This is curious. Washington state initiative-mogul Tim Eyman is known for writing ballot measures that appeal to eastern Washington residents, but give western Washingtonians—particularly in greater Seattle—a sharp poke in the eye.
This election season, though, Eyman has thrown his usual tactics into reverse. His new ballot measure, called Initiative 985 (or I-985 to the…er…initiated), is ostensibly targeted at a problem that’s mostly focused in greater Seattle: traffic congestion. And the solution Mr. Eyman proposes is to suck tax revenues from all over the state, put the money into a special traffic account—and spend most of the cash on transportation projects in greater Seattle, leaving almost nothing for his political base east of the Cascades.
Huh?
I was puzzled enough by all this that I dug into the numbers a bit, just to make sure. Could he really be alienating his traditional supporters so badly?
Well, at this point, my best guess—well, at this point it’s more than a guess, it’s a near certainty—is that, yes, I-985 does in fact shift large amounts of money from Eastern Washington to the Seattle area.
We looked in detail at the flow of revenue into I-985’s transportation fund, the required spending under the initiative, and the regional concentration of the congestion problems to which I-985 is directed. And whatever Mr. Eyman might hope or claim, I-985 would wind up shifting about $180 million in revenues from the rest of the state into greater Seattle. Over 5 years, we expect that the average family of four outside of the Seattle area will ship about $229 in tax dollars to pay for Seattle-area road projects.
See the full report, with citations and methods, here.
So if Mr. Eyman has his way, folks from Spokane, Walla Walla, Vancouver, the Tri-Cities, and rural areas and small towns all across the state will foot the bill for increased transportation spending in the central Puget Sound. And weirdly, it looks to me that even Pierce County loses out in I-985; the Tacoma area has fewer HOV lanes and less congestion than its neighbors to the north, so Pierce County residents would probably wind up shipping some money northwards.
Here’s how it all works…
Initiative 985 shifts 15 percent of all sales taxes on vehicles out of the Washington State general fund—which pays for statewide priorities like K-12 education and law enforcement—and puts it in a special transportation account. It also takes dribs and drabs of money from other sources, but sales taxes are the big enchilada.
Of course, people all across the state pay sales taxes for their cars and trucks, so I-985 sucks in revenue from taxpayers and consumers all across the state.
Once money enters this account, I-985 allows the state legislature to use it for 4 purposes: synchronizing traffic lights, increasing funding for emergency roadside assistance, changing the rules for managing carpool and bus lanes, and paying for traffic projects that can be used by single-occupant vehicles.
But after diving into the numbers—particularly the cost estimates from the State Office of Financial Management—it’s quite clear that most of this money would, of necessity, be spent in central Puget Sound. First off, 100 percent of the HOV lanes and ramps that I-985 would affect are in King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties. That’s about $224 million spent on carpool management changes right there. Second, ninety percent of the severe traffic congestion in the state is in the central Puget Sound, and over 60 percent is in King County alone. No other county outside of greater Seattle has even 2 percent of the total congestion in the state. Just take a look at this congestion map, prepared by WSDOT (see this pdf). It’s at a funny angle—you’re looking to the southeast:
To me, this map shows one thing quite clearly: any statewide policy targeted at fighting traffic congestion would, by necessity, focus most of its resources on central Puget Sound. That’s where the vast majority of the state’s congestion delays are located.
Of course, I-985 would return a trickle of money to other parts of the state, mostly to pay for signal synchronization. But it’s a trickle. Most of the state is poised to get far less money than it puts in to the I-985 fund.
Of course, nobody knows for certain what the legislature will decide to do with the money from the I-985 fund. Still—and regardless of the specific estimates we came up with—any statewide policy that requires spending on traffic congestion and HOV lane changes will spend most of its money in the central Puget Sound. That’s where the HOV lanes are, and where the worst congestion is.
Most curious of all is that I-985 micromanages Puget Sound’s transportation policies in ways that are virtually guaranteed to make traffic congestion worse, not better. I won’t get into it all right now. But suffice it to say that the transportation engineers I’ve talked with—every single one of them—say that I-985 is a disaster for greater Seattle traffic.
In the end, I’m not entirely sure what Mr. Eyman was thinking. And I’m not sure what Eastern Washington and rural parts of the state will think, once they realize that Mr. Eyman is proposing a a massive shift in tax dollars from rural residents to urban Seattle. I can’t imagine that they’ll be pleased, though.
Deric Gruen provided invaluable research assistance for this post. Thanks, Deric! You’re a superstar.
Alan Durning
Interesting post, Clark. What I wonder is, will future toll-road projects that may get built in various parts of the state also, of necessity, finance road projects in central Puget Sound? Isn’t the initiative also aimed at road-tolling revenue?
Steve Zemke
What isn’t in the analysis is a breakdown of where the approximately $573.9 million dollars, mostly siphoned out of the state’s general fund over 5 years, will be spent.The bulk of this money will come from the 15% transfer of sales and use taxes on motor vehicles from the general fund to Eyman’s congestion fund.After you do an initial synchronization of traffic lights just how much money is needed each year to keep such a system operating? The state’s Office of Financial Management estimates some $65 million over 5 years would be spent. The cost of opening carpool lanes is the most expensive, some $224 million over 5 years to install and modify variable speed limit and lane use control systems. Just how many tow trucks are needed and what does this cost? The OFM estimtes some $18 million over 5 years would be spent.Some $312.9 million is left over for “other projects.”You can read the Office of Financial Management’s financial note on I-985 at http://www.ofm.wa.gov/initiatives/985.aspAfter the initial cost of setting up this traffic gimmick proposal, money will continue year after year to accumulate in Eyman’s Traffic Congestion Fund.The key point is that I-985 is really a Trojan Horse Initiative. Besides the above named items, the money removed from the State’s General Fund and deposited in Eyman’s special account can only be spent on “any other purpose which reduces traffic congestion by reducing vehicle delay by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles”The kicker is that I-985 says that “Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining or operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail or heavy rail.”Yes this is the fine print on the back of the initiative most people never read before they signed the initiative.The ultimate result if I-985 passes will be to set up an ongoing fund committed to more road building. After the initial setup costs the bulk of the collected money can only be spent on building more roads and not for transit or other projects that are proven to reduce congestion.Increasing road capacity only puts more cars on the road which when filled to the new capacity become congested. This is what other cities around the county have learned is the result of building more roads for more vehicles rather than spending the money on buses and public transit and park and ride lots.I-985 is a failed approach to solving congestion problems. It deserves a resounding NO vote by Washington State voters.
Jon Morgan
What most scares the bejesus out of me about 985 is that it would not only kill our extensive HOV efforts but ban toll revenues from going to transit. Without that, and with gas tax revenue falling, I don’t see how we pay for mass transit after Prop. 1—if it passes.
Kevin Shively
The problem I see with this initiative (other than the fact that I get a nervous facial tick every time I hear a Tim Eyman proposal), is that it discourages carpool use, regardless of the time of day its available to non-carpool drivers. The carpool lane helps to reduce congestion, emissions and pollution, so eliminating it during “non-peak hours” because the roads are too congested is like saying that it’s a failed idea. I think it’s safe to say that the carpool lane is not a failed idea, and that enough people use it to make a difference, both on the roads and in the air. If the carpool lane is needed to reduce congestion during non-peak hours, shouldn’t those be considered…well…”peak-hours”? Or at least “hours-that-are-just-as-important-to-have-a-carpool-lane-available-because-it-clearly-helps-reduce-congestion-during-peak-hours”? Okay…maybe the name needs some work. I understand the importance of the other parts of the initiative (i.e. increased funding for emergency roadside service) but this seems counter-productive. If I’m a carpooler, and I get stuck behind a bunch of single-occupant cars that are now congesting the carpool lane because the rest of the road was too congested…I’m wondering what the point is.