Another article essentially saying we don't pay enough in taxes to a group that has mismanaged what has already been sent to them. Thanks.

Perhaps a critical analysis of the system we already have and how we can improve it with the resources we actually have. An examination of how we build those roads and focus on increase throughput, congestion relief and capacity increase. The extra costs and mandates built into the processes should be reviewed, SEPA and EIS Reviews, Prevailing Wage vs. Standard Union Scale, Contracting practices all need to be looked at.

The biggest obstacle to funding education in the Legislature are the public employee unions (including teacher unions)and their leaders incessant demand for more pay for their employees which translates to more money for the union bosses to buy more politicians.

Let's be clear- this is not an article, this is an opinion piece. And its author is confused, ignorant or deliberately twisting the truth.

While I might agree that the legislature could require new accountability measures from WSDOT, the capital highway Nd bridge projects are in no way adding to the state's general fund budget woes. Our Nickel and nine cent taxes passed in the last decade are nearly fully bonded. And WSDOTs on time and on budget performance is very good by just a bout any standard.

In addition to straightening out our fiscal mess, we need to take the microphone away from people like Roger Valdez. He and his non-profit advocacy brethren have been allowed a disproportionate voice in our community discussions. We need to reform section 501(c)(3) of the tax code so that Roger and his ilk have less time to sit around and think up what's good for the rest of us.

I'm a homeowner. When I assess the needs of our house and property, I first look at the necessary maintenance of what we already have to reasonably optimize its performance. Only after that do I even consider the addition of further improvements.

The state and local governments should do the same, look at the existing infrastructure with a commitment to reasonably optimizing (maintaining) what we already have, bridges, street surfaces etc. before adding to the asset base.

And, Brad, I believe that of your three choices, Roger is "deliberately twisting the truth". Here is a video of him advocating for raising the State's debt ceiling to fund "green" retrofits of school buildings. Looks like he was "deliberately twisting the truth" here, too.

http://www.tvw.org/media/mediaplayer.cfm?evid=2010090081&TYPE;=V&CFID;=790675&CFTOKEN;=56977002&bhcp;=1

I'd agree with Roger on his assertion that new (or replacement) road construction should be cut because it is expensive and its the long term return on investment is questionable. Note that, unlike Valdez's claim that roads don't pay for themselves because (essentially) they're not tolled, roads can be beneficial, but only if the societal and economic benefits over the projected life time of the project minus the cost (including debt) of the project is positive. Additionally it is ideal if it is very positive because there is a limit to the amount of government investments that can be made at any given time and especially now. Roads shouldn't be invested in because, for a variety of reasons not limited to environmental issues, sprawl issues, suburban quality of life, and the rise of telecommuting, the usefulness of new roads will likely continue to diminish.

With that being said, as commenters have pointed out, investing in sustainable projects may also be a questionable investment. Indeed, I would argue that many sustainable urban reform requires, not government investments per se, but rather appropriate zoning and sprawl control laws that deal with many of the real problems with growth. Supplementing that would have to be smart transit (low budget (not rail) additions and maintenance of current systems) and potentially investments in public broadband and technology (computer and internet) access. This sort of low investment strategy would eliminate much of the risk of investment in public transportation infrastructure (including roads), leaving more funds to deal with debt (an investment of sorts) or investments that are known to have positive or highly positive returns, such as education.

It’s important to think clearly about public debt. State and local government debt itself is neither good nor bad. It may be excessive or even unnecessary. But the question of how public projects are funded needs to be distinguished from the question of what should be built.

Obviously public borrowing should be minimized to reduce interest and handling charges so the money can be spent on public goods or not spent at all. Some large projects require borrowing because of upfront cash demands that are paid back with a dedicated revenue stream such as tolls or fees. The 520 bridge is an example, as is the 99 tunnel. The Metro sewer line is another. Ditto Sound Transit’s various capital projects.

But too often governments borrow to fund numerous smaller projects that have no dedicated tax or fee funding source. In these cases a pay-as-we-go approach would be preferable using general fund revenues. But this requires careful budgeting over several budget cycles.

The State’s current bond debt problem could have been ameliorated somewhat if there had been more discipline and foresight in years past. But it’s hard to assign responsibility with 20-20 hindsight. Who should have been sufficiently clairvoyant to predict the huge hit on state revenues that the recession brought that now makes it difficult to avoid gutting essential programs when bond debt (principal and interest) must be paid first?

"To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

Let's hope this battle comes to Washington State. Rep. Lynn Kessler admitted to me in 2008 that the teachers union was out of control.

Thanks to Dick Nelson for providing a voice of sanity to this discussion. Note to Brewster: When bylined commentary on Crosscut is so bizarre that I find myself in agreement with the usual right-wing critics, maybe it's time that Crosscut stop giving its author a forum, and thereby damaging this site's credibility.

Amen, Ivan. Second and broaden to include the one-note squeak of Mark Trahant.

"borrowing for unfunded highways" that's the real problem this article attempts to address. Besides tolls we could enact higher licensing fees on all vehicles that use those roads, ie MVET taxes.

And yes the author confuses the issue of what gets built with how it's paid for. I tend to agree that we are building some large projects with limited economic payback, ie the Downtown tunnel. On the other hand the 520 bridge has a clear economic value. We'll soon see if people are willing to pay to use it. (I'm guessing that they will shift to the "free" I-90 whenever possible and that the projected revenue will be lower than expected leading to tolling on I-90.)

I'm also all for fixing the 501(c)'s. It's not just Rodger, but the Koch brothers who have abused these.

Dick Nelson asserts several incorrect points above when he references the Sound Transit bond selling. When he says this - "Ditto Sound Transit’s various capital projects." - he is incorrectly positing that Sound Transit's financing practices are comparable to how several other capital project sponsors use "tolls or fees" to cover debt costs.

Sound Transit's financing practices are entirely different than the other examples he cites. Those other bonds are financed by user fees. Sound Transit imposes general taxes. More importantly, Sound Transit has plans to sell $8 billion in long term bonds, soon. It will secure those by pledging to confiscate $85 billion in regressive taxes, through 2052 or so. Disagree with those figures, Dick Nelson (or anyone else)?

That's a uniquely abusive use of taxing powers. The unaccountable political appointees running Sound Transit took new regressive general tax streams and pledged to collect them at or near the maximum rates while any of ST's bonds remain outstanding, merely as security for bondholders. Nobody else uses general tax streams that way - ST has pledged to collect billions of dollars more tax revenue than it needs. That's a financing plan designed to financially punish people here with the least to a disproportionate degree.

Another point, this one relating to Freiboth's comment in the story about state tax rates being lower than in the 1950's. That is misleading. The state legislature has been giving local governments lots of additional taxing powers, and as a result the combined state and local tax burden on individuals and families around here has grown by a large amount over the past several decades.

Deep Bore Tunnel supporters expect its trickle-down economics will produce some profit for them. Using state resources to create sustainable communities isn't as appealling as their sense of I-got-mine greed.
United we would stand, but that's social engineering. Better to fall divided in a fight over chump change.

The cost for design & engineering the CRC (Columbia River Crossing) I-5 Bridge project has reached $190 million and the fabulous design on the table for two years has recently been rejected. The DBT design engineering is worse than the CRC, yet the talk is still centered around its cost.
It would be too expensive to save the world from our recklessly destructive industrialization.

Dick,
Lack of 20-20 hindsight is one thing. Refusing to learn from the consequences, quite another.

crossrip,
ST (and PSRC) political appointees ARE accountable. They are hired by and accountable to those we elect and allow to appoint themselves as executive board. Probably, the real source of the problem is that "citizens" are off twitting and worse with little time or interest in taking apart lines that sound plausible but are not.

Long live Crosscut. Let in all the party liners. The worst of them can inspire the greatest shared learning.

@ afreeman writes:

"crossrip,
ST (and PSRC) political appointees ARE accountable. They are hired by and accountable to those we elect and allow to appoint themselves as executive board."

First, the PSRC doesn't have taxing power, so whether or not it is directly accountable to people is not relevant to this discussion.

Second, the boardmembers of Sound Transit are not directly accountable to the population they are taxing. That's the problem. 15 of the 18 seats are filled by political appointees that NOBODY elected to serve on that government's board. Those 15 appointees wield unlimited taxing and spending powers, over 2.7 million people who never will be able to control any of the policies of that municipal corporation.

You say "[ST boardmembers are] accountable to those we elect and allow to appoint themselves as executive board." That makes no sense. For starters, those 15 appointees who wield complete control over ST's policies - including its taxing, spending and bond selling policies - do not "appoint themselves" to that taxing district's board.

People only can vote 1 of the 18 ST boardmembers off that board - their county executive. Similarly, people only can vote 1 person onto that board (when they vote for a county executive).

I have no idea what you are thinking when you claim the political appointees controlling ST's board are accountable, but you can't mean they are accountable to voters as are all the legislators of all other cities, counties, and states in this country. ST was set up that way, and it was a lousy experiment in governance that already has proven itself a manifest failure.

This article’s subhead is terribly misleading and continues to obscure the facts about our pending mega-projects. The term “highways” assumes that these are transportation projects with primary goals to effectively move traffic (private and commercial) from one place to another. They are not supposed to intentionally create congestion, reduce capacities or damage the traffic matrix of the area, or contain enormously expensive add-ons, or amenities for a few special interests. Both the I-520 Bridge termination in Montlake and the tunnel/park plan for the Alaskan Way Viaduct both fail this test. Between them they contain at least 5 billion dollars worth of non-transportation related elements that are to be born by tax payers.

I believe that both of these projects are still unacceptable to voters who deserve an honest opportunity to vote on them.

Still time to do the right thing.

What's happening in Wisconsin has nothing to do with highway construction. It's about maintaining the "right" to receive hefty pensions, perpetual wage increases, and to be protected from being fired except under the most egregious circumstances. I stand with the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and elsewhere who have lived under repressive regimes for decades over Wisconsin's state employees anyday.

Sorry, Adam, that's bogus. Nobody is claiming that pensions, wage increases, and job protections in labor agreements are "rights." They are benefits and provisions that have been BARGAINED, and what is bargained today may be bargained away tomorrow if tomorrow is a period of fiscal crisis.

For evidence of that, look no farther than King County, where County Executive Constantine sat down and BARGAINED WITH County employees, who took a hit for the greater good, because they were equals at the table, and because they were treated like the stakeholders in county government that they are.

Contrast that with the actions of this little pissant reactionary in Wisconsin who intends to remove the ability of state AND MUNICIPAL employees even to sit down and bargain. Are you telling me that's somehow admirable, much less necessary? If that's your position, please say so, so that I can consign you to the same scrap heap of irrelevance where Mr. Valdez now resides.

"...what is bargained today may be bargained away tomorrow if tomorrow is a period of fiscal crisis."

Would you include our state's zero-percentage gambling compact with the tribes?

Most people, except mass transit activists, seem to see mass transit as social engineering, and the reason for that is plain. In this state, mass transit has been the handmaiden of the social engineers. It doesn't need to be that way, but whenever politicians start talking about transit, they also start talking about "moving people closer to transit centers" as if they were planning to ghettoize social undesirables.

Road building, however, is a core function of government, and has been so since before the Roman Empire. One of the things that people form governments to do, besides defend them from aggression, educate their children and deliver the mail, is to construct roads. The fact that the condition of this state's roads and highways was allowed to deteriorate for decades, while the government in Olympia became more bloated and more intrusive, is hardly a reason say that critical maintenance should now be abandoned. If maintaining adequate roads is too expensive for the state, it's only an indication that the state is spending too much on programs that are, by definition, a lower priority.

Have been out dodging Seattle potholes—more appearing every day.

crossrip,
No argument here, I totally agree that both of the pass-through elective executive boards are huge mistakes. PSRC is another story for another day, but is far more potent than the Seattle King County Board of Health and sundry other "coordinating" efforts. At the potent scale, pass-through elections make "coordination" suspect and for good reason. Surely we can do better than the sandbox government of the gushing Community Council boardmember thanking fellow boardmembers for access to a sought-after CAC.

That said, protesters in dictatorships have but that one recourse with even the choice of violence out of their hands. Not the case in the good old US of A regardless of the modern power of its problems industries.

dbreneman,
Any text book on government confirms you are right about a core function of government being the avenues of transport. But, you overlook that "ghettoizing social undesirables" no longer works either in cities or suburbs (not so great in prisons either).

When the fashion was outward, economics, itself, ghettoized the unfashionable in cities. The fashion now, not only reversed, but fanned by the social engineers, has also reversed the economics and locale of the ghettoizing. This gives the suburbs an entirely new row to hoe. Things not PC don't get talked about, which is most likely the reason for over-politeness in the first place. The new Victorians?

Dbreneman said, "Road building, however, is a core function of government, and has been so since before the Roman Empire." On its facade this statement is true, but it would be far more accurate to say that "building transportation infrastructure has always been a core function of government." This statement takes into account that during different eras different forms of transit were the primary focus of subsidies. It is a decidedly 20th century phenomena that roads, as opposed to canals or railroads, are so heavily subsidized and this may not and should not be a 21st century phenomena.

I agree that all roads should be adequately maintained. However, maintained is not the same as rebuilt. When a structure like the viaduct reaches the end of its lifespan than the assessment isn't "how can we get the most out of our current infrastructure?" (maintenance) but rather "is the cost of rebuilding this infrastructure worth the benefits?" Considering many of the reasons I mentioned before and the simple fact that we can't build our way out of congestion.

520 is a different story and that freeway should be rebuilt because it is fairly easy to argue that building a replacement freeway will result high societal returns on the investment. A few critical freeways can be beneficial but building a ton of freeways isn't worth the cost.

I also would like to modify my previous statement "investing in sustainable projects may also be a questionable investment." Instead of "sustainable projects" I should have said, "mass transit, new urbanist, or other public works projects of the type that Roger Valdez would be prone to support." Sustainability is very important, but I question if the methods mentioned in the previous sentence (or much of any public investment) is the best way to address that problem. Like I said before a better way to deal with sustainability, transit, and land use would be laws, regulations, and minimalist transit investments (as opposed to light rail) that don't break the budget and leave more money for more essential government services like education.

Also, no, I don't think that state debt will bring paralyzing protests our way.

Says dbreneman, "Road building is a core function of government since before the Roman Empire. People form governments to construct roads. If maintaining roads is too expensive for the state, it's an indication that the state is spending too much on programs that are a lower priority."

Wow. What a load of bs.

Our goverments assume the authority for street and highway "design" (more than construction) because transportation systems which include mass transit, pedestrian and bicycling infrastructure, serve diverse interests groups which have a say over their design.

That said, the Washington State Department of "Transportation" abuses its authority by planning highways alone, no matter what deleterious affect highway design has on other modes of "transportation" and which interest group suffers as a result of their dictatorial control over design.

Washdot plans only highways, serves only motorists, and takes steps to make other modes of travel impossible and unsafe. In 2000, when the Link LRT project went over-budget, Washdot swooped in demanding $100's of billions for highway projects, abusing their authorized responsibility to design transportation systems.

The deep bore tunnel is a criminal abuse because Wsdot knows the project is an insanely poor design that exceeds their standard for highway robbery.

No other proposed configuration (design) for Alaskan Way matches the existing viaduct in any transportation related category. The rights of ways already exist. The configuration already can handle 110,000 vehicles a day. It already provides a bypass for downtown and off ramps for the core, Ballard and West Seattle. It already meets the demands for commercial vehicles. It can incorporate modern seismic protections and other enhancements for noise abatement, bikes, pedestrians and aesthetics. It acknowledges the fact that rubber-tired, multi-passenger vehicles are still the choice of over 90% of us. And it's billions of dollars cheaper than this present mistake in the making because we are doing it to CREATE A PARK. I think that since there is no other option that approaches the benefits currently provided by the viaduct the answer would be to refurbish or replace it. To do anything less is to CREATE congestion.

As for 520, we certainly do all want/need it but can certainly replace it without the extra 2-3 billion dollars to please a few persnickity Montlake homeowners who wish to put its approach into a expensive tunnel.

WHY SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY..?

These are two examples of what is wrong with the country.

What jmrolls just wrote.

Is it possible to have a discussion in which the word "sustainable" is not thrown in? Apparently not, so maybe the definition should be printed everyone once in a while (like now, for instance) so it doesn't just float by the eyes without having any impact. Kind of like "paradigm" did for about a decade, and "zeitgeist" did after that.

What jmrolls just wrote (about the AWV) is false and/or misleading.

The 6-lane 'stacked' cut/cover tunnel (depicted in the DEIS) matches the AWV in every way except that it does not replace the Columbia/Seneca ramp access to 1st Ave. These ramps should not be replaced because 1st Ave has too much traffic, and, the traffic on 'dangerously steep' sidestreets leading to these ramps should be discouraged. The cut/cover also improves the Western/Elliott ramp access and removes the overhead through Lower Belltown unlike a rebuilt AWV. Most motorists have "no choice" but to drive. Rebuilding the AWV or building another would still be terribly expensive and negates the increased value the waterfront would gain sans AWV. WsDOT rigged their studies to make the cut/cover tunnel appear worse than it would in reality be to construct.

The fact is, sarah90, that sustainability is the zeitgeist of our current social paradigm. It's a form of synergy through teaming, don'tcha know.

Wells, if you spent an hour watching the viaduct at rush hour you would understand that what I stated about it is and has been correct for over 50years. And it’s not a drawing or a video…it does it for real every day. The “1st Ave. traffic” and “dangerously steep side streets” and ramps that you believe should be discouraged are also part of the configuration downtown and they have also been successfully serving commuters for over 50 years.

These deficiencies that you routinely serve up about the viaduct are opinions. But so far, not even the projections or opinions about the capacities, access and specific features of other plans (particularly the current tunnel option) approach the viaduct. You always say your cut and cover plan matches the AWV and then qualify it with a list of things where you come up short. Which is it? And as one of the most economical solutions, I disagree that it’s even “terribly expensive.”

Restore the viaduct. Let’s vote on it.

jmrolls, the AWV cannot be strengthened and retained. It can be replaced, but that would indeed be expensive and more disruptive to construct than the cut/cover plus it loses tremendous economic gains and the spectacular amenity of the waterfront and Lower Belltown sans AWV.

You shouldn't deny that the 'stacked' 6-lane cut/cover tunnel obviously matches AWV capacity and improves access at Western/Elliott. And as I've stated, the Columbia/Seneca ramps create hazardous traffic patterns on steep sidestreets and on 1st Ave which would function better as a transit and pedestrian-oriented street. By design, losing the Columbia/Seneca ramps would improve access via transit.

Downtown Seattle's dangerously steep east/west streets require extensive transit upgrades. Pedestrians gain access east/west. Motorists could more conveniently park at any downtown garage and complete their trips via transit which should be fareless or otherwise completely subsidized. Parking too could be subsidized but should one way or another be less expensive than curbside parking. I appreciate your opposition to the bored tunnel, but its insane engineering, rather than its cost, should be the main reason for opposing it. Add the takedown of corrupt WsDOT good ol boys as another main reason to oppose the bored tunnel.

There were two plans for a retrofit and/or replacement along with longevity estimates and costs. Victor Gray had a proposal as well. All were shoved aside when the Almighty told the Discovery Institute that there was a new tunnel-machine in town. That's when the pro-tunnel PR spin-cycle fired up and sucked the project into the back room out of sight of the voters. So, for the record, the viaduct can be strengthened and retained and it would cost less than a tunnel.

All I can say about the rest of your assessment is that until you get it worked out, you can take comfort in the fact that the Ol' Alaskan Way Viaduct will be down there on the job keeping that traffic flowing.

My assessment is fair and straightforward, rolls. Take off your blinders. The AWV has deteriorated beyond a retrofit. There is no fix for it nor is it worth keeping. It's been an embarrassment to the engineering community and most seattlers from the start. The bored tunnel is even more an example of extremely poor engineering. The surface/transit option however will suffice for now, creates needed transit upgrades, does some fixes for I-5 and doesn't rule out the cut/cover tunnel eventually or in conjunction with rebuilding the seawall. The goddamn automobile infestation is a F'n menace. Let chickenshit seattlers suffer through the challenge of dealing with traffic instead of catering to the mindless motorist malaise.

Oops, looks like Sirkulat's CRAZY is showing.

Looks like bubbleator enjoys being a chickenshit with an ignorance is bliss attitude.

Crazy.

Bubbleator's mother wears combat boots.

How many trillions do the lefties want for their choo-choos?

As Licata said today, with a little appropriate acerbity, the only money to do anything with the Viaduct is State money, and the State will provide that money only for the DBT. You can all argue about the surface blahblahblahblah but unless you put up the money yourselves, the tunnel will be started. It may not be finished because I think we'll have a quake first, in which case the whole discussion which has been obsessing everyone for years will be moot.

Moodys says the US is about 2 years from a debt rating downgrade. Common sense says we should pay the lowest interest rate by instituting policies that protect our debt rating.

Forget those of both parties who want to borrow more, they're only passing the buck to our children. We need leaders who REDUCE our debt.

42% of what the US government spends is borrowed. It should be zero.

Ticker:
New poll shows most Americans are not buying Republican sermons on deficits
SLATE:
Says one analyst: "Out in real America, people want to tax the rich, cut stupid weapons programs, and stop subsidizing prosperous oil companies. They don't want to cut Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, or education."

Wishful thinkers, all, if what is claimed is true. Except for the "or education" part. Because if those urging prudence forget the role of life-long learning in economic health and the public's role in coming to public judgment, we are in for a very rough stretch of road.