
Seattle may not be much in global terms, but it’s a much nicer city than anyplace else in WA… and part of that is the interesting character provided by Seattle’s geography (as opposed to “wide and flat” like Spokane—eash to sprawl in, but very, very, boring).
Seattle also has water access. When the oil runs out we can revert to wind powered shipping if that fusion thing doesn’t work out. At least we’ll be able to exchange goods. Moving inland would totally doom us all. Besides you have to look at the cost of miss opportunity. It would be better to build out the rail system and hope electric trains take over from highways.
I have to say I’m a bit disappointed in this proposal in that so much of the money is going to “improvements to economic corridors”, which we all know is nothing but a euphemism for inducing more sprawl. And each time people vote for a tax, their willingness to vote for another tax (or do so indirectly when they elect their councilmembers) decreases, which means the chance of any of the transit funding options actually happening decreases in turn.
I’d rather see something more scaled back that focuses on transit and maintenance, plus some money for replacements of bridges that are nearing the end of their useful life, but we don’t need new highways, nor do we need widening of existing highways simply to increase car capacity.
As this proposal stands, I would be inclined to vote “no”.