Published: Thursday, April 17, 2008
Rossi raises key issue: How do we fund roads?
Can Dino Rossi's freshly unveiled transportation plan solve our traffic mess? Doubtful. Many of the cost figures cited in it appear to be based more on wishful thinking than thoughtful analysis.
The latter, by independent sources, is needed to provide some clarification in the coming weeks. For instance: How can an eight-lane Highway 520 bridge be built for less money than a six-lane version proposed by Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who Republican Rossi is campaigning to unseat?
That said, we welcome the debate Rossi's proposals are clearly designed to generate. This gubernatorial election should be a vehicle for a broad discussion about what our state's priorities are and how we should pay for them. On that score, Rossi's plan provides a good starting point.
Transportation is an unending source of frustration for most Puget Sound residents and businesses. It was largely neglected as the population grew in the 1990s. Recent increases in the gasoline tax only scratch the surface of what's needed, and that revenue source is expected to dwindle as cars become more fuel-efficient. Tolls are likely a partial (and controversial) solution, but where will the rest of the needed billions come from?
Mostly out of existing revenue, under Rossi's plan. He would dedicate 40 percent of taxes on the sale of new and used vehicles to road projects, diverting money that now goes into the state general fund and creating a logical link between transportation-related taxes and transportation projects. Critics say that will gut education and health-care funding. Rossi responds that historical revenue growth would be enough to cover losses to the general fund.
Rossi would also save money by waiving the sales tax on road construction projects. Indeed, it makes little sense for the state to tax itself, raising project costs in the process.
For a broad debate over transportation funding to be meaningful, though, credible (and fairly quick) research is needed on Rossi's figures. His $15 billion plan promises a lot -- widening Highway 9 into a viable, five-lane alternative to I-5, a whopping $600 million in safety improvements and congestion relief for long-neglected U.S. 2, a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct -- without proposing much in the way of sacrifice. The no-free-lunch maxim belies that. Call us skeptical.
Much of Rossi's proposal may be pie in the sky. But if it sparks a robust discussion of revenue sources and spending priorities, and ideas for getting much-needed transportation projects on a faster track, it will have served a useful purpose.
The latter, by independent sources, is needed to provide some clarification in the coming weeks. For instance: How can an eight-lane Highway 520 bridge be built for less money than a six-lane version proposed by Democratic Gov. Chris Gregoire, who Republican Rossi is campaigning to unseat?
That said, we welcome the debate Rossi's proposals are clearly designed to generate. This gubernatorial election should be a vehicle for a broad discussion about what our state's priorities are and how we should pay for them. On that score, Rossi's plan provides a good starting point.
Transportation is an unending source of frustration for most Puget Sound residents and businesses. It was largely neglected as the population grew in the 1990s. Recent increases in the gasoline tax only scratch the surface of what's needed, and that revenue source is expected to dwindle as cars become more fuel-efficient. Tolls are likely a partial (and controversial) solution, but where will the rest of the needed billions come from?
Mostly out of existing revenue, under Rossi's plan. He would dedicate 40 percent of taxes on the sale of new and used vehicles to road projects, diverting money that now goes into the state general fund and creating a logical link between transportation-related taxes and transportation projects. Critics say that will gut education and health-care funding. Rossi responds that historical revenue growth would be enough to cover losses to the general fund.
Rossi would also save money by waiving the sales tax on road construction projects. Indeed, it makes little sense for the state to tax itself, raising project costs in the process.
For a broad debate over transportation funding to be meaningful, though, credible (and fairly quick) research is needed on Rossi's figures. His $15 billion plan promises a lot -- widening Highway 9 into a viable, five-lane alternative to I-5, a whopping $600 million in safety improvements and congestion relief for long-neglected U.S. 2, a tunnel to replace the Alaskan Way Viaduct -- without proposing much in the way of sacrifice. The no-free-lunch maxim belies that. Call us skeptical.
Much of Rossi's proposal may be pie in the sky. But if it sparks a robust discussion of revenue sources and spending priorities, and ideas for getting much-needed transportation projects on a faster track, it will have served a useful purpose.
Comments
(