The Whatcom Excavator
  • Home
    • About Us
    • Who's Planning Our Lives?
    • Diminishing Property Rights
    • NGO's & Public-Private Partners
    • Agenda 21
    • Buzzwords
    • Deep Thought
    • Best Available Science
    • Best Available Humor >
      • Humor Archive
  • The DREDGE
    • Gotta See This
    • How To Dredge
  • Bulldozed
    • Eco-Activism and County Policy
    • CELDF - "Democracy"
    • ALERT: Community Energy Challenge
  • Pig Trough
    • ReSources
    • Sustainable Connections
    • BALLE
    • ICLEI
    • Whatcom County Community Network
    • Big Wheels Award
  • Contact Us

Want to take V.O.W.S. on transportation?

12/10/2012

6 Comments

 
Picture
WE received a rather interesting invitation a few days ago from the Washington State Transportation Commission to participate in something called a V.O.W.S. survey.  Maybe a few readers received the invitation too.  WE almost deleted it.

But out of curiosity we did a little dredging to find out what kind of “org” V.O.W.S. is.  You see, the e-mail invitation said “voiceofwashingtonsurvey.org.”  Something-dot-org usually stands for “organization.”  WE checked the Secretary of State website and found that no such organization exists.   So, what’s up with that?

It turned out that V.O.W.S. stands for “Voice of Washington State,” which is a government outreach effort “funded” by the Washington State Transportation Commission itself (meaning “with our tax dollars”).  Our impression is that somebody dreamed-up this process to give narrowly-framed surveys a “community-input” look and feel.  WE wonder how many people have participated in V.O.W.S. so far, and how proportionate responses are geographically.  WE doubt many rural people will have their voices heard (like in the Methow Valley or other places far off the beaten path – the ones who use the most gas, and desperately need transportation).  But it’s all-new, just launched in 2012, so there are no reports to see from the project, at least we couldn’t find anything online.  Maybe this will be fair, but we expect it's intended to collect the opinions of city-folks and wherever big voting blocks are.

Getting back to the current V.O.W.S. survey, the choice being offered is pretty blunt.  The basic theme is, “Would you like to pay more taxes and fees or get less service from the DOT?”

WE think that proposition sounds more like a threat or ultimatum than a “choice.”   The agency seems to be saying, “Pay more, or else."

A premise, a question like this is very much like asking, “Would you like to pay more for your food or go hungry?”   That's not a fair choice.   It offers no reasonable option, like not going hungry by eating something cheaper, like a burger instead of a steak, or maybe a bowl of rice or cereal instead of that burger (veggie or otherwise).

The VOWS survey offered zilch in the way of alternatives to DOT's existing programs.  It only asked how much more a person would be willing to pay, using various scales like this, with it's incoherent note and instructions:


Picture
WE think readers should know more about how state transportation money is spent before filling out something like this.

In 2011-2013 the state transportation budget page shows that $111,500,000 (over $111 million) of DOT's operating expenditures were spent on public transportation  while $429,700,000 was spent on highway maintenance and operations.  That means about  25% of all operations money went to “public transportation.”  WE're not aware of any statewide  “public transit.”   Truth is, the lion's share of transit money flows straight into county and city coffers.   (To be fair, a few transit lines connect counties, but only in the more populated and urban areas.)

There are some other big-ticket items on the expenditure list that aren't related to state roads.   You'll see $88,900,000 “paid to other agencies” (in the operations section), and in the capital expenditure section the page says $94,200,000 spent on “local programs.”  That’s a huge amount of money ($88.9 million + $94.2 million = $183.1 million) going to things besides state highways and roads.   Where does it go?  It looks like a lot funnels into things like our nebulous "regional agency," Whatcom Council of Governments.   See how much the state spends on rail ($29 million on rail operations + $426.4 on capital projects = $455.4 million total).  Apparently a lot of that matching money  helps “sustain” the mother of all fiscal trainwrecks, Amtrack.   WE like trains, but wonder how efficient all that rail spending actually is.

You’ll find a “funding options” screen along the way:

Picture
Don't be shy about clicking "Definitely Not" across the board if you think these "options" are bad news.  There many screens, read each carefully.  WE think a lot of the fees and taxes proposed look very regressive.  The less folks make, the bigger the hit on the pocketbook to simply transport yourself.  You'll find a screen toward the end of the survey to enter personal comments.  If you're willing to give this a whirl, here’s the link to log-in to the VOWS Survey Panel

WE think the survey should have asked, “Do you think the state’s spending your money on the right things?” at the very beginning.  WE have serious doubts about the propriety of spending state transportation taxes on local transit and trails, and for "economic" and social engineering escapades for towns and cities like Complete Streets.

This is a pretty big state.  It’s bigger than a lot of countries like Guatemala, Nicaragua, Greece, Nepal and Uruguay.  Size-wise, at 71,300 square miles (that’s 184,666 square kilometers) Washington falls between Syria and Cambodia.   We need state highways and roads to move freely between cities and counties.  That's much more important than city transit.

Moving people and goods to work and to market, to facilitate the U.S. post, and for trucks to make deliveries to our homes is very high priority.  But in the last twenty years or so, spenders have worked hard creating a “regional” approach to transportation that's a fig-leaf for spending on projects that honestly don't rise to statewide significance.

WE have low expectations that the situation will change on its own.   Cities and counties where the big concentration of votes are love wallowing in the transportation pig trough.  They claim they’re bringing home the bacon, bringing federal (and state) taxes back to us.  But WE wonder, how much better would transportation be if the approach to spending was more rational?   Think about the overlap in transportation missions with layers of duplicate paperwork wasted on local projects (state, county, and city).  A lot of transportation work could be done faster, cheaper, and with a lot less confusion if jurisdictions took more direct responsibility for their own needs.  The same work could still get done, and we might have a nickel in our pockets at the end of the day.  How could the situation be improved?

We’ll cut to the chase.   WE have a theory.   Ready?

Federal transportation:   WE think federal funds should be spent on national-scale projects, not state and local ones.   National work would include the interstate highway system, airports that serve interstate and international traffic, and other projects that benefit the whole country (like work at border crossings, that would make sense).

State transportation:  WE think state transportation money should be directed strictly to work that's legitimately state-scale, like state highways and roads (pa-leeze!), not for county roads or city streets, buses, or local street improvement projects, park trails, and so forth.  Sound reasonable?

County transportation:  WE think county transportation funds should be collected locally and spent on roads within a county that connect its towns and cities and to get us to the state and interstate roads.   In rare cases, trails might be okay but only when the towns are close enough to make trails practical for walking and biking (or whatever).  WE think recreation shouldn't be confused with transportation.  And, lastly, county money shouldn’t be used to supplement city budgets.  There was a time when our two biggest cities (Bellingham and Lynden) had their own bus systems.  Then the WTA became a massive [whatever it is].  That wouldn't have happened without state and even federal funding.  But that’s a topic for another post.  Let’s just say for now that WE suggest the WTA has become a transportation sinkhole.

Lastly, Cities:   They need to take direct responsibility for street and trail projects within their boundaries.  The feds, state and the county constantly shovel money into cities.  What’s amazing is how much money goes to city transportation projects here when our cities and towns are so tiny, transportation-wise.   Check out the reality:

Bellingham’s area is 31.7 square miles, Lynden is 4.1 square miles, Ferndale is 6.3 square miles, Everson is 1.2 square miles, Sumas is 1.4 square miles, Nooksack is .7 square miles, Blaine is 8.5 square miles, and Birch Bay is a whopping 21.2 square miles.
Yet millions are spent on transportation in these small cities, schlepping-up state and federal transportation funds.   WE think a river of state and federal money is misspent in this state, flowing into “local” transportation that’s way out of whack with actual state and federal need.   And the Transportation Commission wants to know how much more we'd like to spend.

Knowing what we do, we think this V.O.W.S. survey and the new transportation mind-set are seriously flawed, headed in the wrong direction.  This is a huge state and on every level transportation priorities look out of whack.   Here's a good article that was published in the Weekly Standard last year on this subject, "Interstate 2.0"

Take the VOWS survey if you're willing.  Again, here’s the V.O.W.S. link    Don't be shy - share your thoughts below too.   Don't be afraid to disagree.   This really is an open forum.
6 Comments
Karl Uppiano link
12/10/2012 03:34:52 am

I find V.O.W.S. use of the dot org domain name extension as an attempt to mislead, trying to cash in on the "dot org chic". The tea party is a dot org. Whatcomexcavator is a dot org -- not commercial (dot com), not gummint (dot gov) and not web-tech (dot net).

Of course, these domain name extensions aren't official; they're used mostly by convention. Still, voiceofwashingtonsurvey.org (sponsored by the Washington State Transportation Commission) would use dot wa dotgov if they were honest.

Based on Washington State Transportation Commission's self description from their website, "The Washington State Transportation Commission provides a public forum for transportation policy development. It reviews and assesses how the entire transportation system works across the state and issues the state’s 20-year Transportation Plan. As the State Tolling Authority, the Commission adopts tolls for state highways and bridges and fares for Washington State Ferries.", it seems they could just use their own domain name (www.wstc.wa.gov) for this survey.

It isn't a big deal, but it is how all good propaganda is implemented. Clever!

Reply
Kris Halterman
12/10/2012 03:24:05 pm

Excellent article and I loved your analysis on how transportation dollars should be spent. A little common sense could drive us a long way...if you get my spin on mobility.

Reply
Karl Uppiano link
12/14/2012 04:19:18 pm

I took the survey, and offered the following observations in the space given for comments:

"This is not a survey, it is propaganda, using the delphi method to obtain a desired outcome. A couple of points, for what it's worth:

Putting high fees on high gas mileage vehicles is the wrong incentive. It will discourage their use.

Electric cars (which are not zero emissions, mind you) are usually much lighter than internal combustion automobiles, and have lower road wear factors.

I am not opposed to paying for transportation -- far from it. But I expect the state to live within its means, just as I do. I don't get to impose higher wages on my employer just because my expenses go up. I have to prioritize. I expect my representatives and bureaucracies to get real, and make the hard choices."

Reply
HonestAbby
12/17/2012 01:51:19 am

Whatcom County public works says it's going to put new emphasis on trails, and they plan to start letting some county roads go back to gravel. What about the ambulances, fire trucks, school buses, milk trucks, and hay wagons that use those roads? There are a lot of places that you can only get to on county roads. I hope somebody questions this whole thing before it goes too far.

Reply
Linda Morrell link
12/17/2012 10:00:08 am

To HonestAbby, According to the GMA - the long term agenda places all people within city limits - thus leaving the land beyond city boundaries to Mother Earth's tender mercies - hence roads, paved, gravel or otherwise come obsolete. Yes it's been questioned and yes it's already gone too far!

Reply
HonestAbby
12/17/2012 04:10:06 pm

The extremists want to make rural life as difficult and miserable as possible. The farther out you live the more you invest in roads, but you'll get less for all you pay at the pump. Gravel roads kick up a lot of dust - and dust is a pollutant. You may be right. Obsolesence here we come.


Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    WE Dredge!
    Picture
    Posting Rules:
    This forum is moderated.  Please make an effort to substantiate claims that support opinion.  Gratuitous profanity and ad-hominem attacks will not be accepted.  You can create a "nickname" if you'd like, and you don't have to reveal your e-mail address.   Feel free to share information and your honest thoughts.

    Categories

    All
    Agenda 21
    Best Available Science
    Big Government
    Eco Activism
    Ethics
    Freedom
    Planning
    Property Rights
    Science
    Small Business
    Social Engineering
    Taxes
    Welcome

    Archives

    January 2022
    September 2020
    August 2020
    April 2020
    November 2019
    August 2019
    September 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    September 2017
    July 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    June 2015
    March 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013
    August 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    May 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011


    Automatic Updates

    Do you want to be notified when new content is added to this newsfeed? Most browsers allow you to subscribe to our Really Simple Syndication (RSS) feed. Click on the RSS link below, and follow the instructions.

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.