Washington's transportation system trails
other Northwest states in cost-effectiveness
Washington's transportation system ranks 25th in the nation for cost-effectiveness,
according to a February 2003 study written by Professor David Hartgen of
the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. By comparison, our northwest
neighbors Oregon, Idaho, and Montana rank 7th, 5th, and 8th respectively.
Professor Hartgen's study makes detailed state comparisons in several key
areas of transportation infrastructure.
1. Maintenance costs per controlled mile.* "Controlled miles"
are transportation infrastructure miles owned and controlled by the state.
Included in the definition are "state highway systems, state toll roads,
some ferry services, and minor systems serving universities and state parks."
State
Cost per mile
Montana
$10,100
Idaho
$10,796
Washington
$15,544
Oregon
$18,326
2. Total disbursements per controlled mile.* The total disbursement
per mile includes expenditures on capital projects and bridges, maintenance,
and administration. Washington spends more money per mile of state-controlled
road than our northwest neighbors, but our traffic congestion is significantly
worse.
State
Disbursement
Oregon
$54,390
Montana
$55,701
Idaho
$65,138
Washington
$76,992
Our recommendations:
Washington's Department of Transportation (DOT) should use a congestion
relief index to prioritize all transportation construction projects based
on how effectively they will relieve traffic congestion. Projects that
will do the most to relieve congestion should be funded and completed
first.
The state legislature should repeal Washington's costly prevailing wage
and project labor agreement laws and redirect the money saved to construction
and safety projects.
The state should implement independent, comprehensive performance audits
to ensure that each taxpayer dollar is being used efficiently and effectively.
A good transportation system is crucial for business in our state. If we
want to improve our economy, we must make sure people and goods can move
quickly.
* Source: "Ensuring Our Trust: Performance of State Highway Systems,
1984-2001. 12th Annual Report" by David T. Hartgen, Ph.D., P.E. Professor
of Transportation Studies, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
Professor Hartgen established the Center for Interdisciplinary Transportation
Studies at UNCC and is the author of over 300 publications on a wide variety
of topics in transportation policy.
Prepared by Carl Gipson, Transportation Research Analyst
(360) 956-3482 or cgipson@effwa.org
At a March 23, 2005, House Appropriations hearing on a bill to gut the voter-approved I-601 spending limit, Rep. Jim McIntire (D) asked a supporter of I-601’s two-third supermajority requirement for the legislature to raise taxes the following question:
"Can you name a time when we [legislators] have actually not just set it [supermajority requirement] aside by majority vote? I mean, this is in many respects a procedural motion that has no bearing. It’s a statutory constraint that cannot constrain any legislature that chooses as a majority to set it aside . . . have we ever used a supermajority [to raise taxes]?"