Looks like their plan has something to please and annoy everyone. Thoughts?

Better transit will be pricey REPORT: Blue Ribbon Commission recommends long list of improvements, vote on taxes to pay for them

Joseph Turner; The News Tribune

REPORT: Blue Ribbon Commission recommends long list of improvements, vote on taxes to pay for them

There's a hefty combination of transportation tax increases on the horizon, but whether they ever take effect most likely will be decided by voters next November.

The state Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation will meet in Seattle today to finish a 21/2-year study of state and local traffic problems and present its findings to Gov. Gary Locke and the Legislature.

The commission's report will include a recommendation on how much to raise the gas tax, retail sales tax and an assortment of other fees and taxes to pay for the improvements commission members believe are needed over the next 20 years.

Legislative leaders already are promising any tax proposals will be put to a public vote, probably in November 2001.

"It has to go on the ballot," said Rep. Ruth Fisher (D-Tacoma), co-chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee. "I, personally, don't think we should have to send it to a vote. But I believe politically we're going to end up with a revenue package on the ballot."

The passage of two anti-tax measures in the past two years has created a political climate in which lawmakers feel obliged to send major tax increases to voters, even though they don't have to. Initiative 695, which abolished the state vehicle excise tax and required a public vote on new taxes, was declared unconstitutional last month by the Washington State Supreme Court.

Even so, the overwhelming support for I-695 and the ongoing anti-tax campaign waged by Mukilteo businessman Tim Eyman have made lawmakers cautious.

Eyman sponsored I-695, as well as I-722, a property tax limit that voters approved earlier this month.

"Before I become the most hated person in Washington and Tim Eyman's poster child, let me say that we can't do any of these (tax increases) until we do things in a more efficient way," commission member Skip Crowley said Tuesday.

Crowley is chairman of the subcommittee that looked at ways to pay for traffic improvements. That includes several proposals that are designed to reduce administrative expenses and cut costs for transportation projects.

The 46-member commission was unable to reach agreement Tuesday on which taxes it will recommend to Locke and the Legislature. It will be the first order of business today.

What they're looking at is an array of options that would raise an additional $11.22 billion over the next six years - more than $50 billion over 20 years - to pay for highway, ferry, bridge, transit and rail projects at the state and local level.

The combination of taxes would cost the average person at least $231 in the first year - more in subsequent years - and even more if they made major purchases.

Among the statewide options (including how much money they would generate over six years) are:

* Find 10 percent savings in state and local transportation budgets through efficiencies ($214 million).

* Shift the existing sales tax that is collected on transportation construction projects from the state general fund to the transportation fund ($510 million).

* Make owners of cars, trucks and other passenger vehicles pay an average annual fee of $40 based on the weight of their vehicles ($1.33 billion).

* Impose a surcharge on the gross weight fees already paid by tractor-trailer rigs ($150 million).

* Apply the sales tax to gasoline ($2.27 billion) or increase the gas tax by 11.5 cents a gallon ($2.24 billion) - or some combination of both.

* Levy a one-time 2 percent surcharge on the sale of all cars and trucks, as well as all transportation-related goods, such as batteries, tires, windshield wipers ($1.27 billion).

* Gradually boost ferry fares to cover 80 percent of the cost of operating ferries ($95 million). Existing fares pay for only 60 percent to 65 percent of ferry operations.

* Borrow $1.8 billion.

Among the local and regional taxes under consideration are:

* Increase the sales tax in Pierce, King, Snohomish and Kitsap counties by an additional 0.2 percent ($687 million).

* Have motorists in those same four counties pay an annual mileage tax of 2 cents a mile ($1.34 million). This "odometer" tax would cost a motorist who drives 12,000 miles a year $240.

* Levy an annual vehicle license fee of $30 in every county ($557 million). Currently, motorists in King, Pierce, Snohomish and Douglas counties pay a $15 annual fee.

* Borrow $1.5 billion.

After subtracting the amount of money that would be used to make payments on that borrowed money, state and local governments would have $11.22 billion to spend on transportation over a six-year period.

Commission members couldn't decide Tuesday whether to give the Legislature a menu of tax proposals to choose from, or to focus on a few specific ones. They also were mindful of public reaction they would get.

"If we put out this fine buffet of tax options, Thursday morning we're going to hear, 'There they go again,'" said Larry Purseley, a commission member who represents the trucking industry.

He said he was concerned about increasing the sales tax and boosting trucking fees. He also said the odometer tax would be hard to enforce.

Rep. Ed Murray (D-Seattle) urged his fellow commissioners to settle on which taxes they want to increase.

"We have to be able to take a risk and offer an alternative," he said. "We have to make some very hard and unpopular decisions."

Former Gov. Booth Gardner, another commissioner, agreed.

"The need has been pretty well defined," Gardner said. "If we come in short on the revenue, we haven't done our job."

The commission also appears to be leaning toward making the seven-member state Transportation Commission an advisory board and taking away its authority to hire and fire the state transportation secretary. Such a move would make it clear who is responsible for addressing transportation problems and who should be held accountable, said John Rindlaub, a Bank of America executive and blue-ribbon commission member. That recommendation also should be finalized today.

- - -

* Staff writer Joseph Turner covers state government and transportation. Reach him at 253-597-8436 or joe.turner@mail.tribnet.com.

- - -

* Commission's findings are on our Web site at www.tribnet.com/news/transportation.

© The News Tribune

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 29, 2000

Answers

The article covers more information on tax increases than transportation issues. It seems to me the public sell should be on the programs developed by the commision. Should the programs be a gain to the majority of users, the sell on tax increases becomes a lesser issue.

What was discussed regarding my current tax dollars for new projects?

Doug

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), November 30, 2000.

They just dont get it, do they? We vote for a flat 30$ fee on our cars and now they want to add, taxes, fees, odometer gratuities, etc, etc, etc.. Next thing they will want to tax, for you poor suckers in puget sound, is Rain. Nowhere in that proposal did I see anything about our current taxes or effe iciency,or accountability. Its just about new, creative ways to take more of what little money, they have not yet taken in taxes. That being said, as long as they put all these tax proposals up for a statewide vote, and do a concerted effort to show us their worth, I have no problem considering them for my approval. After all, next November, Eyeman will have come up with some new initiaves for us to vote on.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 30, 2000.

Take notice of the fact that the recommendation suggests Transit Agencies achieve benchmark efficiencies and demonstrate that they are not supplanting existing transportation funds as a condition for receiving new funding. They did not take the necessary step in requiring Transit to seek a higher farebox recovery, which they are suggesting for the Ferry System.

While I am in favor of the separation into regions proposal, and more than willing to consider methods to pay for improvements, I am against Transit's free ride. It is obvious that the commission avoided dealing with the low farebox recovery in this state as a whole.

In addition, proposals made to voters need to include more than "one size fits all" choice. I want to know which tax increases will be paying for specific improvements.

I will be sending my own thoughts on the commissions report to Legislators and the Governor, and I hope you will all do the same.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 30, 2000.

Well Rolex, perhaps you should read more carefully then. One of the first items on the list was * Find 10 percent savings in state and local transportation budgets through efficiencies ($214 million). The actual report's summary of recommendations almost entirely consists of ways to get more efficient use of existing funds.

Doug, the commission was formed to get the general needs and priorities of the state. NOT to come up with specific projects. The report from the Investment Strategies Committee does identify several benchmarks that the state should focus on. Doing this saves them from any regional political bickering that would surely pop up if they did decide to list specific projects.

It might be helpful for people to read the actual report http://www.brct.wa.gov/documents.html before they decide to pass final judgement and remove their "Tim Eyman is the only one that can solve our problems" glasses before they start reading.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 30, 2000.

What I see, Mr. Informed citizen, is a clever way to get the money back from the mvet tax that they have been screwing us with for years. What are they doing with the money they have already? All I know is that they want more and it is neverending. If they want more taxes from me; they can send their proposal to my newly formed commission named: "Can't get Blood from a Stone ", for its consideration. I am sure that my commission will look at their proposal fairly and without bias, before saying, "HELL NO....."

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), November 30, 2000.

It certainly won't be equitable to have a statewide vote on raising these taxes.

Citizens here must drive alot further to obtain goods and services, than folks in cities. So we will pay a much higher tax on fuel. We all know, regardless of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation to use a regional equity principal, that we will pay a larger share of taxes than what we actually receive in return, since we really don't have an enormous need for improvements.

Ahh, can you see it now? It's all part of the plan to make it much more expensive to live in rural areas. Gore won't be President, but this is his plan in action!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), November 30, 2000.

I am shocked and outraged by the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation's (BRCT) report. Ironically, I'd prefer the old license tab fee to their endless proposals to nickel and dime me to death. At least the old licesne tab fees were tax deductible, if you itemized on your federal return. Virtually all of the proposed taxes and fees are NOT tax deductible for your typical commuter.

One thing has been clear from the beginning. The people making decisions about transportation in our state do not actually commute, themselves, in the thick of the rush hour.

There is absolutley no basis for raising taxes. Not when the state has TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars of excess cash in a variety of accounts.

Accounts such as Workers' Compensation and State Employees' Pension Funds are way over-funded. Some of the BILLIONS could be used to INVEST in NEW transportation projects, which would probably have a better rate of return than light rail. And, therefore, the accounts would experience little to NO loss of capital, as the funds would be restored by frustrated motorists, more than happy to pay an ever increasing NON-COERCIVE fee to avoid congestion.

Invest part of the huge surpluses in highly cost-beneficial road projects.

To paraphrase Zowie:

"Screw light rail, Build more HOV lanes!!!"

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 01, 2000.

It looks like the commission's report confirms Mark's position. Light rail won't fix a dang thing. Look at all that wasted money.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 01, 2000.

Marsha, perhaps you can cite a source for that statement. I admit that I've only really skimmed the report, but I do remember seeing the recommendation that the rail system be brought back up to full funding, and that it receive an additional $2.7 billion over the next 20 years for expansion. I have yet to find a statement anywhere resembling your claim.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 01, 2000.

IC,

"It might be helpful for people to read the actual report http://www.brct.wa.gov/documents.html"

"I admit that I've only really skimmed the report"

Maybe you should take your own advice!

Let me see, light rail was presented to voters as the best method to reduce congestion....

Based on my reading of the report, and ALL of the recommendations included, they really don't expect it to, unless they can make work related SOV travel much more expensive, in an attempt to change the demographics.

But then, one must first attempt to understand the entire conclusion, and not pick out one or two recommendations.

I don't expect this will fly with most voters in the light rail region, who are beginning to see what a rip off light rail is and have to pay for it.

You can bet those ferry riders will revolt. As for those of us who are rural types, and drive longer distances, thereby forcing us to pay more, (even though we need less) it won't pass muster either.

Just based on the sheer numbers of tax increase proposals, this is doomed!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 01, 2000.

>>They did not take the necessary step in requiring Transit to seek a higher farebox recovery, which they are suggesting for the Ferry System. While I am in favor of the separation into regions proposal, and more than willing to consider methods to pay for improvements, I am against Transit's free ride. It is obvious that the commission avoided dealing with the low farebox recovery in this state as a whole.<<

Why is this any of the state's business? Local mass transit systems aren't operated by the state, and if those systems should collect more of their operating expenses at the fare box, it's up to those local government officials to make it happen. The state ferry system, on the other hand, is very much the state's business, as it's operated by the state. You're comparing apples and oranges.

>>Citizens here must drive alot further to obtain goods and services, than folks in cities. So we will pay a much higher tax on fuel. We all know, regardless of the Blue Ribbon Commission's recommendation to use a regional equity principal, that we will pay a larger share of taxes than what we actually receive in return, since we really don't have an enormous need for improvements.<<

You may be surprised by this, Marsha, but rural areas are subsidized by urban areas when it comes to road funding. King County sends a huge portion of tranportation related taxes that are paid in King County to the rest of the state. Chances are, if you live in a rural area, you're sucking money away from somewhere else, not the other way around. And if you include all government programs, and not just road funding, rural areas are subsidized at an even greater rate by urban areas. If you paid more in gas taxes, you'd just be making up the difference that urban areas are currently sending you to pay for your roads.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000.

>>I don't expect this will fly with most voters in the light rail region, who are beginning to see what a rip off light rail is and have to pay for it.<<

Can you please provide some information to back up this apparently uninformed opinion? The area funding ST's light rail system just had an opportunity to defund it, but in case you didn't notice, 745 lost. And lost bad. Especially in King County.

If you think light rail is a bad idea financially, you have a perfectly valid argument, albeit one that might not be universally accepted. But if you think it doesn't have public support, you don't know what you're talking about.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000.

>>If you paid more in gas taxes, you'd just be making up the difference that urban areas are currently sending you to pay for your roads. <<

BB, Isn't this just a matter of population density? Marsha might be paying more in taxes since she drives longer distances, but there aren't as many Marshas in more urbanized areas, so collectively they pay less for the amount of roads there are in her county.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 01, 2000.

"Why is this any of the state's business? Local mass transit systems aren't operated by the state, and if those systems should collect more of their operating expenses at the fare box, it's up to those local government officials to make it happen. The state ferry system, on the other hand, is very much the state's business, as it's operated by the state. You're comparing apples and oranges."

While the state does NOT operate local mass transits, those transits still derive funding from the state.

Using your theory, the state also would not have the right to demand efficiencies of transit or that they demonstrate they are not supplanting existing transportation funds as a condition for receiving new funding. Gee, a little further study on your part might have avoided that little discrepancy.

"You may be surprised by this, Marsha, but rural areas are subsidized by urban areas when it comes to road funding."

Really? Please give me your reference that my rural county is taking more than its fair share.

"Can you please provide some information to back up this apparently uninformed opinion? The area funding ST's light rail system just had an opportunity to defund it, but in case you didn't notice, 745 lost. And lost bad. Especially in King County."

I-695 passed by a good margin. I-722 passed by a good margin. If I am uninformed, your in denial. You keep telling us all in your "infirmed opinion" that the votes on these initiatives don't tell us anything about voter preference, and now you use that same tactic to try and make your case. All I derived from that STATEWIDE vote was that most people thought transit had taken enough of a hit with I-695.

As more information comes forth regarding light rail and the "misinformation" about costs, even voters in King County will revolt.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), December 01, 2000.

I can see why Locke wanted this held until after the election.

This commission is, at the 98% level, a non- starter.

This looks more like cover for not addressing the problem than any real plan. It touts obviously non-viable proposals, so that when they are turned down, Locke can say I tried but the [people didn't support it.

Time to get rid of prevailing wage and have transit and ferry riders pay for all of their operating AND capital costs.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000.

>>While the state does NOT operate local mass transits, those transits still derive funding from the state.<<

Not since 695 they don't; the state is now out of the business of directly funding local mass transit systems. And the state doesn't fund local transit, the state has no business telling them what they should or shouldn't do. That's for people in King, Pierce, Snohomish, Benton, Spokane, Thurston, or whatever other county funds the respective system to deal with. If those people want transit to recover 10, or 50, or 90, or whatever percentage of the cost at the farebox, that's fine, but it's a problem for those local communities to deal with, not the state.

>>Really? Please give me your reference that my rural county is taking more than its fair share.<<

"A study of 10 years of state transportation spending showed that King County received 86 cents for every $1 paid in transportation- related taxes. Adams County received $3.46 for every $1 in taxes paid."

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi- bin/texis/web/vortex/display? slug=case&date=19980716&query=gas+tax+county

It's similar for every other rural county in the state. King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark, and Spokane (maybe a couple others as well) counties send money out, and just about everywhere else takes it in.

>>I-695 passed by a good margin. I-722 passed by a good margin. If I am uninformed, your in denial. You keep telling us all in your "infirmed opinion" that the votes on these initiatives don't tell us anything about voter preference, and now you use that same tactic to try and make your case.<<

Neither of the two initiatives you just mentioned would have directly defunded Sound Transit and given its funding to roads. 745 would have. When discussing Sound Transit, 745 is highly appropriate to determine voter preference; 695 and 722 aren't.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 01, 2000.

"Not since 695 they don't; the state is now out of the business of directly funding local mass transit systems."

Last I heard, transit agaencies still received money from the state, even though it was not in the form of MVET. And based on this report, it is a reasonable expectation that funding to transit will continue!

"And the state doesn't fund local transit, the state has no business telling them what they should or shouldn't do."

Yet that is exactly what they are doing, by requiring efficienies, and to demonstrate they are not supplanting existing transportation funds as a condition for receiving new funding. What part of receiving new funding don't you understand?

If they can do that, they have every right and responsibility to require higher farebox recovery, and no matter what argument you use, denial makes you look foolish.

"A study of 10 years of state transportation spending showed that King County received 86 cents for every $1 paid in transportation- related taxes. Adams County received $3.46 for every $1 in taxes paid."

http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/cgi- bin/texis/web/vortex/display? slug=case&date=19980716&query=gas+tax+county

That's nice. I don't live in Adams County, and that link didn't work.

"Neither of the two initiatives you just mentioned would have directly defunded Sound Transit and given its funding to roads. 745 would have. When discussing Sound Transit, 745 is highly appropriate to determine voter preference; 695 and 722 aren't."

That was a hoot, when I read it. I don't think anyone believes that statement. I-695 WAS construed to mean voters wanted to pay less tax. Most elected officials seemed able to have figured that out, since they did away with MVET and looked at lowering the states portion of property tax. I suppose your argument would be that they were just being benevolent? As I said, you are in denial, and really starting to look foolish.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 02, 2000.

Marsha:

>>Last I heard, transit agaencies still received money from the state, even though it was not in the form of MVET.<<

A one-shot deal to get them through FY 2000, after which they're on their own.

>>And based on this report, it is a reasonable expectation that funding to transit will continue!<<

I wouldn't assume anything based on this report. But I don't have a problem if the state requires certain benchmarks off efficiency to be attached to state money that is given to local transit districts. But what's becoming clear throughout the state is that people are willing to ante up more money for mass transit when state funding is decreased, so it looks like the issue is moot anyway.

>>That's nice. I don't live in Adams County, and that link didn't work.<<

Well I don't know where you live, but I know that there are five or six generating counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Clark, Spokane, and maybe Kitsap) and a whole bunch of receiving counties (everywhere else). The generating counties don't get back the same amount of transportation funding (read: gas tax) that they generate within their borders, and the receiving counties take more transportation money than they generate within their borders.

>>"Neither of the two initiatives you just mentioned would have directly defunded Sound Transit and given its funding to roads. 745 would have. When discussing Sound Transit, 745 is highly appropriate to determine voter preference; 695 and 722 aren't."

That was a hoot, when I read it. I don't think anyone believes that statement. I-695 WAS construed to mean voters wanted to pay less tax. Most elected officials seemed able to have figured that out, since they did away with MVET and looked at lowering the states portion of property tax. I suppose your argument would be that they were just being benevolent? As I said, you are in denial, and really starting to look foolish.<<

So now you're talking about "voters wanting to pay less tax"? That's a lot different, and considerably more general, than a discussion about people believing that ST's light rail system was a "rip off," which is what you mentioned earlier. You're switching subjects as you go, because 695 and 722 and the property tax have precisely nothing to do with your claim that people within ST's service area are "beginning to see what a rip off light rail is."

If people in this area believed that ST was such a rip off, they wouldn't have voted down 745 (which dealt DIRECTLY with ST) in higher numbers than anywhere else in the state.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 02, 2000.

>>BB, Isn't this just a matter of population density? Marsha might be paying more in taxes since she drives longer distances, but there aren't as many Marshas in more urbanized areas, so collectively they pay less for the amount of roads there are in her county.<<

How do you mean there aren't as many Marsha's in urbanized areas? Meaning urbanized areas have less people who have to drive long distances to get where they need to go?

Urbanized areas may have less people who pay a particularly high amount of gas tax necessitated by long distance driving that takes place in rural areas, but the sheer amount of people in urban areas that are paying gas tax more than makes up for the difference. There may be 10,000 Marshas driving 10 miles to get where they need to go in a rural area that individually pay more gas tax, but the 2,000,000 Marshas in King County that drive 2 or 3 miles more than make up the difference, even if individually the urban Marshas don't pay as much as the rural Marshas.

So to answer your question, I guess that yes, it is a function of population density.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 02, 2000.

to BB: You write: "Why is this any of the state's business? Local mass transit systems aren't operated by the state, and if those systems should collect more of their operating expenses at the fare box, it's up to those local government officials to make it happen. The state ferry system, on the other hand, is very much the state's business, as it's operated by the state. You're comparing apples and oranges."

It absolutely is the business of the state. It relates to issues of morality and ethics. It is the state which has given the transit agencies legal status. Not only that, the transit agencies are essentially monopolies, just like the ferry system.

So, the state has grave responsibility to ensure the taxes are spent wisely. The fact remains that most people have no idea how heavily subsidized one bus route might be compared to another.

If there was ballot issue, asking the voters permission to subsidize the middle class user of transit to the tune of $5000/yr, what do you think the voters response would be?

We need the state to commit to the highest standards of ethics. If we're going to grant an institution monopoly powers, then they damn well better be fiduciarily responsible.

Spend the taxpayers' monies wisely. It's a serious issue, and it's everybody's business.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 03, 2000.

Copied from the above article....

"The passage of two anti-tax measures in the past two years has created a political climate in which lawmakers feel obliged to send major tax increases to voters, even though they don't have to. Initiative 695, which abolished the state vehicle excise tax and required a public vote on new taxes, was declared unconstitutional last month by the Washington State Supreme Court."

"Even so, the overwhelming support for I-695 and the ongoing anti-tax campaign waged by Mukilteo businessman Tim Eyman have made lawmakers cautious."

Tim Eyman's Intiatives HAVE MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE!

-- ABCD (madeup@youlosebuckwheat.com), December 06, 2000.