Ballot Issues Report

MUNICIPAL LEAGUE RECOMMENDATION: YES

ANALYSIS

In order to achieve a majority of votes in favor of a second try at a regional transit ballot, the Regional Transit Authority reduced the price, shortened the implementation time and revised the proposal to be politically acceptable to the Authority members, to be responsive to the subareas that they represented and to the public, and to fit into adopted regional and local transportation systems' plans. The complex proposal balances political and technical issues, and regional versus local considerations. It takes steps toward creating an interconnected regional system of public transportation, developed through regional participation and planning.

While not meeting all of the Municipal League's principles and objectives, the Plan is a good beginning. It concentrates on initiating starter rail service and improving the regional HOV and local bus systems in order to manage the transportation needs anticipated from the projected growth in population, jobs, housing, freight, and the economy. If passed by the voters, the Plan could provide additional capacity and reduce travel time on narrow, geographically constrained travel corridors. The Plan would increase people-moving capacity with new light rail transit, commuter rail, an RTA "expressway" regional bus HOV system, and expanded local bus service. The Plan would fill a gap in the urban region and in the local surface transportation hierarchy. In the next twenty-five years in the three-county region, the regional rail, HOV/bus and local bus systems would help to manage the projected growth of 1.4 million in population and the expanding auto trips, which are growing four times faster than the region's population.

Is it the right proposal at the right time for the right amount of money? The League agrees that the region's transportation problems have reached a critical point and improvements in transportation are key to managing the projected growth. We also agreed that due to time and space constraints, our analysis would focus on the major policy questions, rather than detailed ridership, capacity, regional growth issues, and other RTA plan assumptions.

ISSUES

1. Is the Finance Plan Reasonable?:
   • Cost/effectiveness:
     Does the package deliver sufficient benefits for the projected costs? The League notes that RTA estimates that the Plan will result in overall benefits of $200 million a year for ten years in the three-county region. Major investment benefits to the region include initial construction and employment; travel time savings for system users, drivers and commercial vehicles; parking cost savings and improvements in transit system reliability. Other benefits such as increased property values/taxes in transit station areas are not included, but are currently under study. These benefits are spread among subareas and begin a needed process of shifting total regional transportation spending away from roads to public transportation, increasing the ability to serve riders using less land.
     
     We believe that the public's regional transportation options need to be balanced toward moving people. The adopted 1996-2017 WSDOT 20- year Transportation Plan documents that up to now, ninety-five percent of public/private transportation spending in our state has been on streets and highways, and less that five percent has been for transit. The new draft 1996 Transportation Pricing study of the PSRC found that of the $21.1 billion spent annually in the four-county region on public and private transportation, $2.8 billion, or a little over ten percent, is spent annually on direct and indirect public costs for all modes of transportation, primarily highways and transit, while $13 billion is expended in private annual costs for auto ownership, operations and parking. If approved, the RTA's $200 million in additional taxes per year would represent less than a one percent increase in the public's annual transportation expenditures. The RTA proposal enhances overall system cost effectiveness by serving more riders per dollar invested.
     
     
   • Regional equity:
     As a result of opponents' concerns that the outlying areas would pay for costly rail improvements which they believed primarily benefited Seattle, the RTA Board unanimously adopted equity policies. These policies guarantee that tax funds will be distributed back to the subarea from which they originated.
     
     The League recognizes that this policy was adopted to promote broader subarea support of the ballot measure. While the League has some concerns about whether the policy will result in local programs and projects having funding precedence over the implementation of a regional system, on balance we believe that regional equity policies are necessary to persuade all parts of the region that their taxes will be used to benefit their transportation needs.
     
     
   • Federal funding:
     The RTA Board has made a conservative estimate of the federal share of funds for the project. The status of federal transit capital funding is uncertain and dependent upon Congressional reauthorization of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), in 1997. While historically the Puget Sound area has fared well with federal grants for transit, the RTA assumed thirty-three percent federal funding, less than most other new transit systems have received. Federal transit operations grants to local transit systems are anticipated to be reduced, making proposed RTA support of integrated regional bus routes to assist local transit systems more needed than ever.
     
     
   • Long term costs:
     To be fully effective, the system will likely need more than the Phase 1 starter system. The proposal does not identify a long term "Phase 2" completion element or associated costs.
   
   
2. Is an Alternate Proposal Realistic?
   Can the region afford the time or cost to develop and build support for a new proposal? In light of the tremendous amount of staff work, independent review and political collaboration that has been devoted to the refinement of this proposal, and lack of state responsiveness to this region's multimodal transportation funding problems, it is unlikely that a new state and regional political consensus could be formed around an alternate proposal. Within the limits of funding, the Plan has incorporated adequate process and public involvement, and balances the needs, equity concerns and preferences of voters.
   
   
3. Do the Components of the RTA's Ballot Proposal Address the Need?:
   On balance, yes, although some parts fit better than others. Overall, elements respond to local growth patterns, density and local preferences.
   
   The performance of the expanded regional express, local bus improvements, and HOV access ramps is very important, and could be jeopardized if the state does not adequately fund critical HOV segments and manage the HOV system to serve primarily the movement of people.
   
   We have significant questions over the cost effectiveness and performance of the North Commuter Rail proposal and support the RTA contracting private and public agencies which have an interest in the improvements.
   
   Other concerns include the impact of the elevated Rainier Avenue LRT upon the adjacent community, the feasibility of the deep North Corridor tunnel, and the community impact of the North (University District) Phase 1 Terminus, if no additional funds are available for mitigation or extension of the line. We agree with the RTA that additional corridor and feasibility analysis of the North Corridor tunnel is needed before construction begins.
   
   
4. Will the Plan Solve or Reduce Congestion?:
   In a dynamic growing economy like the Puget Sound region, reducing congestion by any means is extraordinarily difficult. This is because "latent demand" will always fill existing and freed-up corridor lane space made available, since the major corridors are a scarce public resource being provided at invisible costs to the driver of a car. Until recently, the value of private and public costs of congestion has seldom been considered significant. While the RTA Plan does not claim to "solve" congestion problems, it may slow their increase, and offer a reasonable alternative to sitting in traffic.
   
   
5. Can the RTA Plan be Successful Without Transportation Demand Management (TDM):
   Public and private utilities successfully use price incentives to manage peak demand for gas, telephone, water, solid waste and electricity. The political feasibility of price incentives for auto trip reduction remains to be tested and evaluated, and it would take time to gradually change attitudes and convince the public of the perceived benefits.
   
   The League feels that the RTA should partner with other transportation organizations to encourage greater emphasis on TDM measures, and to provide incentives for incremental changes in travel behavior which could complement and support transit-friendly land use and reduce overall travel.
   
   
6. Is the Plan Consistent with Growth Management and Other Community Goals?:
   Transportation can be a public tool to help realize development and environmental objectives, protect open space and rural lands, promote adopted local growth management plans, and contain the growth of sprawl and air pollution. In order to meet growth management concurrency requirements in suburban and urban centers, new bus, rail and arterial capacity is required which is tailored to local growth management plans. Without additional people-moving capacity, local growth plans will have to be revised and plans for new development held in abeyance. The proposed RTA Plan is consistent with and based on assumptions used in the regional plan adopted as Vision 2020.