This from Andrew at the NPI:
An under-the-radar bill that would profoundly alter Sound Transit and other municipal agencies currently tasked with planning, building, and operating transportation systems throughout Puget Sound is quickly moving through the state Senate[.]
SSB 5803 originates from an idea proposed years ago by the Discovery Institute, anti-transit ideologues, and conservative billionaire John Stanton, who was a key Dino Rossi supporter in 2004.
What SSB 5803 does is complicate and confuse the existing decision making process, which is already hard for many citizens to understand. The proposed law would stomp all over home rule and local control by essentially consolidating existing transportation agencies into one larger entity.
Basically, all of our regional transportation projects would be routed through this new mega-agency. Projects like light rail expansion or lane additions to I-405 would go through these new transportation gatekeepers. The board members would be elected from super-districts:
These new districts would be much larger than county council districts. It would be difficult, if not impossible, for candidates with grassroots campaigns to compete. But the elections would be a bonanza for big business, which would have an opportunity to try and sell handpicked loyalists to voters.
The positions would all be nonpartisan, allowing right wing ideologues to stealthily mask what they actually stand for in the hopes of getting on the commission. And once on, they wouldn’t have to worry about listening to constituents – the terms are six years, except for at the very beginning, when three commissioners would serve two year terms and another three would serve four year terms.
And with unanimous consent of the commission required for forwarding any future plans on to voters, one or two right wing, anti-transit members could refuse to sign on to any proposal not to their liking.
I don’t see this policy shift as benefiting transit. I see it as a calculated shift to balance the recent surge in transit support in the region. There’s a reason the RTID folks tied their roads package to Sound Transit 2: transit is actually more popular than roads these days.
Today the bill passed the Senate. Maybe Murray can explain why this change will benefit his district, a district that wants more transit, not less.
Hold on there, Will! The concept of adding direct accountability and consolidating decision-making in a single entity is designed to give voters (including those skeptical of voting for taxes) the confidence in the planning and funding system to vote FOR more transit and transportation funding. It’s a good idea, generally, and is pro-transit and transportation. Without more accountability and “streamlined decision-making”, the conservatives will fight the upcoming ballot measure for more funding. They’ll point to the voter-remote Sound Transit Board and its cost over-runs and one-bod projects as reasons to vote “no”. This takes an arrow out of their quiver. Ed Murray knows what he’s doing here, as usual.
Hold on there, Will! The concept of adding direct accountability and consolidating decision-making/planning under a single governing entity is designed to give voters (including those skeptical of voting for taxes) the confidence in the planning and funding system to vote FOR more transit and transportation funding. It’s a good idea, generally, and is pro-transit. Without more accountability and “streamlined decision-making”, the right-wing, no-new-tax crowd will fight the upcoming ballot measure for more funding. They’ll point to the voter-remote Sound Transit Board and its cost over-runs and one-bid projects as reasons to vote “no”. This takes an arrow out of their quiver. Ed Murray knows what he’s doing here, as usual.
This is not an anti-transit bill. Changing the ad hoc governance “structure” around here would not necessarily mean diminished transit.
This bill would allow megaprojects to be prioritized. That certainly would improve the mess we’re looking at.
Just because an agency with taxing authority can rush to the ballot with attractive artists’ renderings does not mean it should. Seattle Monorail is a great example. That crew got to rush to the ballot, and suddenly there was going to be fifty years of a Seattle-only tax that would have sucked, what $78 billion YOE dollars out of the city’s economy? It would have moved some people, but the price would have been excessive. For example, that money would be more productively spent on a rebuilt SR 520 bridge (from a state- and region-wide economic perspective).
One agency accountable to voters should be able to prioritize among megaprojects.
Because of statutory constraints planners now can not select and fund this bridge vs. that bridge vs. Sounder vs. this tunnel vs. this highway vs. that highway vs. dedicated bus lanes vs. a rebuilt viaduct vs. light rail track extensions.
Taxing and tolling rights now are a hodge-podge of legacy grants that can not be coordinated among the entities responsible for several types of transportation modes and systems that have been described by legislatures over the decades.
One entity should be accountable for taxing and bonding, to allocate the regional money. That would be a huge and needed improvement. ESPECIALLY if the agency was accountable to local voters of the region on a district election basis.
At present we have legislatively constrained transportation fiefdoms calling their own separate shots. Each tries to rush to the ballot and lock in taxes. Spending, taxing, and bonding over the entire region needs to be viewed in light of regional economic limits and needs, not just one kind of hardware vs. asphalt.
District voting would empower locally. Compare that with the Seattle City Council system – city wide elections are not used by the majority of cities because of how much less accountable to voters they are. Accountability to those who’ll be paying for the transportation system elements and upgrades needs to start happening. Good decisions about transportation planning and spending can be made by local representatives. What some appointees of County Executives (with parochial conflicts of interest) would sign off on is suspect.
To anyone following the debate in the comment section over at NPI, hallelujah to rjd. Thank you for stating my point so concisely and eloquently. Ed is the strongest advocate we’ve had for transit since Ruth Fisher. What Ed is trying to do is put in place a system that will improve the chances that the majority of voters who understand that rail transit should be prioritized over new roads will get their way. How you fall on this debate, I think, depends on your opinion of the average voter. I think the average Puget Sound voter is pro-transit and putting more power in her hands will lead to increased investments in transit, less on highway projects that do nothing but induce more sprawl.
blockquote cite=”Hold on there, Will! The concept of adding direct accountability and consolidating decision-making in a single entity is designed to give voters (including those skeptical of voting for taxes) the confidence in the planning and funding system to vote FOR more transit and transportation funding. It’s a good idea, generally, and is pro-transit and transportation. Without more accountability and “streamlined decision-making”, the conservatives will fight the upcoming ballot measure for more funding. They’ll point to the voter-remote Sound Transit Board and its cost over-runs and one-bod projects as reasons to vote “no”. This takes an arrow out of their quiver. Ed Murray knows what he’s doing here, as usual.”
This is Ed Murray’s attempt at getting back at Sound Transit for taking light rail south through the Rainier Valley before going to his district.
He is in lock step with former Dino Rossi campaign finance chair and wireless billionaire John Stanton on this. Stanton chaired a commission that recommended these “reforms.”
If you like how limited your choices are in the arena of cell service than you will love Murray and Stanton’s ideas for transportation “reform.” It is all about consolidation, less choice, power in the hands of a few, less local control. Under their plan you would have politicians from Kitsap County and beyond deciding what Seattle should do with its waterfront.
How democratic is the concept of unanimous consent? What are the chances that a commission requiring unanimous consent would ever agree on anything? That provision seems like a mandate for institutional gridlock.
Yeah, that sounds like a big “WTF?” to me.
This being Seattle, you can’t get unanimous consent on where to go to coffee without 45 minutes dicsussion of everyone’s feelings and wishes and making sure we’re all validated. Jesus, look at the Viaduct, and let’s pick FOUR pols: Nickels, Licata, Chopp, Murray. How much unanimity in THAT group?
-They’ll point to the voter-remote Sound Transit Board and its cost over-runs and one-bod projects as reasons to vote “no”. –
rjd, either way, the private sector will be building these projects. I don’t suppose you can tell us how a mega-agency putting a big project out to bid would change what happens when you get a sole bid from a contractor?
And could somebody give me an example of how injecting electoral politics into a big issue led to “streamlined decision-making?” Helloooo. Democracy is supposed to be messy and slow. You guys are contradicting your own claims.
-One agency accountable to voters should be able to prioritize among megaprojects. –
What is that supposed to mean, Oliver Fortune? Let me guess, you see this large, corporate sponsored agency “prioritizing” mega-projects according to YOUR own vision.
-Because of statutory constraints planners now can not select and fund this bridge vs. that bridge vs. Sounder vs. this tunnel vs. this highway vs. that highway vs. dedicated bus lanes vs. a rebuilt viaduct vs. light rail track extensions.
District voting would empower locally. Compare that with the Seattle City Council system-
Oliver Fortune – Ed Murray is running this bill as a way to over-ride local authority, and rid the region of local governments (like Seattle) from getting in their way. The purpose is to force regionalism (which we already have) on us, which is opposite of local empowerment. The districts are way too big for any of your fake grassroots mumbo jumbo. If you’re going to support Murray’s bill, you at least need to understand your values are fundamentally at odds with those of the bill’s proponents.
I have no problem with the goal of this bill, I just think it’s specifics are politically dumb. If you’re a Democrat.
It takes away local control of metro Seattle’s transportation planning, and hands control to the outlying suburbs. By making the district so huge, it dilutes support for rail, and will inevitably target projects to where they are most politically expedient.
But mostly, it hands control of our transportation planning over to Republicans. Why Democrats would want to cede so much power, I don’t know. But that’s what’s going to happen.
Ed hates Frank Chopp – and as a regional trans. “expert” Ed thinks he can help get a board he controls/influences and lessen Chopp’s and other pols. influence.
Remember Nickels and Sims are winners as Sound Transit progresses since they have kept it alive during its low moments. Now Ed trumps them all – all trans issues will be vested in the super agency which he creates and influences. What a spotlight – and – what a payback.
And Ed gets lots of money for his future political stuff.
Bad idea, from beginning to end.
Notice, passed under the radar…. all attention on the viaduct.
Horrible plan. Goldy you are being too nice.
How many Rs voted for it?
Goldy says:
But mostly, it hands control of our transportation planning over to Republicans. Why Democrats would want to cede so much power, I don’t know. But that’s what’s going to happen.
03/13/2007 at 12:04 am
Maybe the Republicans can do better than what the dem’s have been doing for YEARS!!!!
Goldy does make an important point. Probably the biggest flaw of the bill is the size of the district. Shrinking the district to match up with the current ST district boundary, or the urban growth boundary would greatly improve the bill.
Interestingly enough, the original bill did not contain the “unanimous” provision that appears to be a poison pill in this one.
I also note that there was a proposed amendment that would have replaced “unanimous approval” with “approval by two-thirds”, but it was pulled.
Without that “unanimous” provision, this could be workable, but it does seem to add just one more level of government into an area that already has enough fingers in the pie.
A lot of Democrats signed onto this thing. There could be some reasons I don’t see for it, as I’m inclined to give most of them the benefit of the doubt, but as written, it still seems a bad bill.
Keep in mind why Ed Murray is putting forth this bill. It is not to punish Sound Transit as some have argued. It is to fix the unmitigated mess that is RTID. RTID is the putrid legacy of Jim Horn and includes all kinds of pork barrel, sprawl inducing road projects without fully funding replacement of the 520 floating bridge.
The road lobby has forced RTID onto the November ’07 ballot with Sound Transit expansion because they know that the only chance they have to pass a big roads tax package is by riding on the popular coat tails of transit. But the tax package is too big and bloated and voters will likely reject it, delaying expansion of light rail in the process.
So what next? Unfortunately, too many legislators (and even the Governor because of her desire to address 520) are determined to prevent Sound Transit from ever being able to go to the voters by itself. In this environment, Ed Murray is trying to figure out a way to get us beyond RTID and bring some reason back into the transportation planning process.
There really has been a history of duplication of services and agencies seemingly working at cross purposes.
It kinda makes sense to me, unless all this does is add another bureaucracy.
Anti-transit Republican incumbents were shown the door last November. That trend could cross party lines in 2008. There are viable pro-transit challengers for the seats of all incumbents.
I think it would be good public policy that if the Discovery Institute advocates something, we do the opposite.
I’m on record as wishing for a 21st-century Robert Moses, someone with the political will and the large-scale vision to make regional mass transit and transportation projects actually happen. I want someone(s) with real expertise and real strength to tell us what needs to be built to make our region work, rather than to ask (and ask, and ask, …) for our colossally uninformed opinions.
The only time it should go to the public is when we’re asked whether we want to pay for the comprehensive program proposed by experts (of all stripes, from construction to urban planning to environment to finance). And the vote should be on one and only one question — do you want to pay for it?
I see this Senate bill as an attempt to move in that sort of direction, for which I applaud Murray, Kohl-Welles, et al. However, there are numerous details in the bill that must be altered. The composition of the board, the unanimity rules, and other such factors come to mind.
This particular bill can be interpreted, as Andrew and Goldy do, as an attempt to kill regional transportation. But it can also be seen as the first step toward an opportunity to craft a real, workable regional transportation authority. Something with the juice and the power and the brainpower to build solutions.
The current Senate bill is flawed, probably fatally so, but the concept it brings forward is definitely a bold step in a forward direction. Wrest the concept away from the likes of Stanton and Discovery, make it a real regional authority with expertise and, well, authority, and maybe you’ll have created that 21st-century Moses I spoke of.
This bill is counterproductive to transit. I am surprised that Bill from Washpirg is supportive. This is a continuation of Ed Murray’s bad thinking on forcing roads and transit to go to the ballot together. Sound Transit had a horrible first five years but has become one of the better government agencies around in the last five years. Now that ST is working well, we want to tear it apart and build a new mega-agency? That means another five years of storming, forming, and norming to try and learn how to work together in a new agency. We can’t afford to wait another five years.
It is simply a sound bite that this will bring reason back to the transportation planning process. The players will still be the same. Suburban road builders will have even more influence in this new mega-agency just like they do in Olympia.
So, let me get this straight…we give the state more centralized power to control transportation decisions while they continue to offload their responsibilities to fund Puget Sound projects on to the region. We create huge districts that are easy to control with big money interests and dilute Seattle’s power.
Governance is not the problem. Funding is the problem. Our state doesn’t allow gas money to be used for transit. We have a poor tax structure in this state that handcuffs the state’s ability to get things done. Ed Murray should focus on fixing that instead of fixing things that aren’t broken. The entire Sound Transit board opposes this bill. If this really helped transit in any way, that wouldn’t be the case.
“Sound Transit had a horrible first five years but has become one of the better government agencies around in the last five years.”
Nope. One of the problems everybody has with ST is how it refuses to disclose the estimate for how much it will cost to implement Phase I. The voters approved an estimated $3.9 billion project. ST’s refusal now to estimate what the implementation costs actually will be are scaring people – very important people.
I mean come on, it is ridiculous for you to say ST is one of the better governments around. It is charged with doing one thing – building out a particular system. By refusing to say what that will cost, and how much more tax will be needed, ST has set itself up to be knocked down. ST is an arrogant, secretive culture. It threatens politicians – no secret there. Point is, the legislature is reining in an out-of-control local government. End of story.
Who has said they are “scared” or “threatened” by ST? ST’s board is made up of the same “politicians” you speak of. The financing is similar to a mortgage. Your house price sounds very expensive if you look at what you pay over 30 years. What the public cares about is how much it costs each month, just like you do if you buy a car or house. If you want to question ST’s financial assumptions that is one thing, but they are hardly “out-of-control”.
John Stanton keeps interesting company. A look at his pdc reports shows he gave $25,000 to changepac. Remember them? see below
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s Joel Connelly wrote September 11, 2006, that in Washington state “an outfit called” CHANGEPAC—”which is listed as a sponsor of personal attack ads running against Washington State Supreme Court Chief Justice Gerry Alexander and touting his challenger, John Groen”—”reported a huge $400,000 donation from the Building Industry Association of Washington.” The “$400,000 check did not travel far”, Connelly wrote, as the “BIAW and ChangePac can be found at the same Olympia post office box.”
Interesting that the only Democrat to recieve money from John Staton in an Edward Murray.
MURRAY EDWARD B 09/05/2006 $700.00
MURRAY EDWARD B 09/05/2006 $700.00
Couldn’t be the same Edward B Murray could it?
Murray is in good company though:
ESSER LUKE E 06/30/2006 $675.00
WA ST REPUB PARTY NON EXEMPT 10/04/2004 $150,000.00
CHANGEPAC 06/18/2006 $25,000.00
ROSSI DINO J 10/24/2003 $1,250.00
There’s a difference between what Ed Murray is trying to do with this mega bill and what the bill actually does. Even Bill LaBorde notes that the bill is seriously flawed.
There’s just no compelling reason for the bill to be enacted this year. The only sound public policy and political decision to make this year is to proceed with the vote this fall and to focus on making that package work for over 50 percent of voters.
And if that doesn’t work, Sound Transit should be able to go to the ballot next fall without RTID. The new 520 bridge isn’t nearly resolved yet, and won’t be. It is a state bridge. The state should pay for it and toll it. If you put the 520 on the ballot without all of these other big road projects, it would be approved by huge numbers.
(Yup, this year’s ballot measure is flawed. But it represents an enormously important investment in light rail. And the overall balance tips strongly to transit. And before we give the highway lobby more access to sales taxes, it makes sense to secure them for transit first. The current balance is 5-1 in favor of transit. Murray’s bill treat’s them equally on the sales tax.)
For Democrats, the decision ought to be pretty simple: Why should Democratic legislators take a big tax and toll vote that could actually delay the day that something gets done in transportation? That’s a gigantic political calculation that the Governor and the legislature must make in assessing this Murray bill. No one will remember how the Republicans voted.
People are sick and tired of the politicing on transportation and this bill just means more of it, and more delay. Delay is costly to taxpayers and ultimately to Democrats, who are running the state right now. (And that’s the real political risk related to the Viaduct right now, not the fight over what to do, but the fact that nothing seems to be getting done.)
LaBorde has another problem with his defense of this bill: The Murray bill actually sets up a single purpose pork machine by electing leadership of the new Commission by districts. Their primary job will be to bring home the projects, not necessarily make the right planning decisions.
Portland’s directly elected board (Metro) has never opted to seek funding for transit. TriMet, with a board appointed by the Governor, serves a district carved within the three Metro counties makes the big transit money and project decisions in Portland. Portland metro does have a small amount of federal money to hand out, and they generally prioritize equal proportions of projects for each of the eight elected board members.
The really odd thing about Murray’s work on this bill is that it would radically reduce Seattle’s clout and its ability to get better transit systems. He railed on Sound Transit last year for making a “regional” decision when it dropped the First Hill Station. Now he’s back with a new plan that would dramatically reduce Seattle’s regional clout and give more power to suburban interests. I don’t get that. Isn’t he a Senator from Seattle?
Murray is normally more thoughtful and plays a strong hand in protecting transit. He might have a good idea in play here. But his timing is off. And the current thinking is flawed.
Transit needs Ruth Fisher right now. This would not be happening right now if Ruth were still around – not before she got that light rail connection between Seattle and Tacoma. And that’s still possible this fall.