RTA: On the Wrong Track
A new mass-transit plan slams progress into reverse.
by Aaron Ostrom
Free Press contributor
Mass-transit fans should start bolstering their intestinal fortitude early this year. The odds of taking another ballot-beating over another heavily-flawed regional transit proposal are looking distressfully high.
Looking to climb back into the ring after a disheartening defeat, the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) has turned to the opposition for suggestions. When they heard a pack of east-side developers calling for highway improvements, they decided that "if you can't beat them, join them."
The RTA is shooting once again for a November ballot. On March 22, they released a preliminary draft transit system plan based on an unattractive "Hypothetical Plan" released in February. The "Hypothetical" has several major problems.
First and foremost, it replaces much of the old plan's emphasis on rail with the addition of carpool (HOV) lanes. There are many reasons why building new HOV lanes (in contrast to converting existing general purpose lanes) is a bad investment for the RTA:
- New HOV lanes actually increase single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips and degrade air quality. They add significant capacity to the highway system, because removing carpools from the general purpose lanes makes room for more SOVs. For example, since the HOV lanes north of Seattle were opened to two-person carpools, there are an additional 1,000 vehicles per hour using the general purpose lanes.
- There is some evidence that two-person HOV lanes actually reduce transit ridership (people leave the bus for carpools).
- HOV enforcement is notoriously lax - as many as 30 percent of the vehicles using HOV lanes on I-5 south of Seattle only have one person in them.
- Policymakers strive relentlessly to open HOV lanes to general purpose traffic, including at least three different bills in the legislature this year.
- HOV lanes are the responsibility of the State Department of Transportation (DOT). They should be funded with DOT highway revenues. Funding HOV lanes with the RTA's regressive sales tax is simply poor fiscal policy.
Given these and other concerns, many feel that the only effective way to complete our HOV system is to convert existing general purpose lanes. There's no doubt it would save many years and billions of dollars.
Also, the new Plan continues to call for building an expensive and risky tunnel under Capitol Hill. The tunnel's cost per new rider (i.e. riders that aren't already using the bus) is outrageous - estimated at $288,000 per new transit trip by one RTA-watcher. This doesn't include the potential for massive cost boondoggles as workers bore through geologically uncertain soils four-stories below Capitol Hill. In short, this tunnel is a "kick-me" sign that makes life easy for the RTA' s opponents.
The new Plan also does not change the RTA's district boundaries. Areas that voted 80/20 against the last proposal are still voting. To some, this represents a certain lack of common sense. The RTA feels that adding roads will mollify the "no" voters. Skeptics note that voters in Snohomish County soundly rejected a local option tax for road improvements in 1994.
The RTA's assumptions about road popularity do beg a few important questions: Are large numbers of suburban voters really demanding more roads? (Could it be that a few bad apples are spoiling the barrel?) Don't they vote against any new taxes (except for baseball stadiums) anyway?
The final problem with the Plan is that the annual out-of-pocket cost to voters is the same. Although the overall price tag is significantly lower, smaller contributions from the federal and state government and a shorter time frame combine to hold tax rates constant (about $125 per household per year).
The most discouraging thing about the RTA's flailing is that the recipe for a technically sound, winning proposal is readily available. Their last ballot measure passed handily in King County. If they shrink the boundaries to include only small parts of Snohomish and Pierce Counties, and then scale back the proposal to match the smaller district and reduced funding, they are virtually guaranteed to win.
Some trimming would actually strengthen the proposal ("rail-lite," we could call it), as several of the rail investments in the old package were of questionable merit, especially the ones targeted to voters in Snohomish and Pierce counties. But the Capitol Hill tunnel, needless to say, should be first in line at the chopping block.
Instead of going the logical route, the RTA has chosen to throw darts into the night, hoping to strike a bonanza of road lovers on the eastside and in Snohomish and Pierce Counties.
Adding insult to injury, they're claiming they added roads because people demanded a "balanced" plan. What people want is a balanced transportation system; they want more choices. Our current system leaves too many people with no option other than driving. Washington residents drive over a combined 50 billion miles each year. We are driving our quality of life into the ground. A transit plan that invests heavily in highways will not solve the problem.
The bottom line doesn't look good for rail transit fans. If the RTA plan passes, we get a flawed package of extravagant tunnels and significant roadway expansions. If it loses, our next chance could be well into the next century, and it might be even uglier.
There's always the hope that RTA board members will have a major change of heart while this article is at the printer, but don't bet on it. The RTA will approve a final plan by early May. Let them know what you think.
[Home]
[This Issue's Directory]
[WFP Index]
[WFP Back Issues]
[E-Mail WFP]
Contents on this page were published in the April/May, 1996 edition of the Washington Free
Press.
WFP, 1463 E. Republican #178, Seattle, WA -USA, 98112. -- [email protected]
Copyright � 1996 WFP Collective, Inc.
