This one may well take another initiative as public employee unions are too well entrenched in Washington. The law as it now stands prohibits contracting out to private business any state maintenance activity that has "traditionally" been done by state employees. For instance, contracting out for highway maintenance has led to better service at lower cost in other states. This is even obvious to the management at the State Department of Transportation which would like to try contracting out for some maintenance services but is prohibited from doing so by state law passed by our elected politicians. Republicans tried to do it this year but were stopped by majority Democrats. Even I-695 could not get them to change this law. Instead, they cut the state highway maintenance budget. An e-mail from Governor Locke described the following as "necessary cuts": cuts in pothole patching, pavement marking, litter pick-up, sign maintenance, vegetation control and roadside mowing (more Scotch Broom for your viewing enjoyment). Now, as State maintenance people will no longer be providing these services anyway, no one is going to be laid off if the state DOT advertised for bids from the private sector for painting lines on freeways, or roadside mowing. But no, this is too obvious a way to save money without cutting back service. Perhaps an initiative to require that something like 50 percent of all state maintenance services be contracted out to the private sector is the only answer if our politicians will not act on this.

-- Mark Cotter (mkia@earthlink.net), June 21, 2000

Answers

As long as you are going to do an initiative, go 100%. Let the DOT bid on jobs itself. Where it can compete (and there will be places where it can), it'll help it to get the DOT lean, mean, and entrepreneurial. Where it can't it OUGHT to go out of business and leave the field to those who can.

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

I find two threads here to be very interesting. One is basically advocating the use of private firms to take over the DOT functions, the other is the condemnation of a private firm in their estimation on building a second bridge over the Narrows. Both seem to be supported by the "Screw Transit - Build Roads" contingent.

Is there an expectation that a job done by a private firm will always cost less than if the same job were done by a public agency?

Why are these same people so concerned about the cost of the bridge? If the demographics show that more road ways are needed (in this case, another bridge), we should build it, whatever the cost? Why should we subsidize the life choices of those who choose to live out on the peninsula? If the tolls are $3, $30 or $300, it's just a user fee that they should pay out of their own pockets.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), June 21, 2000.

"Is there an expectation that a job done by a private firm will always cost less than if the same job were done by a public agency?" Since an "expectation" can be defined as the most probable outcome (as in the expectation of rolling a "one" with a fair six sided die is 1/6th), I'd say that this is a BIG affirmative here. No guarantee that the private firm will be more cost efficient, but if you're betting on the outcome, that's darn sure be the way to place the bet.

"Why are these same people so concerned about the cost of the bridge?" This is a perfectly ridiculous question. You always look at what value you are getting for your money. In this case, it's $850 million (at last count, and rising) to add one lousy HOV lane each way. That's terrible value, regardless of the need for additional capacity.

"If the demographics show that more road ways are needed (in this case, another bridge), we should build it, whatever the cost?" No. We should then build it for a cost that is reasonable relative to the value that is added by building it.

"Why should we subsidize the life choices of those who choose to live out on the peninsula? If the tolls are $3, $30 or $300, it's just a user fee that they should pay out of their own pockets." But we should also not penalize them by being poor stewards of their dollars when we impose upon them a near monopoly situation either. But assuming that we really did get optimum value here, I don't think we should be subsidizing them to live out on the peninsula either. Of course, the principle way we do this currently is the massive subsidy of the ferry fares. If the bridge is to be tolled at 100% of cost (and it is a part of the state highway system) then the ferry fares on the Kingston, Bainbridge, Bremerton, and Southworth runs must be raised to totally cover both operating and capital costs also. The alternative is that $8 (or $80 or $800) bridge tolls will transfer a relatively large percentage of current bridge traffic to the ferries. This is more than just an issue of equity between ferry users and non-ferry users. If the net effect of the public-private partnership is to INCREASE costs (through ferry costs), it's a pretty poor deal for the state. Similarly, if the state allows the potential users of the bridge to avoid using it through diversion to the ferries, it's a pretty poor deal for the bridge builder, since it decreases the prospects for timely repayment of the building costs. That means higher bridge tolls which (depending on the elasticity of demand) may even DECREASE bridge revenue.

Adding further complexity is that the toll will only be collected one way, posing the potential that ferries would have to be increased ONLY for people getting off the peninsula, and would be virtually empty (although burning just as much fuel and requiring just as many crew) on the return trips.

You better believe the cost is important. If this gets fouled up too bad, the bridge never will be paid off by tolls, and ultimately the state will have to pay off the bonds regardless.

"Questioning" displays an enormous naivete when it comes to the basics of running a business.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 22, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "You better believe the cost is important. If this gets fouled up too bad, the bridge never will be paid off by tolls, and ultimately the state will have to pay off the bonds regardless."

Sorry, Craig, you are incorrect. The state bears no responsibility for the bonds, thus, we, as citizens are afforded no protection or oversight.

The bonds will be issued by a "non-profit entity". The entity will have no accountability to the citizens or the government. Ultimately, the bondholders can go to court to coerce the non-profit entity, if necessary. However, the citizens have no such option.

The bondholders will remain the de-facto owners (of what is essentially a monopoly, even though the Washington State constitution expressly forbids the state from granting a monopoly to a non-governmental agency) until the bonds are paid off.

The bondholders have a right to a certain stream of income, so the tolls will reflect various factors including the amount of money borrowed, the interest rate at which the money was borrowed, the average daily volume of vehicles, and the cost of maintenance of [possibly] BOTH bridges.

It is interesting to note that, conceivably, BOTH the old and the new bridge will have their maintenance covered by tolls, even though the rest of the citizens in Washington reveive maintenance of their bridges without having to pay a toll.

The current expectation is that the toll will level out at $6. But I suspect it will be higher, because people will be under the delusion that they can beat the system if they carpool with a buddy. Again, that must make you very happy, indeed.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 22, 2000.