Simpson: Transportation governance shakeup would be counterproductive

According to several legislators we've been hearing from over the last few days, Senate Transportation Committee Chairwoman Mary Margaret Haugen is poised to (unwisely) introduce a successor bill to last session's ill-advised SSB 5803, which attempted to gut Sound Transit and replace it with a new super agency with jurisdiction over roads and transit planning.

Haugen's incarnation would keep Sound Transit in place as an entity but replace the current board with a new troupe of mostly elected, well paid transportation czars who would serve six year terms from new sprawling cross county districts. The agency would also be forcibily given the responsibility of planning and building roads and highways in addition to transit systems.

It's slightly less sour than SSB 5803, but not by much.

Fortunately, there are lawmakers who realize what a bad proposal this is. Among them is Representative Geoff Simpson, who concisely explains why a governance shakeup is misguided and problematic in this morning's Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

You hear a lot of talk about "governance reform." This push is coming from fans of regional financing of state highways and those opposed to light rail. Sound Transit is delivering projects on time and on budget, bringing in hundreds of millions in federal funds and passing audits with the highest grades.

Why would we want to jeopardize that federal funding stream by creating a new layer of costly bureaucracy that will guarantee only years more of political and traffic gridlock? Congestion in this region is because of lack of investment, not lack of coordination among transportation agencies. We need to get smart and efficient when it comes to transportation. Creating more government certainly won't help. It will result only in more delay, politics, red tape and costs.

We couldn't agree more.

Despite Sound Transit's stellar track record, despite the research that clearly shows voters hated the pairing of roads and transit in Proposition 1, and despite the failure of Olympia's past meddling, Haugen and her allies seemingly remain stuck to this scheme like dried epoxy.

Simpson suggest that instead of interfering with Sound Transit, Olympia should give the agency more flexibility and freedom to fund its projects:

And because voters prefer paying taxes that relate to the undertaking, the motor vehicle excise taxing authority that was given to the Regional Transit Improvement District should be transferred to regional transit agencies so they could rely less on the regressive sales tax to pay for transportation projects. It makes more sense and it could help facilitate mass transit investments in regions across the state, not just here.

This is an innovative idea that is worthy of further exploration.

We commend Representative Simpson for his insight, thoughtfulness, and words of advice to fellow legislators. Senator Haugen would do well to listen to these suggestions, meet with Sound Transit stakeholders to solicit their feedback, and abandon her governance shakeup bill.