Potholes forever: the state's transportation-funding impasse
The gubernatorial candidates are cautious, with McKenna favoring an early ballot measure and Inslee balancing competing constituencies.
Washington State Department of Transportation/Flickr
The state of Washington has a big and unresolved problem: a transportation budget deficit of large proportions. A task force appointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire in 2011 estimated that the backlog is at least $50 billion, but that the most important needs could be met with the expenditure of $21 billion over 10 years. New revenue sources would be required, and the task force provides a number of possibilities. Advocates hoped a hefty measure could be placed before state voters this year, when the presidential race assured a good turnout, particularly of Democratic voters.
The governor pared that sum to $3.6 billion when she asked the legislature to adopt a fee on oil refined in the state. But the 2012 legislature did not agree to the fee and was only able to make a relatively small down payment of about $90 million per biennium through a package of fees on motorists. New license plates which were free now cost $10. Owners of electric vehicles must pay an annual $100 fee.
The politics so far have only produced impasse. Republicans oppose tax increases while Democrats are split over whether to fund roads or transit more. None wanted a big tax issue this year, while running for reelection.
Both of the leading candidates for governor have been queried on the issue.
Republican candidate Rob McKenna has declined to say what specific revenues should be tapped, but that it should be a mix of l taxes and fees. He did say that tolls would be needed to fund some projects. McKenna, in the first gubernatorial debate, indicated that a tax measure should be placed on a future state ballot soon, either in 2013 or 2014.
Democratic candidate Jay Inslee, who is caught between the demand for jobs the projects would produce and environmentalists skeptical of highways, has taken a more cautious approach. He has not yet stated a position on the short-term need for more revenue for transportation but has indicated that at some future date the state will have to find a way to finance transportation “mega projects.” In the debate he said that establishing trust with the voters by better management of current funds is a prerequisite to a ballot measure.
Since then, Inslee has posted an expansive and detailed position paper on transportation priorities. In it he equates transportation investments with job growth and economic competitiveness. To secure his green flank, Inslee also emphasizes expanding light rail in the Seattle metro area, a position that contrasts with McKenna’s early opposition to the Link system. McKenna now yields to the voters' wish to expand Sound Transit to the Eastside, but favors an expansion of bus rapid transit over rail in the future.
Finding revenue for transportation will be a major preoccupation for the new governor and legislature over the next several budget cycles. The needs identified by the task force run the gamut: highways, local roads, bridges, transit, ferries, and environmental impact (storm water) mitigation. Both new facilities and repairs to existing facilities will be required as population, employment, and freight volume increase. For example, large expenditures have been programmed for concrete panel replacement in the heavily traveled Puget Sound I-5 corridor. Our major roadway is wearing out. One has to drive with precision to dodge the cracks and holes in the freeway pavement.
The state has essentially run out of money for repairs beyond basic maintenance of the system. The legislature substantially increased the gas tax, the major transportation revenue source, in 2003 and 2005. The 2003 “Nickel” package funded 160 projects across the state, and the 2005 “Transportation Partnership” package funded another 261 projects with a 9.5 cent increase phased in over four years. Both were bond measures with the taxes dedicated to bond redemption and interest payments.
Although those gas tax increases will remain in effect when the bonds are paid, the gas tax has not kept up with deferred and growing needs. Now 37.5 cents per gallon, the tax is not indexed to inflation. The recession, which has produced less driving, and the increasing shift to vehicles with greater fuel efficiency have already reduced expected revenues. The governor’s task force estimated that the state will realize $5 billion less than previously predicted from 2007 to 2023.
Another large revenue hit occurred in 2000 when the legislature, responding to a Tim Eyman initiative, eliminated the statewide Motor Vehicle Excise Tax and replaced it with a $30 license fee.
Federal funding is a wild card. A divided Congress has been unable to agree on renewal of the highway and transit funding bill which provides significant revenues to state and local governments. Of the current biennial $8 billion state transportation budget (operating and capital), 22 percent is federally funded. Of that almost 80 percent is dedicated to highway preservation.
Federal monies fund local transportation projects, often through regional planning organizations. The Puget Sound Regional Council will be distributing approximately $440 million of 2013-2014 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) funds to county and city governments and transit agencies.
Federal gas tax revenues are experiencing the same impact as the states, due to the recession and increased fuel efficiency. A recent report by the Congressional Budget Office indicates that increased fuel efficiency imposed by new vehicle fuel efficiency (CAFÉ) standards scheduled to go into effect in 2017 will reduce federal gas tax revenues by $57 billion through 2025.
Better get used to dodging potholes!
Like what you just read? Support high quality local journalism. Become a member of Crosscut today!
Twitter
Facebook
RSS Feeds
Comments:
Posted Mon, Jun 18, 9:17 a.m. Inappropriate
Inslee's transportation position paper "Transportation and Transit Investments: Critical to Building a Working Washington & Safer, More Mobile & Connected Communities" - a typically verbose title for an insubstantial work - I found a discrepency in his claim "Washington has led the way in installing charging stations along I-5."
According to WWW.cleancities.energy.gov pamphlet, Oregon plans 14 stations along I-5 to Washington's 8. Statewide, Oregon plans 60 stations to Washington's 39. Washington's stations are mostly in the Puget Sound area, 25. Oregon plans 6 stations between Portland and the coast on 4 routes leading to Astoria, Seaside, Tillamook & Lincoln City. Coastal Hwy 101 has 7 stations between Astoria and Florence. Travelling east from Portland, 4 stations are planned leading to Mt Hood & Hood River. In other words, Oregon is leading and Warshington is following at a slow pace.
I figure charging station infrastructure is needed more for plug-in hybrids than all-battery EVs.
Posted Mon, Jun 18, 10:44 a.m. Inappropriate
The problem in our area is mostly the immense amount of tax revenue which has been, and continues to be, wasted on Sound Transit's stupidly expensive trains.
Central LInk, for example, cost about $2.6 billion. That is enough to completely rebuild I-5 through Seattle with enough money left over to create superior, SWIFT-style BRT bus service on all the routes the Central Link serves (downtown to the airport, for example). I-5 between the north and south borders of Seattle averages around one billion "boardings" per week day. Central Link averages around 25,000 boardings per week day.
So, for the same money we could have rebuilt the most important highway in our state, which some 1 million people use each workday, instead of building one little light rail line which is used by about 1/40th as many people per weekday as use I-5 between the Seattle City limits.
This is the insanity of Sound Transit. They are wasting gigantic amounts of tax revenues on projects which serve almost nobody, and take revenue from highway projects which serve up to 40 times as many people as Link lite trains.
Stop wasting money on stupidly expensive transit. Use that tax revenue to maintain and improve our highways and roads which are critical to our area's economy, while Link lite trains will never be anything other than a stupidly expensive frill serving a tiny percentage of all trips and carrying no freight, whatsoever.
Posted Mon, Jun 18, 11:03 a.m. Inappropriate
You point to the staggeringly-high capital costs of what Sound Transit does, Lincoln. That's not even the real problem. The real problem is that tax revenues are used as security for the long term bonds. NO PLACE ELSE secures bonds for transit via pledges to collect new local regressive taxes at or near the maximum rates while those bonds remain outstanding. The reason is simple: FAR too much taxing takes place when financing plans are structured that way.
Get this: 1) there are no taxpayer-protection safeguards in the state and local enabling legislation that could limit how much the unaccountable political appointees controlling that board can tax and spend, and 2) the new tax costs to the public over the next 40+ years JUST to secure the bonds that would be sold to cover most of the ~$13.5 billion of ST2 capital costs could well reach $85 billion.
The tax cost to the individuals and families here of scores of billions of dollars can be compared to the new regressive taxing required for more more light rail in the three counties around Portland: $0. TriMet uses a reasonable financing plan; Sound Transit's financing plan is abusive, any way you look at it.
Your point is valid enough Lincoln. The ridership levels (now and projected) don't justify the public costs of this train buildout. The capital costs to which you refer are just the tip of the financial debacle though. You don't go nearly far enough in criticizing the brutal taxing policies that board set in place. There is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the punishing financing plan now being implemented by Sound Transit's unaccountable board.
Posted Mon, Jun 18, 12:17 p.m. Inappropriate
What is tragic is that there was a time when transportation funding was not a partisan issue. R's and D's worked together, drew up a list of projects and priorities, and took a bipartisan vote on revenue needed to get it done. Everyone took the hard vote together. Not so anymore and we are the worse for it.
Posted Mon, Jun 18, 2:08 p.m. Inappropriate
Fixing I-5 through town has long been a part of the discussion, though Wsdot honchos refuse to admit being wrong about every stupid idea they dream up and waste time, effort and money dickering around with. There is a plan to add a northbound(?)lane that was included in the ST5(streets/transit/I-5) proposal. I figure a southbound lane is likewise possible and desirable on the basis of freeway access there as a driving hazard. Access should not be located on steep streets.
As for Link LRT being poorly financed, no doubt, but light rail is still an accepted mode of transit with the most potential. Having Link LRT fail or perform below acceptable standards is another way of stopping light rail altogether. Joni Earl is no more a supporter of sensible transit planning than is Grace Crunican or Chris Gregoire. I can't wait to see how Ms Crunican screws up the BART system all to hell.
Posted Mon, Jun 18, 4:28 p.m. Inappropriate
Financing the projects in the Nickel and TPA through bonds was a nearsighted approach we can only hope will not be repeated.
Likewise, the legislature's decision to ignore the disparity in vehicle tab rates prior to I-695, then fail to deal with the reduced revenue in either the Nickel or TPA is simply sad.
It's not like you couldn't forecast this, or the rancor as the situation gets worse.
Posted Mon, Jul 2, 11:41 a.m. Inappropriate
Still time to save the viaduct. But when the big part comes down, it will be too late. The chimps will have stolen the cheese and taken your mobility away. It's not like you couldn't see this coming.
Guess we can all still skate down to the Sculpture Park for a visit.
Login or register to add your voice to the conversation.