2008 Delusional
posted by on April 15 at 11:51 AM
Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi released his “transportation choices” plan today.
Some of the highlights:
• Replacing the 520 bridge with an eight-lane floating bridge.
• Widening I-405 from Renton to Bellevue.
• Widening SR-509 to I-5.
• Build the Cross Base Highway in Pierce County.
• Building the North Spokane Freeway from I-90 to US-2.
• Opening car-pool lanes to all traffic during off-peak hours.
• Replacing the Alaskan Way Viaduct with a tunnel.
He’d pay for all this and much more—a total of $15 billion over 30 years—in part by earmarking 40 percent of the sales tax on new and used vehicles for roads projects; that money (a total of $7.7 billion) is currently being spent on other state needs. He’d also dedicate money from Sound Transit’s account for Eastside projects ($690 million) and anticipated toll revenue from the 520 bridge ($1.6 billion) to his massive road-building agenda. That money would have otherwise paid for transit.
Leaving aside the fact that Rossi would pay for most of his plan by cutting spending or raising taxes, the particulars of his proposal are just… delusional. Sure, discussing environmentally ruinous projects like the Cross Base Highway may have made sense a couple of years ago. But those discussions are over, and Rossi’s side lost. Virtually every big Rossi proposal has been rejected—by voters (the unpopular Alaskan Way tunnel, which nearly 70 percent of Seattle voters opposed); the “roads and transit” Proposition 1, which included funding for 405 expansion and widening 509; 2002’s Referendum 51, which would have funded the North Spokane Freeway); by legislative bodies (the Cross Base Highway, dropped from the roads and transit proposal and thrown into mediation in 2007); by state officials (the eight-lane 520 bridge, which the state department of transportation scuttled years ago) The carpool proposal, meanwhile, is something Tim Eyman has been pushing for years.
So to recap: Virtually every single project in Rossi’s transportation plan has been rejected, in many cases because they were too expensive and would have had devastating environmental consequences. Whether it’s because of spiking gas prices or increased environmental awareness, people want alternatives to driving alone. A “transportation choices plan” in which the only “choices” are roads is not going to win over Washington voters who want more choices, not less.
Good idea! Because the problem with Washington is that people aren't driving enough. More roads! Bigger roads! Nevermind that by the time most of these projects are completed oil will be $600 a barrel and nobody will be able to drive.
Criticize Rossi all you want, ECB. At least he is offering a plan to solve the gridlock crises and not be an obstructionist like you. It seems to me that replacing 520 and the Viaduct is a much better plan than wishing away all the stinky cars and putting a pretty meadow in place of the viaduct so the kiddies will have a nice place to play.
ECB,
2 things:
1) Please leave with Josh
2) Grow up and explore more of Washington besides Capitol Hill.
That is all
Gov. Gregoire is already moving forward on a 6-lane 520 bridge, she's got the business and environmental communities playing on the same team. I don't think Rossi would find the same reception.
Did I read that right, Rossi wants to dig a tunnel on the waterfront? Very progressive.
In Erica's mind: Washington State = Seattle.
In the voters minds Washingtons State includes: Clarkston, LaCrosse, Washtucna, Vancouver, Blaine, Asotin, etc.
So much for a representative Democracy.
...and I'm sure voters in those places are going to be just thrilled with the service cuts that result from diverting all that sales tax revenue to buy billions of dollars worth of concrete for Puget Sound...
@5 - you also forgot Kahlotus, Connell, Basin City... :)
ECB - I'll remind you that the Alaska Way viaduct replacement vote last year was touted as an "Advisory Vote" and had a poor turnout.
The Cross-Base Highway is SO going to be built, Erica. you can't demonstrate that it would be "environmentally ruinous." You haven't even been in the Frederickson area, I'll bet. you're just parroting what some other Green Taliban mullah told you.
I'll say it again, Erica. Quit pretending you're a reporter, or any kind of journalist at all. You're just a propagandist and a shill, and not even a very good one.
The amount of industrialization and new housing in the Frederickson area is happening whether you like it or not, and if the Republicans retain control of the Pierce County Council, that growth will continue unabated.
If Cross-Base doesn't happen, the pressure will be on to reroute or widen SR 167, which would be far more environmentally ruinous, because it would displace productive farmland, instead of crossing a FUCKING ARMY BASE!
Stick to what you know about, whatever that possibly could be, because when it comes to rural Pierce County, clearly you do not know jack shit.
That is a very interesting proposal Dino. So you would have the state pay for the whole thing. Already gas tax payers from across the state would pay the cost of going back with a raised structure and now you would tax everyone another 5 billion in order to build a hidden road that would raise Seattle property values and generate Seattle tourist dollars but cost Seattle nothing. How will that play in the far reaches of this state? Without a state wide vote?
This political ploy is DOA even before anyone gets around to asking where this money would come from cuz you would propose no new taxes right.
So, tell us Dino just what would you cut in order to generate the 5 billion you would earmark for this project? I am sure you would start with health care for kids and cut teachers pay and raise class sizes, but that would no where near cover the cost. So how many thousand sex offenders would you release in order to cut prison expenses?
montex @2: Criticize Rossi all you want, ECB. At least he is offering a plan to solve the gridlock crises and not be an obstructionist like you.
Rossi's not an obstructionist?! I guess so long as you don't count Sound Transit.
This is a bit like saying Republicans are fiscal conservatives, as long as you don't count:
The interesting thing is going to be seeing how this plays out. Rossi is blatantly coming out as 100% cars, screw transit. There are a lot of people in this state who are going to be strongly in favor of that idea. And the thing about this kind of spending spree is, if you are heavily in favor of any ONE of these proposals, you're going to vote for him, even if you think the others are dumb. Spokane, for instance.
@6, King County actually supports those places with their tax dollars, not the other way around. Some of Washington's smaller counties couldn't even survive without our dollars. Asotin's been getting a free ride for a long time.
But that doesn't matter now. This is a fascinating strategy, and it's quite possibly going to be a successful one. He's already a shoo-in for the religious nuts. Now he's guaranteed himself most of the people who work for a living.
AT least half the state will like this idea. And you'd be delusional if you think otherwise.
Particle Man @9, nice post.
The other incongruity/irony about Rossi's proposal is that it comes the same day that his party's standardbearer, John McCain, has called for the suspension of the federal gas tax. As a reporter at NBC/MSNBC notes:
The Republican message: lower taxes for drivers, more government spending on more freeways.
Now to be fair, the Republicans have already proven that this little Ponzi scheme works. I mean, they've been able to pay for an entire lengthy war while at the same time cutting taxes. All you've got to do is borrow from the Chinese.
I'm a little skeptical that sales taxes on new and used vehicles will even come close to paying for all these roads projects and their financing. But hey, Dino could always make his own pilgrimage to China and try to get them to part with some free money.
@9,
Well, people outside the Puget Sound area are probably going to vote for him anyway. He might as well pander to voters here.
But I don't see any of this shit happening at all. This might be enough to get him elected, but an 8-lane 520 bridge, a tunnel on the waterfront? Not gonna happen.
The Ponzi scheme is all the Republicans have to go on, now that "deficits don't matter". Who doesn't want something for nothing?
You're a putz, Fnarf. Wanting any one of these road projects in no way equates to a vote for a lamer like Rossi.
This state is going to grow in population and already is growing in a lot of areas not on the radar screen of Stranger staffers, as you yourself have rightly pointed out, several times.
I am for every transit project that has been proposed. If transit-only is on the 2008 ballot, I will support it. Transit should take priority over roads, but even if we build it, highway capacity will still have to increase whether Josh and Erica and the other car-hating Green weenies like it or not.
It's not "what do we need?" because the answer to that is "all of it." It's a question of "what do we need first?" Rossi's answer is not the correct answer. He offers NOTHING for this state.
Fnarf @11: But that doesn't matter now. This is a fascinating strategy, and it's quite possibly going to be a successful one. He's already a shoo-in for the religious nuts. Now he's guaranteed himself most of the people who work for a living.
Andrew @12: AT least half the state will like this idea. And you'd be delusional if you think otherwise.
Interesting observations, and I'm not about to say this strategy won't work. You could say this is a classic Rove-ian strategy. (A) Do whatever you can to get to 50.1%, and screw the other 49.9%. (B) Push any button you can to incite a culture war. And nothing in Washington pushes the buttons more than roads-vs.-transit.
Interesting, some of Spokane's north-south freeway has already been in development for at least 2 years now. Not that I'm endorsing or criticizing anything or any one candidate, but it's 25 years past due. If anything, keeping stop and go thru-traffic off Division in the winter, when emissions get caught over the city and don't dissipate, is a major impact on the quality of life there.
We need to get back on point. Whether we need certain road projects or not is not the issue. We *do* need certain road projects.
The point is that Rossi's "plan" is dogshit, because it lacks specifics of where the money will come from -- and Rossi will try to keep it that way unless we hound him for some hard answers.
So in a sense, I agree with the Stranger that Rossi's plan is "delusional," but for far different reasons.
Rossi is a fraud, and has always been a fraud, and the biggest fraud of all is that he's running for governor.
Margarita Prentice told me that. Ha ha, Josh.
We need to get back on point. Whether we need certain road projects or not is not the issue. We *do* need certain road projects.
The point is that Rossi's "plan" is dogshit, because it lacks specifics of where the money will come from -- and Rossi will try to keep it that way unless we hound him for some hard answers.
So in a sense, I agree with the Stranger that Rossi's plan is "delusional," but for far different reasons.
Rossi is a fraud, and has always been a fraud, and the biggest fraud of all is that he's running for governor.
Margarita Prentice told me that. Ha ha, Josh.
It seems like the land acquisition costs alone for all this widening would eat up a good chunk of that 15 billion. But far be it from me to question these fiscally responsible Republicans. They have such an exemplary track record at managing economies.
What I think is a real pity is that the Washington State GOP party can't get a normal candidate for anything: You'd be hard pressed to find a bigger bunch of frauds and losers.
Some of you are thinking. This is good to see. This Rossi roads thing is 100% cynical politics. He proposes building everything one point of view could dream of, all at once and faster than the projects could get built. This creates the license for his false cost projections.
Then the great wizard Dino suggests that he can fund all of this with existing money. I am sure this story has a ferry god mother in it somewhere.
At the federal level, when Bush says he will do something, build it, bomb it, or whatever, the federal debt just gets bigger and it is left up to the next Democratic President to pay down that debt. As disgusting as this pattern is, the lie is in the debt and the failure to pay as you go.
At the state level a Bushlike tool like Rossi should be shouted off stage when he pretends like he will just print more money to fund such proposals. States MUST balance their budget and so when you spend Billions you cannot in good faith suggest that you will do so by reaching into the general fund unless you tell the people what of equal value you will cut.
It is fine for candidate Dino to play the wizard but the fact is that when folks look behind the curtain what they will see is a little chubby guy perpetuating lie after lie in hopes that he can get elected.
It's fraud really and this tactic has paid off for Rossi before.
This isn't a transportation plan. It's a win votes in the suburbs plan.
On that front, it ain't stupid.
My point, Ivan @16, is that the way this kind of mega-package is structured, it DOES mean that if you want any one of these projects, it probably translates into a vote for "a lamer like Rossi".
Nobody in Spokane knows or cares anything about the bridge and viaduct debates here in Seattle; I doubt the percentage of Spokanites who could successfully identify a viaduct anywhere in the state if asked is more than 5%. But they want their crosstown link, and they'll vote for it, especially if they think Westsiders are going to pay for it.
Nobody in the state has any idea where the money comes from; almost everyone believes that they themselves bear an over-heavy burden, so it's time to get some back. So Rossi's plan will garner all the votes of anyone who wants ANY ONE of these, which is probably a majority, even if any single one of them would be hugely unpopular.
If everybody's getting cake, people won't argue so much over whose piece is bigger.
fnarf said:
unless you're ECB and the sierra club, and the cake is prop 1.State Auditor Brian Sonntag's performance audit on the DOT, released in Oct 2007, said if the state adopts his recommendations, it'll result in a $3 billion economic benefit to the state (see below). Our initiative this year (I-985 "ReduceCongestion.org") and Rossi's plan follow the state auditor's recommendations, ours goes with the things that'll help the most in the short-term, his the long-term. I-985 uses 15% of vehicle sales tax revenue, Rossi's uses 40%. Most common comment we get from voters while getting signatures for I-985 is "it oughta be 100%". Voters clearly want their vehicle taxes to go to transportation.
Besides the $3 billion economic benefit from implementing his recommendations (see below), Auditor Sonntag has done 9 audits so far, making 434 recommendations resulting in $3.2 billion in potential savings for state government. He's providing state government with a roadmap to reform government to accommodate any transfer of vehicle sales tax revenues toward transportation.
FROM STATE AUDITOR'S WEBSITE:
October 2007
Washington Department of Transportation - Managing and Reducing Congestion in Puget Sound (file size 5MB)
Audit results
Recommendations: 22
Economic impact over five years: $3 billion in economic impact to citizens, businesses and the environment.
http://www.sao.wa.gov/reports/auditreports/auditreportfiles/ar1000006.pdf
Here's a quick summary of I-985:
I-985 accomplishes the following goals:
• illustrates the public's support for making reducing traffic congestion a top transportation priority
• opens up carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours
• requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets
• clears out accidents faster with expanded emergency roadside assistance
• uses a portion of vehicle sales tax revenue (15%) for these policies
• removes the profit motive for red light cameras
• replaces the percentage spent on public art to instead go toward reducing congestion
• institutes critical taxpayer protections on future tolls
• and empowers the State Auditor to monitor the implementation of the initiative's policies to ensure compliance.
-- END --
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
State Auditor Brian Sonntag's performance audit on the DOT, released in Oct 2007, said if the state adopts his recommendations, it'll result in a $3 billion economic benefit to the state (see below). Our initiative this year (I-985 "ReduceCongestion.org") and Rossi's plan follow the state auditor's recommendations, ours goes with the things that'll help the most in the short-term, his the long-term. I-985 uses 15% of vehicle sales tax revenue, Rossi's uses 40%. Most common comment we get from voters while getting signatures for I-985 is "it oughta be 100%". Voters clearly want their vehicle taxes to go to transportation.
Besides the $3 billion economic benefit from implementing his recommendations (see below), Auditor Sonntag has done 9 audits so far, making 434 recommendations resulting in $3.2 billion in potential savings for state government. He's providing state government with a roadmap to reform government to accommodate any transfer of vehicle sales tax revenues toward transportation.
FROM STATE AUDITOR'S WEBSITE:
October 2007
Washington Department of Transportation - Managing and Reducing Congestion in Puget Sound (file size 5MB)
Audit results
Recommendations: 22
Economic impact over five years: $3 billion in economic impact to citizens, businesses and the environment.
http://www.sao.wa.gov/reports/auditreports/auditreportfiles/ar1000006.pdf
Here's a quick summary of I-985:
I-985 accomplishes the following goals:
• illustrates the public's support for making reducing traffic congestion a top transportation priority
• opens up carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours
• requires local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets
• clears out accidents faster with expanded emergency roadside assistance
• uses a portion of vehicle sales tax revenue (15%) for these policies
• removes the profit motive for red light cameras
• replaces the percentage spent on public art to instead go toward reducing congestion
• institutes critical taxpayer protections on future tolls
• and empowers the State Auditor to monitor the implementation of the initiative's policies to ensure compliance.
-- END --
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
Eat shit and die, Mr. Eyman.
Tim's been a big-time scat queen for years Fnarf (his nickname is "brownie" in certain circles) and he ain't dead yet.
Back in the day, he would meet richard curtis at Ellen Craswell's house, have richard put on his heels and fishnets, and then have curtis and craswell squat all over him, after a big dinner of corn, polenta and coffee. It was a huge mess, but they all loved it.
Fnarf @ 28 speaks for me, Eyman, you asshole. You fucked our ferry system over good and proper, and we're going to bring back that MVET and shove it right up your ass.
From: Tim Eyman, I-985 co-sponsor -- Sorry boys, but I/we can't take credit for the elimination of the state car tab tax. After the court rejected I-695, Governor Locke and the Democrat-controlled Legislature repealed that tax (83-13 in the House and 39-9 in the Senate). Locke promptly signed it into law and promised "$30 license tabs are here to stay."
We sponsored I-695, voters approved I-695, but it was Locke and the Democrats who implemented I-695. Aren't they the ones that deserve credit?
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
For Tim Eyman, it's always Los Angeles, and it's always 1962.
The State house was a 49-49 tie in 2000 when the MVET legislation was passed. As usual, Tim can't even get the most simple facts correct.
To: Bax (previous post)
From: Tim Eyman, co-sponsor of I-985
The Legislature WAS controlled by Democrats with Gary Locke as Governor. The repeal of the state car tabs tax passed with a vote of 83-13 in the House and 39-9 in the Senate. Facts are stubborn things -- you're clearly burdened by not having a clue what you're talking about. But hey, the world needs ditch diggers too.
http://www.ReduceCongestion.org
You know, if we reallocated all the money for these environmental studies to getting the roads built, my morning commute might not be an hour and a half.
I kinda like that idea.
I agree with ivan @16 - Fnarf, you're a putz.
"Reduce traffic congestion" ... get real.
The only way Rossi can win is if the GOP denies him the right to put (GOP) or (R) after his name on the ballot and he puts (Independent).
This is the year when being a Red like Rossi won't win you a vote even in rural areas.
oh, and Tim, you really do need to eat shit and die.
Andrew@35,
You know, maybe if you lived near where you work, your morning commute wouldn't be an hour and a half.
Or maybe if you could take light rail to your job, speeding by the cars sitting in traffic, your commute wouldn't be an hour and a half.
Just sayin'.
Donolectic@38,
Or we could just stop wasting money on things that produce nothing (and in fact restrict production) and I could have a good commute and still own a nice home that I can afford within my own means.
Yeah, I think I'll vote for that instead of the things you listed that are pie in the sky.
Sorry bud.
How is living near your job or taking light rail a "pie in the sky" activity? New York City, arguably one of the most productive places on this earth of ours, manages to do it.
As for "wasting money on things that produce nothing" isn't laying miles of additional asphalt so you can get back and forth to and from your "nice home" a great definition of that?
Correction:
As for "wasting money on things that produce nothing" isn't laying miles of additional asphalt so you can get back and forth to and from your "nice home" a bit more quickly a great definition of that?
Light rail is pie in the sky. Seattle can't accomplish anything without wasting a significant amount of resources (admittedly, the same applies to roads, probably).
It doesn't help me to say light rail will extend within 20 miles of my house in 10 years. It helps me to improve traffic on our existing corridors, whether I take the bus or my car (By the way, I do take the bus, but I'd much rather drive).
Laying miles of additional asphalt is not a waste at all - if it's done right and results in a quicker commute. We all get to spend more time with our families, the city and surrounding areas can continue to grow, and we can all be more productive at work because we don't have to deal with an awful commute.
Living near my job is not possible if I am to live within my means. I don't like my commute but I deal with it because I want my kid to have a lawn to play on as she grows up. I couldn't afford that in Seattle.
Besides, there is no reason it should take as long as it does. When I moved out to Lake Stevens about 3 years ago, it took me 45 minutes to commute to work. Now it takes almost twice that, because instead of expanding our transportation system, our tax dollars have been wasted on study after study, producing very little in the process.
So no, it's not a waste of money, and I'm looking forward to voting for someone who will actually take their job seriously and stop wasting time with worthless studies that are ignored anyway and get the job done.
Andrew@35,
You know, maybe if they spent bazillions to widen every road in existence, you wouldn't HAVE a house, because it would be mowed under for a new freeway lane.
FYI, with very rare exceptions, adding new lanes of asphalt to urban superhighways doesn't speed up commutes and doesn't reduce traffic. It just causes more people to start driving, fewer people to carpool, fewer people to take the bus, and then you have ten lanes of bumper-to-bumper 10mph traffic instead of four. It's called "induced demand", and the induced demand levels are so high in most places that they eat up any benefit from added lanes within months. Look it up.
Rail has an induced demand effect too, but rail has such *immense* capacity -- a fairly dinky rail system like Central Link can move as many people per hour as an eight-lane superhighway -- that it actually makes a dent. And the trains don't get slowed down by congestion until there are *very* large numbers of trains running.
Admittedly there are too many studies. They should just forget the studies, spend the money and *build* the light rail line which goes close enough to your home that you can drive to the station without hitting congestion.
I suspect the problem is that you've never actually ridden a properly designed train (silliness like the streetcar which gets stuck in traffic doesn't count); try Sounder some time and see if you don't prefer it to a bus, or indeed to your car.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).