Subject: FW: revenue and tolling and eligible projects

-----Original Message-----

From: [jack whisner, email address deleted

Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2003 6:24 PM

To: rtid@wsdot.wa.gov

Cc: rob.mckenna@metrokc.gov; cynthia.sullivan@metrokc.gov;

dwight.pelz@metrokc.gov; murray_ed@leg.wa.gov; horn_ji@leg.wa.gov

Subject: revenue and tolling and eligible projects

Dear RTID Executive Board:

I write on three topics: revenue, HOT lanes, and sidewalks.

It appears the RTID will have another year to perfect its proposal. There will also be another legislative session to consider amendment to the deeply flawed enabling legislation. Please take advantage of both the time and the session to improve your proposal before going before the electorate.

The revenues allowed the RTID by ESSSB 6140 are flawed as few are proportional to use of the transportation system. Therefore, they are both inefficient and unfair. This is especially true of the retail sales tax, which is unrelated to use of the transportation system, regressive, already quite high, and if attempted at the levels under consideration by the RTID, will probably lead to the defeat of needed transportation improvements. Even the vehicle fee and MVET are not related to use. The I-695 tax revolt over the MVET is still fresh in our collective memories. Please ask the Legislature to completely overhaul the RTID revenue powers. The taxes allowed should be proportional to use. This is not only fair, but efficient, as it would send a price signal to users. Revenues acceptable on these margins include the gas tax, an odometer tax, and a commuter parking tax.

A regional gas tax could be as high as feasible. It should be limited only by the boundary issue. An odometer tax would be exactly proportional to use. All motor vehicles are measured by the air quality agency for tab renewal. With slight enhancements, this could be used to tax vehicle owners proportionally to their use of the system. A tax on long term parking could be levied through employers based on the number of employees driving to work; employers would not pay the tax for employees who walked, biked, or took transit to work.

WSDOT and the RTID are considering HOT lanes. Please continue. Pricing is the most efficient way to optimize the level of traffic congestion. Operationally, HOT lanes will prove difficult to implement due to the need for buffer or barrier separation. It is encouraging to learn of discussions of lane conversion, not only of HOV lanes, but also general-purpose lanes to HOT lanes. However, current discussions are too timid. The best approach would be to convert the entire limited access freeway network to HOT lanes, not just the current HOV lanes, which have no or limited available capacity, but the general-purpose lanes as well. This would allow the level of traffic congestion to be optimized at the level of maximum person through put, eliminate the requirement for buffer or barrier separation (which is costly in capital and right-of-way), and allow much earlier implementation, as we would not need as much new construction. Traffic congestion is a signal of poor prici!

ng. Congestion is a queue for limited lane space. Our highways suffer the tragedy of the commons discussed in economics 101 classes: they are over grazed. In another analogy: we price lane space as the Soviets priced bread and queues result.

ESSSB 6140 was aimed at increasing the capacity of highways of statewide significance. A specialized measure may have less chance of passing the voters than a balanced package. A huge unmet need in the region is the sidewalk deficit. Consider the too frequent and tragic loss of pedestrian lives on our arterial roadways. The entire arterial network should be retrofitted with safe pedestrian walkways. Many arterials with schools, multifamily housing, transit service, or neighborhood business districts lack sidewalks. Some are arterial state routes and can be improved under 6140 as written (e.g., SR-99 and SR-522), but many others are either not eligible or subject to the 10 percent or $1 billion limitations. A larger and less specialized ballot measure may be more likely to be approved by the voters, it it is fair and addresses the full range of transportation needs. Sidewalks may be a local responsibility, but local governments do not have the fiscal means to provid!

e them. Similarily, the freeway system was provided us with 80 or 90 percent federal funding; ESSSB 6140 envisions regional tax payers stepping into that federal role. Why not have regional taxpayers help with traditionally local responsibilities?

Finally, ESSSB 6140 allows a joint ballot measure by the RTID and Sound Transit using its latent high capacity transit taxing authority. As the district lines are different, if attempted, how would the two measures be tied together?

thank you for considering my suggestions.

sincerely,

jack whisner

[address deleted]