Mike Siegel: Unaccountable To The Truth
His column offered me with the opportunity to rebuttal with the following comment, that I present in full below:
Actually voting yes on I-912 will accomplish nothing. Where is it written that passage of I-912 will do any of the things Siegel suggests? Nowhere. Were the attorney general to comment on what I-912 would accomplish he would write: "I-912 does not guarantee a better bill - passage of I-912 does not necessarily change the equation or minimize the cost of each project."To learn about more reasons I-912 is bad for Washington state visit Washington Defense.
Performance audits are a part of this bill. The "intense lobbying" (otherwise known as people on both sides of the aisle working together to come to an agreement) produced $4 million in money for performance audits over the next two years. This was an improvement to the bill requested by Republican legislators. Legislators also looked at the performance of the WSDOT for recently completed projects paid for by the nickel tax bond of 2003, and saw an agency that in all but one case produced project results that were completed on time or earlier, and at or under budgeted costs.
This, coupled with the fact our transportation infrastructure is in dire need of work to address a multitude of safety improvements, as well as key congestion bottlenecks, led die-hard anti-tax legislators such as Joyce Mulliken (13th District), Joe Zarelli (18th District), and even senate minority leader Bill Finkbeiner (45th District) to vote in favor of the transportation bill and the gas tax. The bill itself was co-sponsored by Republican Dan Swecker (20th District).
The legislature passed a necessary and long overdue transportation package that will make a significant dent in an over $30 billion backlog of work that this state needs done. 240 safety and congestion relief projects will be fully funded by the bill. I-912 does nothing but promise more of the same: more gridlock, more accidents, and more of nothing getting done about either of those things.
The transportation bill was a tough bill that took three years to finally get worked to a point that the majority of legislators, with bipartisan could support. Yes, it came down to the wire during the last legislative session before it passed. That is not unprecedented. The 2003 transportation bill was also passed on the final weekend of the legislative session that year. However, I-912 does nothing but turn back the clock and negate all that hard work, while diminishing the effort and the tough choices that had to be made in order to produce the bill. Meanwhile, in the months since I-912 was added to the ballot, an estimated $66 million has been added to the cost of projects that are on hold while their funding is in the balance. That much money would have paid for a number of large projects anywhere in Washington state. The cost for all these projects will only go up in time and I-912 only guarantees that they will cost us more to complete.
I-912 is short-sighted, and promises nothing but the fact that we will all pay more over the long term. If you're planning on moving out of state in the next couple of years, save yourself a few bucks and vote for I-912 - you'll be out of here anyway so why would you care about the long term ramifications. However, if you love this great state and plan to stick around for many years and want to be a part of making it a better place to get around in safely, and a better place to move produce and goods, and for businesses to drive in efficiently, you need to vote "no" on I-912, and yes to solving our transportation infrastructure needs.
Posted at 11/05/2005 05:21:00 PM PT
Permanent Link
8 Comment(s):
Is this Siegal guy the same one who got fired for saying Norm Rice was screwing a guy? Whats WITH these people.
I like the 'dire' state of the infrastructure comment.
I used to live and work within about a mile apart for about 20 years. We recently moved so we have 12 miles to commute.
I have been told the commute is a nightmare- Everett to Marysville. While the time is about the same to get from Bellevue to Seattle in my old 1970 days, it can be done during rush hour in 22 minutes. This isn't too bad.
So, 'dire' and 'emergency' are not proper words.
I still don't know why I have to pay for the Alaskan Way Viaduct.
Have you looked at the idea of a retrofit to a reasonable earthquake instead of the 'fix' being proposed?
swatter - You make a good point. I used to live in Chicago and traffic here is nothing like there. I also find that I do a lot of reverse commutes in this area, or adjust my drive times to so that I get to work a little later, and leave a little later, which certainly helps reduce my commute times.
However, that's also part of the issue here. The first priority of the transportation bill is safety, not congestion relief. Yes, there are bottlenecks and traffic congestion projects in the 274 project list, but the first order of business in the bill was addressing the AWV and 520 bridge, and many other bridges in the state that are on their last legs.
The Alaskan Way Viaduct is a state road and as such a state concern. You don't have to like that, but it is a fact. It makes sense that a state budget pay for a certain amount of the work. If Seattle decides they want to build something more expensive, that's going to be Seattle's burden to make up the difference needed to pay for it.
I'm torn about what is the appropriate solution for the replacement of the AWV. The transportation bill's $2 billion, plus federal dollars would be enough to build a new structure similar to the old one. However, I do like the possibility of opening up the city's waterfront by building a tunnel. Yes, it will cost more money, but I think we need to consider the benefits of the open waterfront as to some extend being worth some extra cost. If the extra costs can be paid for by Seattle, then that's Seattle's business. Indications are that the money can be raised.
One of the things, as an Eastsider that is unfortunate is that I can't easily contribute to Seattle transit or roadwork projects. I still go into Seattle and benefit from a city's infrastruction, so helping to pay for Sound Transit or the Monorail doesn't bother me. I'd like to use both of these myself someday to get around town. When you've lived in cities like Chicago or London you realize the benefits of not having to use a car to get everywhere, not having to sit in traffic. Buses still get stuck in traffic.
No system is built in its entirety in one go - you have to build the pieces bit by bit.
When you deal with the transportation needs of the state, roads, bridges, etc..., those two have to be addressed bit by bit, because the money simply isn't there to do it all at once.
to = too. two = too. need to proof read my comments better!
If you live in Seattle, you can pay to open up the waterfront.
Daniel, I remember back in the late 80s to early 90s when I90 was going on. It sucked up ALL the State money to the detriment of growing areas. The Bothell-Everett Highway and SR9 were highways that needed improving in Snohomish County at that time.
So, now, Snohomish County is in ketchup mode. Yes the Bothell-Everett Hwy got funded and some of SR9, but it is stil ketchup.
Passing I-912 doesn't help with that problem one bit. The priorities would essentially be the same, with a lot less money to go around, so a lot of projects would be killed. SR 9 may be one of them.
I was talking to the wife last night and I said I thought we needed the performance audit thing to pass before we, as a State, can move on.
The audits will show that you can only cut 10-15% of a state agency's budget rather than the 50% many think will happen. Cutting 50%, in my mind, is doable but impractical due to politics.
However, much of the agreement with 912 is the belief the dot wastes money, which it does but not to the degree proponents think.
But we need to do this, I think, before we can move on.
The big reason that legislators voted for this bill was because it included performance audits and budgeted $4 million to do so. If Tim Eyman's initiative passes, there will be even more money available for audits. You can still vote against I-912 and address the performance audit concern by relying on both what's in the bill and what I-900 might provide on top of that.
A lot of the overhead that the DOT has to deal with comes from having to be transparant to the public. That comes at a price. Believe me, if you knew the way I feel about the WSDOT you'd know I'm not a big fan, but my personal issues with them on a local project has little to do with our statewide needs and the fact we will all be better off is I-912 fails and the WSDOT is able to pursue the 274 projects in the transportation plan.
Post a Comment
All comments are welcome, however, rather than posting an Anonymous comment please consider selecting Other and providing your name or nickname so others know who you are. Thanks.
Links to this post:
Create a Link