1. Financing and Governance Options

2. GMA Goals: RCW 36.70A.020
(1) Encourage development where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner.
(3) Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans.

3. Public opinion
Still sees congestion as No. 1 problem in transportation
Not supportive of new taxes; mixed views of user fees
Confused about who’s in charge
Responds well to consolidation proposals
Doesn’t respond well to mode (roads vs. transit) competition

4. Solving the funding problem
Need to get public to support voted revenue
Need to get public to support and accept user fees
Need to counter negative impacts of sub-regional equity
Need functionally appropriate boundaries and authority for tackling congestion

5. Differentiating types of accountability
Results accountability = deliver the projects
Performance accountability = on time, on budget
Political accountability = relational, trust-based, “Who’s in charge?”
Check out the Gray Notebook.

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

7. Analysis of a healthy system
Public gets what it needs from the system (effective)
There’s sufficient money to build/maintain/operate (effective)
Different parts of the system are well connected, integrated (efficient)
Public understands and supports the system (equitable)
Consider other urban service systems: water, wastewater, garbage collection.

8. Symptoms of Washington’s transportation system
Congestion indicates public isn’t getting what it needs (ineffective)
There isn’t sufficient money to build/maintain/operate (ineffective)
Integration of modes, prioritization of projects attempted and only partially achieved (inefficient)
Public doesn’t understand or support the system (inequitable)

9. System attributes high consolidation high competition centralized
BALANCE or CONTINUUM
centralized
decentralized
Effective
Efficient
System Equity
Popular Equity
Actually delivers the system needed, good overall ROI
Least duplicative effort, most resources directed to delivering service
Lack of competition between modes; flexibility in resources
Deemed fair through participation; local ROI, externalities considered NO
YES
You are here.

10. Why Change Now?
Because we cannot afford to fail, if we rely upon going to the ballot (and competing ballot measures risk failure of both)
Because systems integration requires $ to follow priorities (not mode silos) AND priorities to be set by system performance measures (not regional rivalry)
Because the public says it wants demonstrable reform (efficiency, consolidation, integrated plan) before it will vote more money
Because we need more money to even hope to stay close to trip demand, and to get the most out of the money we do raise

11. Resistance to centralization
Existing strong preference for pluralism, local control
Potential transaction costs could be high, disturbs equilibrium
“Yes, but …” Can’t prove that centralization would result in revenue, improve effectiveness
Lack of sufficient motivator (crisis) to get over resistance

12. Potential criteria for reform via centralization, consolidation
Improved integration of planning for roads and transit and better prioritization (efficiency)
Improved authority to make decisions, raise and deploy revenue across modes (effectiveness)
Improved political accountability, for better public support (equity)

13. Examples
Tolling to build: Tacoma Narrows (WA), San Diego, Texas, East Coast (effectiveness)
Integration of modes: Vancouver, Denver, Portland, San Diego (efficiency)
Empowered authorities or boards: Vancouver, Portland (equity, accountability)
Washington State has less than average control over roads, transit

14. Options 1. State Authority: 2. Regional Authority:
A. RTPO/MPO-focused Commission
B. Special Congestion Relief District
2. Regional Authority:
A. Merge regional non-operating agencies (various options)
B. Special Congestion Relief District

15. State authority A. RTPO/MPO-focused Commission
PSRC
All agencies remain as-is
Transportation Commission reconstituted w/GMA focus
New commission has authority to
Direct revenue, based on performance criteria
State-wide tolling, user fee authority, based on criteria
NEW ballot authority (perhaps joint w/RTPO?)
Spokane
Washington State Transportation Commission
Vancouver
TriCities
Thurston
Ferry, transit, rural reps
Whatcom
Improved integration of planning, prioritization (efficiency)
Improved authority to raise and deploy revenue (effectiveness)
Improved political accountability, better public support (equity)

16. State authority B. Congestion Relief Board (CRB)
All agencies remain as-is
State TC or Legislature authorizes CRB for any urban area w/congestion issues (elected or appointed)
CRB gains authority for
Direct revenue, based on criteria
Regional tolling, user fee authority, based on criteria
NEW ballot authority (perhaps joint w/RTPO?)
Washington State Transportation Commission or Legislature
Regional Congestion Relief Board
Improved integration of planning, prioritization (efficiency)
Improved authority to raise and deploy revenue (effectiveness)
Improved political accountability, better public support (equity)

17. Regional Authority A. Merge regional non-operating authorities
Consolidate existing agencies into single entity
Board could be appointed or elected, or some mix
New RTA gains authority for
Revenue distribution for all modes, agencies
Regional tolling, user fee authority
Ballot authority, including consolidated roads/transit
ballot
NEW Regional Transportation Authority
Puget Sound Regional Council
(potential)
Regional Transportation Investment District
Sound Transit
Improved integration of planning, prioritization (efficiency)
Improved authority to raise and deploy revenue (effectiveness)
Improved political accountability, better public support (equity)

18. Regional Authority Many variations possible …
Could be accomplished by absorbing
PSRC, RTID into Sound Transit
Sound Transit, RTID into PSRC
Sound Transit, PSRC into RTID (re-formed and newly authorized)
Could use
Existing board compilation (PSRC or Sound Transit)
New appointed board
New federated board
New elected board
NEW Regional Transportation Authority
Puget Sound Regional Council
(potential)
Regional Transportation Investment District
Sound Transit
Improved integration of planning, prioritization (efficiency)
Improved authority to raise and deploy revenue (effectiveness)
Improved political accountability, better public support (equity)

19. Regional Authority B. Special Congestion Relief Board (CRB)
All agencies remain as-is
Congestion relief board is option for local governments w/in congested area
Board could be elected or appointed (proportional)
CRB gains authority for
Tolling, user fees
Ballot authority on behalf
of existing agencies
Representing participating governments to PSRC, ST
Sound Transit
(potential)
Regional Transportation Investment District
Puget Sound Regional Council
Improved integration of planning, prioritization (efficiency)
Improved authority to raise and deploy revenue (effectiveness)
Improved political accountability, better public support (equity)

20. Questions:
What further information would you need about each option to better assess it?
How might you change the option to make it better?
Do you have other suggestions that the group should consider?