Regional Planning, Financing and Governance

Options

Co Chairs’ Assumptions

• Region must step up to some funding tool for major corridors • Region must do a better job of integrating planning and funding on corridors • The use of tolls or other “user fees” is inevitable because traditional tax sources won’t yield enough • Planning and funding functions can be separated out from operational responsibility for the region’s primary transit and highway systems

Does the TWG concur with these assumptions?

Co Chairs’ Recommendations

• Given the assumptions about the need to change how we function regionally, we must change how we govern transportation • However, change will precipitate opposition, so we should recommend principles and ask for time to study how to implement

Does the TWG concur with these recommendations?

Transportation Partnership Deliberations

• Recognizes that passage of a regional tax measure is problematic, given voter resistance to increased taxes • Is considering a framework under which elected officials -- state and regional, adopt new funding measures, rather than putting them off to a public vote

Does the TWG concur with the Partnership?

Other Considerations

• HB 1960 – a regional transportation governance reform bill by Murray – passed House last year 63-35, but died in Senate • Opinion polls find public unsure who is in charge and want one plan • Some fear governance debate will derail funding in Legislature • Gorton and others advise governance reform a prerequisite to winning a public vote

Our History of Regional Reform Efforts

• Forward Thrust – create multi-jurisdiction agency to fix waste water pollution • Metro/King County merger – to afford better accountability & eliminate duplication • Regional Transit Authority – create special purpose district to build transit beyond existing agencies’ borders

Which strategy should TWG follow?

Should TWG propose a reform model, take the 2005 session to consider alternate governance/accountability schemes, or . . .?

Can TWG Agree on Principles of System Reform?

As a first step, consider whether you endorse each of the following principles drawn from our previous meetings

Principles of Planning Reform

• Improve efficiency by

integrating planning and prioritization

of roads and transit • Improve effectiveness by

prioritizing least cost alternatives by corridor

for peak hour capacity • Improve accountability by

requiring funding plans

, including priority and sequencing, not just lists of aspirations • Improve effectiveness by agreeing on

one master plan, one voice in funding requests

, not competing voices 

Yes



No

Principles of Financing Reform

• • Make financing more public-friendly by relying on

fewer, more robust sources

• Increase reliance on

user fees

, such as tolls or VMT, to supplement general excise taxes •

Send pricing signals

to consumers to better manage demand as well as raise money • Make

innovative financing easier

, such as LID or TIF

Empower locally elected

officials to legislate new funding, foregoing reliance on ballot measures • If public vote required,

go to the voters once for all modes

, not separately for each mode 

Yes



No

Principles of Accountability Reform

• • • •

Consolidate authority

to make decisions, raise revenues across modes, in lieu of ‘silos’ • Improve political accountability by

giving public clear indication of who’s in charge

• Make sure we are

getting the best ROI

spending patterns from current

Ensure local jurisdictions have a voice

in decision making, to decrease resistance to and shorten delivery time on major projects

Motivate jurisdictions to share

rewarding go-it-alone efforts priority projects, instead of

Reduce competing demands on Congressional delegation

by requiring one voice to D.C. 

Yes



No

The dilemma for Legislators The dilemma for TWG

Assuming that regional revenue is a must, does the Legislature: • “fix” RTID authority; • scrap it and give revenue authority to some other existing entity; • Take 2005 session to consider alternative planning/finance/accountability models; or • Adopt a specific reform model now?

Does the TWG want to recommend one option over another?

The Continuum of Options

From Status Quo to Legislated Reforms

The Status Quo – multiple, overlapping responsibilities

WSTC/WSDOT PSRC (MPO/RTPO) RTID Sound Transit METRO Pierce Transit Community Transit Everett Transit King County Pierce County Snohomish County Seattle Monorail No of Board Members 7 30 25 18 13 7 11 7 13 7 5 9 Executive Decision Yes No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Area State 4 Counties 3 Counties <3 Counties 1 county, 39 cities 1 county, multiple cities County City County County County 1 City How Selected Appointed Appointed Elected Appointed Elected Appointed Appointed Elected Elected Elected Elected Appointed and elected Elected FUNCTIONS Roads, ferries Planning Roads Bus, commuter and light rail Bus Bus Bus Bus Roads Roads Roads Monorail Cities 300+ Some Multiple cities Roads

PLUS … Transportation Improvement Board; Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board; County Road Administration Board; LIDS/RIDS; Transportation Benefit Districts; State Legislature; Port of Seattle; Port of Tacoma; Port of Everett

RTID (26) Pierce Transit (8) Sound Transit (18) Seattle Monorail (9) King Co METRO (14) WA Transportation Commission (7) FMSIB (9) TIB (21) Community Transit (11) PSRC (30) Everett Transit (8)

A partial illustration of transportation decision makers

Option 1. Leave Status Quo

• No changes in current authority or governing structures • Potential for separate votes for roads and transit revenues • No additional requirement to integrate planning beyond current interagency dialogue • Will need an investment in a public education campaign to increase public support for regional transportation taxes • Must secure state investment to persuade voters to step up to regional share • Will want to articulate “one plan” and the benefits to voters thereof

Option 2. “Fix” RTID

• Move boundaries to match RTA • Change ballot title requirements • Give it more robust revenue sources, like HOT lanes or tolling • Predicate state funding on public authorization of regional funding to increase likelihood of passing a ballot measure • Runs risk of separate ballot measures for roads and transit

Option 3. State Mandate for Better Planning

• Leave agencies as is, but require an integration of multiple plans into one operational plan prior to RTID or RTA going to ballot for more $ • Leverage state $ by tying its release to voters approving new regional $ for transportation

Option 4. Switch to Counties Having Tax Authority

• Move RTID tax authority to the counties and give them tolling authority as well • Allow for adoption of taxes within urban growth boundaries of a county and not outside • Encourage use of interlocal agreements to share planning and revenues on corridor projects • Direct county councils to adopt revenue measures by legislative vote, nor ballot measure

Option 5. State-Appointed Commission

• Define in state law a new jurisdiction to improve urban mobility with tolling and tax authority • Give Governor or Legislature power to appoint the members of governing commission; or provide for direct election of commissioners • Give commission power to direct existing state revenues to priority projects, impose tolls and taxes, and go to ballot instead of RTID

Option 6. Use 2005 Session to Review Reform Initiatives

• Legislature adopts principles for reform, including merging regional planning and financing authority into one agency • Legislature directs a study of implementation issues and mandates a report and bill language for 2006; or Legislature waits for reform suggestion this session from TWG • Any ballot measure for new regional revenue delayed until fall of 2006

Option 7. Support HB 1960

*

Merge Agencies Now and

• Creates Puget Sound Regional Transportation District with 8 districts, one at-large member, all directly elected by January 2006 • Assumes functions of RTPO and MPO • Identifies transportation facilities and services of regional significance and develops plan to allocate resources amongst them • Adopts a long term plan for all transportation functions • Assumes governance of RTID and RTA in Jan. 2007 • Creates a policy advisory committee of local elected officials with transportation responsibility • Directs County Councils to put the PSRTD up to a public vote at next election to authorize its formation Passed House 63-35, died in Senate

Does the TWG want to suggest one reform approach over another or stick to articulating principles of reform?

If recommending one scheme, which do you favor?

Do you want more details spelled out in your recommendation?

Should there be a role for TWG during session to define/analyze options and recommend a reform package?