Ballot Issues Report

• Summary
• Arguments For
• Arguments Against
• Recommendation
• Analysis

SUMMARY

On May 31, 1996, the three-county, 18 member Regional Transit Authority (RTA) Board adopted "Sound Move," the Phase 1 ten-year Regional Transit Plan. The $3.9 billion proposal would be paid in large part with 0.4% sales tax and 0.3% Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) rate increases. The proposed RTA Plan is consistent with the Puget Sound Regional Council's (PRSC) long range Vision 2020; the four-county Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) which includes highway, city street, ferry and non-motorized modes of transportation; and local growth management plans. An independent Expert Review Panel reviewed the RTA's data and plans throughout the development of the proposed system.

In March, 1995, a proposed RTA package for $6.8 billion was put to a regional vote, but failed with a 43% favorable vote. The current Plan differs from the 1995 package in several ways:

• The plan would be implemented in 10 years, rather than 16.
• The proposed 25-mile "starter" light rail transit (LRT) line was reduced from the 1995 proposed 68-mile system. Light rail to the east side was replaced with a new two-way HOV "expressway" on the existing I-90 corridor.
• Regional bus routes were increased from 8 to 20 routes, with most new service in east King County.
• The level of service for the two-way, north/south (81 mile with 14 stations) commuter rail on existing track between Lakewood/Tacoma/Seattle/ Everett was reduced from all-day service to peak hours.
• New RTA funding for HOV access ramps was added to serve the new regional "expressway" bus system.
• A new element, "Community Connections," was added to facilitate public access to the regional system.
• A regional single fare system is planned to integrate the five local transit agencies and the ferry system, providing a one-ticket regional trip. A new innovation fund of $30 million and planning funds for future phases were added, and RTA may request state authority to implement Transportation Demand Management (TDM) policies.
• The RTA Board approved a new equity policy to assure that each of the region's five subareas would receive funding commensurate with their tax contribution.

Although the current plan is scaled down from $6.8 to $3.9 billion, it retains the same sales and motor vehicle excise tax rates as the 1995 proposal. The system will be built in less time, relies less on federal funding, and does not assume contribution of state funds. Another regional vote would be required to extend and fund the system to Phase 2. If there is no Phase 2, the RTA will partially roll back the tax rates sufficient to pay off the remaining 30-year capital bonds and operate and maintain the system. Interest on the debt remaining after ten years is projected to be $335 million, and is not included in the $3.9 billion total. When the debt is paid off there would be a second roll back to the minimum tax rates needed to operate and maintain the regional system, estimated at about $102 million annually.

The RTA program would be paid for as follows:

		$3,032 million - 0.4% sales tax and 0.3% MVET
		     727 million - Federal funds (assumed 33% match)
		     155 million - Fares	

Total  $3.914 billion (all cost estimates in 1995 dollars)

No property taxes will be used to support the proposal. Costs to a "typical household of four" would be about $8 per month or $104 annually ($35,000 family income.)

If passed, the RTA program will start on January 1, 1997. If it fails, the Regional Transit Authority will cease operations on December 31, 1996.

Back to the Top

ARGUMENTS FOR

Proponents argue that "Sound Move" is a shorter, less costly package of transit improvements which responds to criticisms of the previous measure. They argue that regional mobility is in crisis, threatening our economy and quality of life. Supporters contend the RTA's Plan will provide several new reliable, energy efficient, environmentally sound alternatives that fit our area's topography. Supporters observe that our freeways and arterials are the sixth most congested in the nation, our population is growing at a rate of about 100 people a day, and the number of miles traveled in autos is growing four times faster than the population. RTA proponents say that buses are an essential part of the transit system, but they can no longer do the whole job. They argue that our existing bus service experiences unreliable schedules and is vulnerable to traffic jams, and that our overall transportation system needs a regional rapid transit system, to increase the public transportation options, reduce individual auto trips, and increase people-moving capacity. Advocates contend that the longer we delay, the more expensive it will be, with inflation adding about $100 million per year.

Proponents assert that the Plan will enable the current local bus service to be freed up and reoriented to provide better service. Funds which would have been used for the 250,000 to 400,000 hours of local bus service replaced by regional bus service can be used to augment local Six-Year Transit Development plans for improved local transit circulation and feeder service and/or capital improvements. Advocates also contend that improvements to the commuter rail track and signal system will benefit both freight and passenger operations. They note that the RTA will create a coordinated single fare or pass system, in which the user can travel through the region, disregarding local jurisdictional boundaries and service areas.

Proponents claim the Plan will slow the increase in congestion, though it will not solve this problem. When completed, the RTA system will result in 131,000 more trips per day by people using transit and will increase overall transit ridership by nearly fifty percent, taking up to forty percent of the rush hour trips out of traffic in the most congested areas.

Supporters contend that there has been a full and open disclosure of RTA financing. The $3.9 billion (1995 dollars) would be paid for through a combination of local taxes, limited revenue bonds, federal grants and fares. They have conservatively estimated federal grants. No state funding is assumed and no property tax is used. The RTA "equity" policy protects each subarea from paying for another subarea's projects or debt.

Proponents contend that "Sound Move" was developed with widespread input, reflecting the recommendations of thousands of citizens and elected officials. They believe that important oversight will be provided throughout the ten years through independent audits and performance monitoring, along with a citizens' monitoring committee. The public will be involved in every step of implementation. Supporters note that an innovation fund will allow for the RTA to explore new proposals to keep up with changing conditions, and the Plan allows the RTA to request from the Legislature the ability to coordinate transportation demand management incentives.

Proponents note that if the election fails, the RTA's funding runs out, and it will close its doors. There is no other regional agency with the legal authority to proceed with another election similar to the current proposal. The local transit systems could not legally or financially propose this type of regional program. RTA advocates argue that it could be years before another proposal is developed, if the RTA's 1996 Plan is not approved.

The proponents' campaign is called Regional Express, 2328 6th Avenue, Seattle, WA 98121, 728-6051.

Back to the Top

ARGUMENTS AGAINST

Opponents believe that the proposed Plan is not good enough and costs too much, and will neither change the driving habits of our region nor reduce congestion. They believe that there are more cost-effective mobility alternatives and approaches than building rail, and that money spent on commuter rail could be used to triple the regional express buses, which could carry four times the riders at half the cost. Opponents contend that the LRT "starter rail" investment does not make sense as a stand alone system. They support greater emphasis on buses using the HOV lanes and increasing and restructuring suburban bus routes. Opponents contend that increases in taxes to pay for the RTA will dampen voters' support for state tax increases to fund other transportation improvements. They want to aggressively develop new technologies to increase telecommuting, and explore other transportation measures such as carpool/ridematch networks and personal rapid transit technologies.

Opponents contend that the plan assumes a "monocentric" Seattle, whereas only eleven percent of the metropolitan jobs are in downtown Seattle, and its regional share keeps dropping. Ninety-three percent of new jobs are located in the suburbs. They say two-thirds of the RTA's investments for the next century should not be devoted to eleven or twelve percent of the regional mobility problem. Opponents state that part of the financing is through a regressive tax that impacts the least fortunate the hardest. Opponents claim the Plan creates another new regional government bureaucracy, and argue that because there is no "sunset" on the taxes, they could go on indefinitely.

Opponents argue that the rail tunnel segment of the Plan is not feasible to construct, is too expensive, and does not have the population density needed to support LRT. They believe that where common sense road improvements are warranted, they should be funded and built.

Some of the Plan's opponents believe that without aggressive incentives to attract drivers to transit through Transportation Demand Management (TDM) actions, the RTA's program will have no impact upon our traffic problems. Other opponents believe that with TDM, rail would be unnecessary.

Opponents believe that it is very unlikely that with federal cut-backs there will be the level of federal funds RTA expects, which will mean unfinished projects needing more local funds. They maintain that currently the ability to plan, fund and implement transportation is too divided, and support a single "regional mobility agency," in order to reduce costs, and coordinate consistent, least-cost regional transportation projects and programs.

The opponents do not believe that this is the region's last chance. They argue that the state legislation permits the individual counties to develop proposals of their own. They believe that we should begin with an improved all-bus system, more aggressive transportation demand management policies, and evaluation of the performance of the regional system.

The opposition campaign is led by Citizens Opposed to Sitting in Traffic (COST), 924 Bellevue Way, Bellevue, WA 98004, 452-8932.

Recommendation and Analysis

Back to the Top
Back to Ballot Issues
Home