The Urbanist’s readers alone sent 511 letters to legislators asking them to save Sound Transit funding. Our Save ST3 campaign began in January as soon as car tab bills were introduced and continued right up to the end of session. Efforts to defend ST3 united a broad coalition including Seattle Subway, NW Progressive, Seattle Transit Riders Union, Seattle Neighborhood Greenways, The Stranger, Transportation Choices Coalition, and many more.

Throughout the session, legislators on both sides of the aisle had expressed an interest in modifying the car tab formula, which funds ST3 projects and was approved by voters. Republicans were out for blood and wanted to cut ST3 funding by nearly a quarter, taking a hatchet to the car tab formulas. Democrats had various proposals that ranged from cutting more than $2.1 billion in ST3 funding to partially backfilling cuts through other means.

Earlier in the session, Democrats had considered a bill sponsored by Rep. Kristine Reeves (D-Federal Way) to allow payment plans on a half-yearly or quarterly basis for car tabs. Under state law, car tabs must be paid in full at the time of vehicle re-registration. Allowing payment plans, as proposed, would have created a system similar to property tax payments, which can be paid in installments instead of all at once, blunting the sticker shock and spacing the financial burden. Unfortunately, that bill never passed out of the House.

Meanwhile, Senate Democrats had considered several measures in their car tab bill to speed up ST3 projects, protect the integrity of light rail and bus rapid transit project delivery, and partially pay for cuts to car tabs, albeit by taking away funding for homeless youth in the King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties. The House had planned to stick to their guns by saddling ST3 with $780 million in direct funding cuts with longer-term financing costs estimated at $2.1 billion.

Fortunately, House Democrats were thwarted by lack of time remaining on the legislative clock, Democratic holdouts representing Sound Transit areas, and Republicans who think that car tabs are a winning issue in the age of Trump and want to push for even deeper cuts. Spoiler: Republicans lost hard in the 48th Legislative District in November even whiling running on this very issue, which gave Democrats full control of the legislature.

A statement from Rep. Judy Clibborn on the cut to car-tab fees not passing. #waleg pic.twitter.com/8CbyNqJioj

— Walker Orenstein (@walkerorenstein) March 9, 2018

Somewhere in an alternative universe, Washington would have been having a discussion this past session on ways to speed up construction of ST3 projects with backing from the state.

If you’ll recall from 2015, the Washington State Legislature fought over a massive transportation package chalk full of unnecessary sprawl-inducing highway projects like the North-South Expressway in Spokane and completion of the Puget Sound Gateway highway extensions of SR-167 and SR-509. Retiring House Transportation Committee Chair Rep. Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island) had a penchant for highway pork during her tenure and made sure those projects made it into the final package. She also worked with Republicans to keep out a referendum proviso in the transportation package since the bill included a large gas tax increase, which was seen as a widely unpopular way to pay for billions of dollars in new highways. In exchange, voters in the Sound Transit taxing district were merely afforded an opportunity to vote on authorizing ST3.

It’s entirely possible the issue of the state legislature trying to raid ST3 funding will creep up again. The political temptation to pander to wealthy car owners and car dealers rather than transit riders will remain. Nonetheless, after uniting to defeat ST3-cutting bills, urbanists and transit advocates come away from this session energized and ready to fight for legislation that speeds up rather than slows down delivery of transit projects and eager to tackle big lifts like a carbon tax. Let’s use Democratic majorities to go forward, not backward.

This isn’t the 1980’s anymore. We’re no longer beholden to the paradigm of suburban sprawl. Welcome to the era of urban vitality. May the transit investments begin!

Thank you to everyone who contacted their legislators to block these ST3 cutting bills. We're really proud of how transit supporters came together. Good work! https://t.co/VF9Hqx0ysJ

— The Urbanist (@UrbanistOrg) March 9, 2018

The post Huzzah: Legislature Adjourns with Sound Transit Funding Intact first appeared on The Urbanist.

Both the original bill and substitute bill seek to adjust the formula for calculating motor vehicle excise tax (MVET or car tab fee) rates so that they more closely resemble the “real” value of a car based upon age. For newer cars, the modified MVET would dramatically reduce car valuations with the biggest benefits going to high-end car owners. Both bill versions also create a credit payment program for some car owners who have already paid their car tabs under the existing formula if they would have paid less under the modified one. In essence, those car owners could reduce their future car tab fee payments beginning in July 2019.

The original bill, however, would have resulted in much larger funding cuts to Sound Transit 3 than the substitute version. Estimates indicate that direct funding cuts to Sound Transit could total $780 million and a total loss of $2.4 billion when accounting for other financing costs and added debt service payments. The substitute version trims that amount, but still doesn’t make the transit agency fully whole.

The substitute bill does several things:

1. The substitute bill modifies the priorities for Sound Transit 3 project delivery in the event that funding is insufficient to deliver projects as originally scoped. The priority list includes two buckets of project types to be cut in the event of insufficient funding. Projects other than light rail projects and bus rapid transit projects would be cut first. If funding were still insufficient, then and only then could light rail projects and bus rapid transit projects be cut.
2. The substitute bill would alter how the “Puget Sound Taxpayer Accountability Account” operates by allowing Sound Transit to delay payments until the transit agency has determined that payments to the fund would not impact delivery of the Sound Transit 3 program. The Sound Transit Board of Directors would have to pass a resolution affirming the transit agency’s ability to pay. Under current law, a special sales and use tax of 3.25% applies to Sound Transit 3 construction projects until a total of $518 million in payments have been made. The provision was as added to the original Sound Transit 3 enabling legislation by Senate Republicans in 2015 as a form of parochial extortion to House Democrats in order to pass the overall transportation package. Delaying or removing the provision would bring the total funding deficit to about $262 million if the bill passes, not including other financing costs and added debt service payments.
3. The credit program for car tab fees would begin on September 1, 2018 to allow time for development of system modifications by the Washington State Department of Licensing (DOL) to implement it. Between July 1, 2019 and July 1, 2020, car tab payers would be able to use a one-time credit to reduce their car tab fees otherwise due if they paid more under the old valuation method than the new one. It’s not clear whether or not the credit program would be automatic or require a car tab payer to opt-in, but DOL would determine the process by rule. The total cost to implement the program is estimated to be $8 million, which Sound Transit would be on the hook for.

During the committee meeting, a variety of amendments were proposed to the substitute bill primarily from Senate Republicans. An alternative substitute bill was also proposed, which was chiefly sponsored by Senator Steve O’Ban (R-Tacoma). The substitute bill was identical to Senator O’Ban’s own car tab cuts bill (Senate Bill 6303) basing the MVET valuations on the Kelly Blue Book or NADA and would have resulted in more than $12 billion in cuts. Senator O’Ban also took great liberty to pontificate about his grievances with Sound Transit. None of the Republican amendments nor Senator O’Ban’s substitute bill were adopted.

However, Senator Marko Liias (D-Edmonds) proposed a limited amendment to Senator Hobbs’s substitute bill, which passed. The scope of the amendment dealt with permitting requirements by counties. “Any project permit requirement adopted by a county does not apply to a regional transit authority light rail project, located in the unincorporated area of the county, if the project is part of a system plan approved by the voters of the regional transit authority after January 1, 2016, and pursuant to chapter 81.112 RCW,” the amendment reads. The text seemed a little ambiguous and broad to many of the senators present.

According to Senator Liias and committee staff, no county could impose any local permitting requirements on Sound Transit 3 facilities, including requirements to obtain basic building and construction permits. State and federal permitting under the State Environmental Policy Act and National Environmental Policy Act, for instance, would still apply. Senator Liias also noted that it is possible that the Marketplace Fairness sales tax act passed last year could make up some funding loses to Sound Transit since sales taxes from online purchases are now subject to the state sales tax laws. However, that neglects the fact that Sound Transit could actually end up with even more revenue potentially expanding the scope of Sound Transit 3 and delivering on promises sooner if no hit on base funding is made by the legislature.

Before the final call for voice vote, Senator Manka Dhingra (D-Redmond) expressed her support for the bill. “We need public transportation options,” she said. “We needed it a decade ago.” Senator Dhingra also said that she felt that the bill was an important step in creating a “fairer” fee structure for car tab payers. The bill passed out committee with a “do pass” recommendation despite Senator Hobbs calling it a “work in progress” bill.

Sound Transit 3 isn’t out of the woods yet though.

Given the kinds of burn-it-all down and generally lousy bills proposed to cut Sound Transit 3 funding over the past year, it almost seems like Senator Hobbs’s substitute bill is good. However, Democratic-sponsored House Bill 2201 is still alive since it was passed on to the Senate last month for consideration and is demonstrably worse. Neither House Bill 2201 nor Senate Bill 5955 are good bills though because they both fail to make good on the promises made to voters to deliver transit expansion projects on-time and as scoped. Transit advocates should continue pressuring legislators to speed up Sound Transit 3 and fully deliver promised projects, not do the opposite.

The post State Senate Moves Funding Cuts Bill to Sound Transit 3 Out of Committee first appeared on The Urbanist.

Scores of pre-filed bills were introduced on the first day of the legislative session, including eleven bills affecting public transportation policy–more than a dozen from the 2017 legislative sessions were also reintroduced. The first cutoff for policy bills to get out of committee is February 2nd–less than a month away. Progressive transportation advocates will need to stay on their toes this year to ensure that they advance or stall. Billions of dollars for Sound Transit 3 projects is on the line, for instance, if Democrats take a hatchet to the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET) and fail to replace funding in other ways.

Transportation Choices Coalition has shared their 2018 legislative agenda that includes allowing the use of transit-only lane camera enforcement, securing new taxing authority for Intercity Transit, and preserving the integrity of Sound Transit 3 funding to deliver the full scope of voter-approved projects on-time. It’s a useful starting point for the legislative direction that progressive transportation advocates should support.

2018 Bills Introduced

Here’s a rundown of the new bills introduced to the 2018 legislative session:

• HB 2317 and SB 6022 would modify contractor bonding requirements for public transportation benefit areas and passenger-only ferry service districts.
• HB 2357 would create alternative payment plans for owners of vehicles subject to the MVET in the Sound Transit taxing district.
• HB 2395 and SB 6095 are companion bills for the biennial (2017-2019) capital budget, which Senate Republicans stonewalled over an impasse on resolution to the Hirst Decision. The bills would earmark $9.75 million for replacement of diesel buses operated by transit agencies with electric, zero-emission buses. Several million dollars more would also be made available for grants applications to fund pilot projects that can demonstrate new approaches to transportation technology, such as electric ferries and buses.
• HB 2400 and SB 6061 would require Washington State Ferries to begin a process of soliciting bids to convert the type of fuel used on at least one state ferry to liquefied natural gas.
• HB 2403 would establish a process and standards for local jurisdictions to implement transit-only lane camera enforcement.
• SB 6043 would create a statewide regulatory framework for ride-hailing app-based services like Uber and Lyft. While the bill focused on establishing licensing, reporting, and safety standards for drivers and ride-hailing platforms, it would also strip much of the authority from cities like Seattle to regulate them.
• SB 6054 would require a feasibility to be conducted on passenger-only ferry service between Olympia and Seattle. The feasibility study would consider direct fast service and slower service with more stops between the two cities.
• SB 6101 would modify the biennial (2017-2019) transportation budget by adding millions of dollars in funding for public transportation. Key items include: $3.6 million for a business case analysis of ultra high-speed ground transportation (i.e., high-speed rail) due by mid-2019, nearly $8 million more (totalling $24.1 million) in regional mobility grants for public transportation, $3.3 million transit projects (totaling $20.89 million), and capital expenditures for rail programs would jump from a $58.9 million baseline to $139.6 million with much of it dedicated to passenger rail. Regarding the high-speed rail business case analysis, the legislation requires that the Washington State Department of Transportation evaluate three station location scenarios, conduct market analysis of potential riders by area served, and analyze a variety of relevant factors (e.g., service levels, operational model, equipment needs, ridership, comparative market analysis, public-private partnership scenarios, and financing and fares).

2017 Bills Reintroduced

In addition to the newly filed bills for 2018, more than a dozen transit-related bills from 2017 have been resurrected. A batch of these bills designed to attack the Sound Transit 3, a voter-approved measure, are particularly concerning. Bills to watch from last year include:

• HB 1175 would allow the City of DuPont to impose a sales and use tax at a rate of up to 0.6% to fund transit service from Pierce Transit.
• HB 1331 and SB 5403 would allow a county ferry district to construct, purchase, operate, and maintain any type of ferry and any necessary landings. County ferry districts would also be able to issue general obligation bonds to finance construction of ferry terminals, purchase ferries, and fund ongoing preservation. The Senate and House bills have substantial differences, however, such as whether or not a county ferry district could be created in a portion of a county, and if a county ferry district could fund shuttle service and construct landside improvements.
• HB 1410 and SB 5288 would allow Intercity Transit in Thurston County to increase the sales and use tax to 1.2%, provided that voter approval is granted. Intercity Transit currently levies a sales and use tax at 0.8%, but could impose a maximum rate of 0.9% under existing law.
• HB 1770 and HB 1958 would prohibit imposition of a transit tax on parcels only partially located within Sound Transit taxing district.
• HB 1860 would require, to the extent possible, that members of public transportation benefit areas (“PTBAs” such as King County Metro Transit or Everett Transit) governing boards be selected proportionally to represent cities and unincorporated portions of counties located within a PTBA.
• HB 2201 would modify the formula for how Sound Transit may impose the MVET passed by voters under Sound Transit 3. The bill would result in billions in lost financing for projects and specifies how Sound Transit would be required to prioritize project delivery, such as eliminating parking facilities, commuter rail projects, and bus projects. Oddly, Democrats are the ones backing the bill from no clear reason and haven’t come up with a credible plan to supplement lost revenues. Alternative proposals, such as HB 2147, HB 2166, SB 5817, and SB 5905, are also pending and would similarly sabotage or stall delivery of voter-approved projects under Sound Transit 3.
• SB 5001 would create a district-based governing board for Sound Transit with eleven elected representatives. HB 1029 is similar but would create nineteen districts with one elected representative apportioned to each. Either bill would likely lead to a dysfunctional agency and sabotage delivery of transit expansion.
• SB 5309 would allow adjacent counties to the Sound Transit taxing district (e.g., Thurston County) to be incorporated into the service and taxing district.

Get and Stay Active

There are many great bills proposed for this legislative session, but several are highly distressing. Progressive transportation advocates need to make a concerted effort to get the word out about threats while pushing forward. Make sure to contact your legislators.

The post State Legislators Resurrect and Introduce Dozens of Transportation Bills first appeared on The Urbanist.

Known as “bus-on-shoulder” (BOS) lanes, these facilities will be designated on inside shoulders adjacent to high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes. This will allow buses to weave in and out HOV lanes as needed to move closer to maximum highway speeds, expediting riders on an ever-croweded I-5.

The project is an early action of Sound Transit 3 (ST3), investing in inexpensive improvements that can make quick changes and deliver substantial benefits to riders. Sound Transit has set aside $265,421 for the project. Construction is expected begin next fall with the BOS lanes operational by the end of 2018.

According to Sound Transit, the project will deliver BOS lanes between 44th Ave W (near Lynnwood Transit Center) to 236th St SW (near Mountlake Terrace Transit Center). Over a dozen Sound Transit and Community Transit express routes operate along the 2.5-mile stretch of I-5.

Associated improvements will include signage, striping, renewed pavement, and drainage enhancements as necessary. WSDOT will be responsible for project management and ensuring its completion.

As part of a separate action, the Capital Committee approved a $375,000 feasibility study to evaluate other locations on regional highways that BOS lanes could be implemented, such as SR-167, SR-518, and other portions of I-5 and I-405. The feasibility study will inform Sound Transit on specific improvements that would need to be made, operational benefits, and estimated construction costs. Completion of the feasibility study is expected by the end of 2018. Following the feasibility study, project planning and implementation of BOS lane facilities will continue through the end of 2024 on a rolling basis.

Dave Somers, Sound Transit Board Chair and Snohomish County Executive, praised the Capital Committee’s action on the BOS lane project and feasibility study. “We are very happy that this significant investment in Snohomish County is closer to being implemented and closer to easing some of the pressure on our roadways,” he said. “Our close partnership with WSDOT allows Sound Transit to get started quickly on this early deliverable ST3 project. Working together and with public support, our agencies will continue to identify every opportunity to speed commuters across the congested Puget Sound region.”

Community Transit Using I-5 Freeway Ramps To Improve Reliability

The post Sound Transit Okays Bus-on-Shoulder I-5 Lanes to Speed Transit first appeared on The Urbanist.

Sound Transit has identified a variety of ways to help achieve the expedited delivery goal, which includes:

• Kicking off projects sooner for collaboration with stakeholders, such as cities and the public;
• Identifying preferred alignments and stations much earlier in the planning process;
• Working with local permitting agencies sooner to help determine ways to expedite future permitting;
• Streamlining the approach to studying project alternatives; and
• Making property acquisitions earlier.

Internally, the agency also plans to develop its own process improvements to cut down on unnecessary and inefficient business practices that can cause project delay.

Over the years, Sound Transit has managed to eek out some efficiencies in project development for its core business line: light rail transit. The first segment of light rail took 5.6 years from the initial contract to begin the early planning and environmental review process to a final decision on the alignment and stations locations. The most recent light extension planning process–from Kent-Des Moines to Federal Way–had significant time savings in process at only 4.3 years. Other extensions have gradually seen shorter early planning processes.

Going forward, Sound Transit wants to target a four- to four-and-one-half-year early planning process for light rail projects, a one-year time savings over past experience. This portion of project development is generally the most flexible with scheduling compared to construction, which can be inflexible due to tighter scheduling staging constraints, diminishing returns at throwing resources at construction work, and the high outlay costs from contractors.

By the end of this year, Sound Transit will have two dozen projects that are either in project development, final design, or under construction. New projects getting out the gate for planning include:

• West Seattle to Downtown Seattle light rail extension;
• Ballard to Downtown Seattle light rail extension;
• New I-405 Bus Rapid Transit line;
• Downtown Redmond light rail extension;
• New SR-522 and 145th St Bus Rapid Transit line;
• Federal Way to Tacoma light rail extension; and
• South Sounder commuter rail capital improvements.

A handful of key projects, however, will get under way for planning later. One of which is a full decade away. These include: the Lynnwood to Everett light rail extension (2020; Graham Street, 130th Street, and Boeing Access Road infill stations (2024); Lakewood to DuPont South Sounder extension (2025); Tacoma Link extension to Tacoma Community College (2026); and the South Kirkland to Issaquah light rail line (2027). Of course, it’s always possible that Sound Transit could begin the planning process for these even sooner since the agency has a tendency to take a conservative approach in estimating project timelines and costs.

With a plate full of so many projects, it’s little surprise that Sound Transit would try to devise a comprehensive approach to expediting implementation of the future transit system. There’s reason to believe that the agency will find success in many of the identified efficiency initiatives. Many local jurisdictions have indicated a willingness to be an early stakeholder in the process and aid Sound Transit in its environmental review and permitting processes. For some cities, the impetus is partially self-serving–arguably in a good way–to guide where alignments and stations. The desire is often to make best use of the investments in terms of land use while also getting Sound Transit to pair complimentary access improvements with the siting of stations.

Cities like Redmond, for instance, have been heavily proactive in reserving future right-of-way through setback restrictions on private property and holding community design forums ahead of light rail expansion. Seattle has committed to streamline the process for permitting transit facilities as part of the Sound Transit 3 expansion projects and better coordinating on interagency relations. Kent has adopted formal development standards for stations, railway tracks, guideway, and other high capacity transit facilities. And Everett is years ahead of itself now in considering how a light rail station closer to the city center might work.

Sound Transit is setting some ambitious goals for itself to achieve, but if successful, the region could get a better and more quickly built multi-modal transit system. Those are goals worth striving toward.

System Expansion Implementation Plan

The post A Bold Goal: Expediting Sound Transit’s System Expansion first appeared on The Urbanist.

Unfortunately, the rush to pass the bill means Sound Transit wasn’t given any time to analyze impacts on voter approved projects. There was also no fiscal note produced either because House Democrats didn’t request one or there wasn’t enough time to produce one. The bill will now go to the Republican controlled Senate which can either pass it as-is or attempt a negotiation. If passed by the Senate without changes, the bill will go to Governor Jay Inslee (D-Washington). Advocates are urging Governor Inslee to veto any bill that doesn’t replace Sound Transit revenue.

How Did We Get Here?

In 2015, Democrats made massive concessions to Republicans on the transportation bill. The end result put nearly $9 billion, besides maintenance and repair, into road projects. This included massive highway expansions. For that concession, residents in the Seattle metro area gained the opportunity to raise their own taxes to pay for rail.

Sound Transit ran with the opportunity and compiled a truly ambitious list of projects, an estimated $54 billion investment spread through the region over thirty years. The vote came in on a truly miserable election night and passed by more than eight points. All the concessions and negotiation appeared to have paid off.

Yet, opposition to the measure didn’t stop. The Seattle Times—who opposed the ballot measure—published at least seven pieces (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7) between February and March highlighting anger over car tab increases. The right-wing media stoked the flames, alleging Sound Transit dishonestly “preyed” on voters and levied an “illegal” $6 billion tax. These complaints are variations of the “bullshit claims” thrown around during the campaign.

The misinformation appears to have worked and the anger about car tabs is real. Many people believe their cars were incorrectly taxed and that Sound Transit deceived them. What’s less clear is how many of these people would ever vote for a Democrat, support transit, or approve of any additional taxes ever. The outcry appears to be loud but the political implications are unclear.

What Are Seattle’s Legislators Thinking?

The loud outcry has led to some fear that voters could punish Sound Transit with a vindictive ballot measure. In 2016, Tim Eyman attempted to roll out two initiatives directly aimed at Sound Transit, capping car tabs at $30, but failed to collect enough signatures for either measure. Eyman’s last successful attack on car tabs was a ballot measure he passed in 2006 but was ultimately rejected by the Supreme Court. More recently, Eyman was sued for violating campaign finance laws and his future running initiatives appears to be in jeopardy. There is also some concern that the car tabs could put Democratic legislators at risk in districts where ST3 wasn’t as popular. However, legislative elections aren’t until November 2018.

Representative Jessyn Farrell (D-46), who’s been an outspoken supporter of Sound Transit 3 in the past, described her take concerning the problem over the phone, “How do you thread that needle where you are solving for the valuation problem without affecting projects?” She went on to say, “There was a strong agreement in the caucus that we needed to solve for a very narrow problem about the valuation schedule.” After the discussion, Farrell shared this thinking on her Facebook wall.

Advocates were generally less worried about the valuation but left wondering why the bill didn’t include an effort to plug the $2.3 billion hole it created. The Urbanist sought comment from all the legislators in the House that represent Seattle. No comment was received from Representatives Frank Chopp (D-43), Eileen Cody (D-34), Steve Bergquist (D-11), Zack Hudgins (D-11), Eric Pettigrew (D-37), Sharon Tomiko Santos (D-37), or Gerry Pollet (D-46).

However, Representatives Jessyn Farrell, Joe Fitzgibbon (D-34), Gael Tarleton (D-36), Noelle Frame (D-36), and Nicole Macri (D-43) all spent a significant amount of time discussing the issues over the phone. One thing is definitely clear: there is not a plan at this time to plug the $2.3 billion hole. Fitzgibbon, another outspoken Sound Transit 3 supporter summarized, “I don’t think we have that kind of resources for them [Sound Transit] now.” Macri captured the same problem, “How do we protect transit in the most realistic way? Saying we’ll backfill $780 million dollars won’t get out of the Legislature.” 

Without a path to restore the hole, transit advocates are left wondering what the impacts will be. Concerns continue to rise as messages from the Democrats appear to make it sound like the cuts don’t matter.

Democratic #st3 proposal to maintain projects & provide tax relief passes with bipartisan vote. Only fair solution on the table #Waleg pic.twitter.com/MZj7NoE7hN

— WA House Democrats (@WAHouseDems) April 13, 2017

Sound Transit might raise more revenue than expected or pursue different designs. The latter point should send shivers down the spine of transit advocates. It’s not uncommon to see good projects lose funding, require redesign, and turn into bad projects that kill political support. Further, suggesting projects can be completed with less money than projected implicitly supports an extremely harmful narrative; Sound Transit is a boondoggley pork machine that doesn’t need all the money it’s requesting.

Tarleton attempted to reassure the impact would be minimal simply due to legislators commitment to Sound Transit. “As long as I am in this legislature, I will fight for the funding for both light rail and bus transit to get that line into Ballard.” Farrell relied less on confidence, addressing potential cuts head-on. “If they [Sound Transit] got to a situation where they tried everything and there was an impact to the project list, you gotta do parking garages first and down the line so you don’t affect light rail.” This sounds good to urbanists but immediately raises questions. What about subarea equity goals? Will killed projects undermine the suburban/urban coalition that trusted Sound Transit to deliver? Farrell also provided a more optimistic outcome, additional revenue could come from regional mobility grants. This would be great but the reassurance comes during a moment when legislators also believe it’s impossible to pass any bill with additional revenue.

The bill passed by the House was meant to address a basic unfairness, high car valuations. The bill follows massive levels of grassroots advocacy. Supporters built non-profits, swallowed highway expansions, knocked on doors, donated money, and finally saw a victory that evaded Seattle for decades, or so they thought. For now, it’s unclear what comes next. Transit supports are left reflecting on what is fair about a bill that blows a hole through the decades-long effort. 

We Must Block The Car Tab Bill Cuts To Sound Transit

The post House Democrats Pass Bill Cutting Sound Transit Revenue, Next Step Unknown first appeared on The Urbanist.

A bill to reduce the car tab fees that help fund Sound Transit 3 (ST3) recently passed the Republican-controlled State Senate and most transit advocates hoped the Democrat-controlled State House would relegate it to the trash bin. To our dismay, Democrats in the State House transportation committee passed their own car tab bill yesterday moving the cuts forward. Democrat Mike Pelicciotti (D-Federal Way) was the lead sponsor on House Bill 2201 which passed the committee a 20-5 vote. The Everett Herald reported Sound Transit would sustain $780 million in lost revenue:

Under House Bill 2201, the regional transit authority must stop using a two-decade-old depreciation schedule which overvalues vehicles and start using one adopted by the Legislature in 2006 which better reflects a car’s actual worth.

Sound Transit would give owners a credit for any extra they paid under the old method, or a refund if they’ve already spent money to renew their tabs. This approach would provide an estimated $780 million in rebates for car owners through 2028, according to Democratic lawmakers.

Meanwhile, the senate bill would apparently cost Sound Transit more than $6 billion in funding when debt financing is factored in. How those two bills are reconciled, if at all, would determine the magnitude of the hit to Sound Transit’s finances. The house bill first alleged that its smaller $780 million cut would readily be absorbed and not delay projects, before later acknowledging it may cause problems by instructing Sound Transit to shrink new structured parking if funding gaps cause delays. (Silver lining: urbanists like Josh Feit would be very happy about smaller parking garages.) Cutting commuter rail was also suggested as a cost savings measure. Sorry, DuPont.

Note, that the uproar over car tabs would fix itself in 2029, anyway. “By law, Sound Transit must switch entirely to the newer schedule in 2029 when bonds from the first two phases of expansion are retired. Those were sold with an assumption of car tab collections tied to the older schedule,” Jerry Cornfield of the Everett Herald reported.

Let’s be clear: Sound Transit 3 was passed by a healthy margin 54% to 46% and the finances were widely reported. In fact, our region’s largest paper, The Seattle Times was actively trying to kill ST3 and magnifying every perceived flaw. Needless to say, the anti-tax zealots on the Seattle Times Editorial Board brought up the car tab fees. We knew what we were voting for and a majority supported it; the State Legislature changing it now could be unconstitutional and it certainly puts federal loans in jeopardy. House Speaker Chopp, please spare us the embarrassment. And Governor Inslee, should it come to your desk, veto it.

Here’s what Seattle Subway wrote in their action alert:

Democrats in the Washington State House have passed a bill out of committee that will cut $6 billion dollars from the voter approved Sound Transit 3 (ST3) package. Following a well worn Democratic strategy of caving to the slightest pressure from the right, this signals that Democrats intend to pass the bill out of the State House. The bill will then be sent to the Senate where it will be further degraded and then sent to the Governor.

In passing this bill, Democrats seem to give in to magical thinking:  “While this would reduce a stream of revenue on which Sound Transit depends for future expansions, Democrats said it won’t impair the transit agency’s ability to carry out the $54 billion worth of projects in the Sound Transit 3 plan as promised.”  This is an entirely unsupported statement. Overriding the will of the voters and cutting transit funding will, in 100% of cases, lead to less transit and to transit built more slowly.

House Democrats now appear to be a lost cause. Let Governor Jay Inslee know that this attempt to override voters is entirely unacceptable. Puget Sound voters were clear in their support of transit expansion. Further, making changes after the vote is an act of bad faith in regards to the state transportation bill passed in 2015. ST3 funding was a hard fought win for the Puget Sound Region in that negotiation – which also funds billions in highway expansion without any public vote.

Transit has a sad history in this state and tends to be the focus of constant second guessing and lack of investment. Washington is dead last in transit funding at the state level and has the most regressive taxes in the country.

Here the issues intersect: The most progressive funding source in our state is being attacked in an effort to cut transit funding.

At the same time Democrats in Olympia are pushing cuts to local funding, Trump and Republicans are pushing for billions of dollars of cuts to ST2 and ST3 projects at the Federal level.

Governor Inslee: This is an opportunity to be on the right side of history and support a better, more environmentally responsible future for our state.  Please veto this bill.

Contact Governor Inslee here and let him know you support a veto by emailing him, faxing him at 360-753-4110, or calling his office at 360-902-4111.

The featured image is credited to AP Photo/Ted S. Warren.

Sound Transit Supporters: The Campaign Is Not Over

The post We Must Block The Car Tab Bill Cuts To Sound Transit first appeared on The Urbanist.

We can test the parking=votes assumption now. Of the eight major park and ride projects at future suburban city light rail stations, only three of the suburban cities that are getting some of those parking stalls—Redmond, Issaquah, and Tacoma (not really a suburb)—voted yes on ST3.

Every other suburban city that’s getting new parking—Kirkland, Everett, Kent, Federal Way, and South Federal Way—voted no. That’s nearly 4,000 new parking stalls for about $216 million landing in the no column versus about 2,000 new parking spots for about $120 million landing in the yes column. Put another way the suburban parking vote broke nearly 60 percent no.  (The other new parking stalls in ST3 aren’t at light rail stations.)

…

What can ST3—which acknowledged in internal emails that they had no scientific basis for their parking assumptions—do about that now? I’d recommend saving $216 million and start right sizing your mission by eliminating that parking.

Now, there are good reasons to scale back the park-and-rides–such as rededicating funds to better local feeder transit service and even expanding light rail further–but political retribution isn’t one of them. I’m also not convinced at least 50% of the vote is the logical litmus test for the park-and-rides’ political success. What would we expect the suburban vote totals to be without the park-and-rides? Are we saying they made no difference? We don’t have the data to answer that, but since the suburban leaders asked for them time and again it seems doubtful that they had no impact.

If the park-and-rides that failed to deliver a majority in many suburbs and nonetheless ended up swinging a significant margin of votes to the “yes” column, then they still may have been instrumental in passing ST3. The ST3 ballot measure earned 54% of the vote, which is a healthy victory but still a little too close to the 50% mark for comfort. The talented cartographer Oran Viriyincy created a map (below) for Seattle Transit Blog that shows the difference in totals between ST2 and ST3 which may help illuminate precincts in which ST3 projects, and perhaps park-and-rides, helped garner support beyond baseline support for regional transit. Even then, it’s tough to draw sweeping conclusions.

But suffice it to say it’s a little petty to look at vote totals after the fact and strip projects from areas that voted “no” and keep the park and rides where the city voted “yes.” We should build the park-and-rides we promised in the ballot measure. On the other hand, it would be wise to better analyze parking demand and station access alternatives to determine if some of the ramps are too big. If they are, let’s downsize them. We should also look at ways to allow future transit-oriented development to be incorporated into them or even design them for future conversion.

Anyway, congratulations to Feit on his new gig as speechwriter for Mayor Ed Murray. We’ll miss his daily news updates at Publicola, and we applaud him for shining a light on the issue of park-and-rides throughout the process.

The post Let’s Not Play Political Retribution With ST3 Park And Rides first appeared on The Urbanist.

The campaign against Sound Transit Proposition 1 (ST3) was robust with The Seattle Times leading the way with its editorials and the slant its editors wormed into their coverage. The state Republican party and most of its candidates, from gubernatorial candidate Bill Bryant on down opposed the ballot measure. Bellevue real estate mogul Kemper Freeman largely bankrolled the opposition. His money amplified opposition voices but ultimately proved inadequate.

Puget Sound voters who would not let perfect transit be the enemy of good transit ruled the day. The measure passed by a wide margin in Seattle, as expected, and is sitting at 58.5 percent King County-wide.

The careful listening Sound Transit did to Snohomish County leaders seemed to pay dividends with the measure earning a 51.6 percent majority in the district’s northernmost county. Paine Field alignment gave many urbanists heartburn but it helped ST3 earn a majority of Snohomish County’s votes.

Running light rail all the way to Tacoma may have seemed foolish (BART-like even) to some, but it will be interesting to see city by city results because it’s likely ST3 won in Tacoma to help keep the percentage from getting out of hand in sprawled out Pierce County, where it’s sitting at 44% of the vote.

Now, as exciting as this investment in Seattle’s transit future is, the mood at the ST3 victory party at The Crocodile in Belltown last night was soured by the crushing defeat Hillary Clinton sustained nationally. And, to add another wrinkle for a city already rattled by the election of an open bigot and misogynist, that defeat means greater uncertainly for federal transit grants, as The Transport Politic‘s Yonah Freemark pointed out. But the silverlining is that Trump’s presidency can last only a fraction of ST3’s 25-year investment. Hopefully just four years!

Even with the presidential surprise, early ST3 projects should still mostly be on track, such as delivering what could be the region’s first true bus rapid transit (BRT) line with the Madison BRT project in 2019. Two larger BRT projects on I-405 and SR-522 are expected in 2024. Unspecified improvements to the RapidRide C and D are also due by 2024 in the plan. 2024 is also the expected year of Central Link light rail extending to Federal Way Transit Center and East Link extending to downtown Redmond, building on the big ST2 buildout due in 2023.

ST3 Results Update:

The post ST3 Passed! Here’s How and What’s Next first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Urbanist already issued our endorsement of ST3 (Sound Transit Proposition 1) before ballots dropped, and I already wrote once about ST3 climate bonafides. I want to expand upon that argument. We have to look beyond one simple projection of vehicle miles traveled; reducing the number of cars purchased in the first place would greatly reduce carbon emissions. ST3 means not just 360 million fewer vehicle miles traveled, but also fewer cars period, and that’s where perhaps even bigger carbon savings could be realized. ST3 not only will offer better alternatives to buying a car, it will encourage people to live in multi-family housing, which is much greener than single-family housing for the fairly simple reason that shared walls means shared heat. As history has already shown, ST3 reaching new neighborhoods will lead cities to zone for more multi-family housing.

As this handy graphic (from an 2011 City Lab article by Emily Badger) illustrates, urban housing has a much lower carbon footprint than suburban single-family housing. The urban housing itself is more than twice as green as suburban housing due to energy efficiency (again due to shared walls plus smaller square footage.) When it comes to carbon, heating a McMansion ain’t cheap. The carbon difference is even more pronounced with regard to transportation: the study suggested the transportation carbon footprint of an urban household with one car could be as many as five times smaller than a suburban three-car household. The comparison will be even more stark with a no-car urban household. ST3 would likely create significantly more urban multi-family households because of the zoning and land use changes it will bring, the same changes Sound Transit does not factor into its ridership projection models quite possibly leading to underestimates.

A Little History

Normally I’d really try to focus on the argument rather than the person making it, but here the biography is too interesting to pass up. Doug MacDonald was head of the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) from 2001 to 2007–some wild freeway-building years like most of them are at WSDOT. MacDonald seems to see some folly in those ways: “When I go back and think of what I was doing in 2005, I don’t regard myself as having had one clue about climate,” he told KUOW’s John Ryan.

After retiring from WSDOT, MacDonald wrote for Crosscut including a series in opposition to the 2008 ST2 package, a ballot initiative that passed and has now begun bearing fruit in the light rail stations operating in Capitol Hill and outside Husky Stadium. It’s telling that MacDonald opposed ST2 with its strong benefits to heavily urbanized areas and employment centers like the U District, Capitol Hill, and Bellevue. Nonetheless, MacDonald seems like a nice guy, actually rides the bus, and is active in Seattle multimodal advocacy.

In 2009, Sightline Institute made MacDonald a senior fellow, and he still seems to be influential in the thinking of Sightline’s Executive Director Alan Durning and its Policy Director Eric de Place. The association with an environmental think-tank may have helped the former highway-builder MacDonald redefine himself as a “climate crusader,” albeit one that opposes light rail. Now MacDonald has returned to the pages of Crosscut to write a takedown of ST3 much like he did against ST2.

I (heart) Doug MacDonald. Former WA Trans Sec (& @Sightline fellow) 28 mins of facts on #ST3 and transit $$: https://t.co/REDTV3lYxX.

— Eric de Place (@Eric_deP) October 28, 2016

You Can’t Spell Carbon Without Car

ST3 will do more than advertised on climate change, because it will encourage people to move places where they can and will forego car ownership. It won’t be some liberal conspiracy or nefarious social engineering that will get more Puget Sound residents to forgo car ownership. Many living near light rail or bus rapid transit stations will not buy cars because their life will be better without one. They’ll have more money to spend. They’ll get more exercise walking and biking. They’ll have more time to read sitting on transit. That’s hard for suburbanites to wrap their minds around today, but with a legitimate option of getting around the region on expanded light rail and bus network–and taxis and car share to fill in the gaps–buying a car won’t seem necessary or perhaps even desirable.

Here’s the issue: car ownership is one of the primary drivers of climate change. The average automobile represents something like six metric tons of carbon to get it to a dealer near you. The embodied carbon from obtaining the raw materials, processing them, and constructing a car and is why even electric cars can only be “green” to a degree. The battery alone in an electric car embodies an extra metric ton of carbon, according to a rigorous study. Electric car companies suggest you’ll earn that extra metric ton back through all the tailpipe emissions you avoid and the study did suggest a mid-sized electric car could see a 51 percent reduction in life cycle emission compared to a conventional mid-sized car. But do you know what’s even better than buying a new electric car worth seven tons of embodied carbon emissions? Not buying a car at all and riding public transit instead. If ST3 helps convince 20,000 Puget Sound residents to forgo owning cars, that equals about 140,000 tons less embodied carbon emission in the atmosphere. In other words, if the change in car ownership patterns are significant, the embodied carbon reductions from ST3 could be larger than Sound Transit’s estimate of tailpipe emissions reductions.

Promoting car-free living sounds almost un-American but it seems the only way to truly tackle climate change without some deus ex machina technology dropping from the sky. Seven billion humans driving around seven billion electric cars, each representing seven metric tons of embodied carbon that will last about seven years before being upgraded for the newest model in a neverending cycle? That’s not a pretty carbon picture for our planet.

So approve ST3 because it will reduce at least 130,000 tons in tailpipe emissions and eliminate countless more through stimulating production of more energy efficient housing and curtailing the purchase of cars which each represent about seven tons of embodied carbon. ST3 is a climate action strategy. You are not being bamboozled.

Don’t Buy The Climate Argument Against ST3

2016 General Election Endorsements

More Support For Removing I-5 Downtown

The post ST3 Is Greener Than You Think first appeared on The Urbanist.