Dynamic Range

NIMBY

With explosive population growth, building and expanding transportation infrastructure, particularly regional transportation facilities, is a constant challenge.  Cities typically want two types of roads: (1) the big road that brings everyone to their shops (and makes it hard for those shoppers to leave), increasing their tax base and (2) nice quiet cul-de-sacs for all of the residential homeowners.  The commuters typically wants one type of road -- the road with no stop lights (and no accidents) that lets him/her  travel quickly between work and home.  The homeowner  simply wants the nice quiet residential street with no through traffic (except his/her own).  The shopper wants the convenience of easy access to shops that aren't too far away, while the homeowner doesn't want them too close with all the through traffic travelling past his/her house to get to the shops and back.  The biggest concerns for homeowners are typically decreased property values, taking of property, safety, noise, visual impairment, other environmental factors.

The result?  NIMBY. Not in my backyard.

Bedroom community celebrate their peaceful quality of life, while neighboring communities complain about the impacts of providing commercial and retail services.  Residents become extremely concerned when their quiet lifestyle is distrupted by a regional roadway or railway that  traverses the city, bisecting it into 2 or more pieces.  For example, Lehi gets justifiably concerned with the proposal of Mt View Corridor running through the city since I-15 already provides a huge barrier separating east from west.  Likewise, residents of Draper are also concerned with a proposed lightrail line that runs near their homes.

I've wondered how we can provide better regional transportation facilities without the localized impacts on residents.  Periodically, when citizens complain about not wanting a road or rail running through their neighborhood I ask whether they would have the same concerns if the system were buried.  I've yet to encounter a single person who didn't say that that sounded OK, if it were feasible.  Meaning folks aren't concerned with commuters and others travelling through their cities as long as it doesn't create too much negative impact.

How do you get a road though without the various impacts?  The concept of sunken, buried, and semi-buried roadways intrigued me (especially since roads are much more common than rails).  I began researching how transportation facilities could be designed to reduce community impact.  UDOT provided me with some information about semi-buried facilitied showing a freeway that was partially sunked with extended overpasses that provide cross streets as well as large park space.  Could this be an environmentalist dream come true -- large tracks of open space and parkland hovering over those nasty roadways?

If we can do this with freeways, should we consider this concept for smaller regional thoroughfares?  Perhaps popping a regional road under a residential road would be better than plowing through a neighborhood.  It might be better than everyone wanting to close their roads to through traffic.

Let me know your thoughts.  How would you reduce the impacts of regional transportation facilities, allowing residential communities to preserve the quality of life?

Horse to Nowhere?

The summer started with a frantic push by the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce promoting an urgent special session to address transit funding.  That was then followed up by the misstep of the Salt Lake County Council that voted to place a deceptively worded question on the  November ballot that, if passed, would raise property taxes to fund expansion of TRAX to the tune of almost $900M.  The council then seemed to have buyer's remorse, begging the legislature for a sales tax option, but being stuck with the property tax.  After much pleading on the part of many individuals and businesses, members of the legislature, despite their better judgment, began to grapple with this tar baby (or is it more politically correct to say "try to solve this fiasco").

So it's with complete disgust that I read Joe Hatch's attacks on Monday.  Now I don't know Joe Hatch.  I don't recall ever meeting him.  For all I know he could be well intentioned, but completely uninformed or he could be a Rocky-lite, partisan hack.  The one thing I do know is that if the legislature wanted to "screw" the SL Co. council, the transportation bill currently before us isn't the way to go about it.  Probably the best way to let the council flap in the breeze (pardon me, learn from its mistakes) would be to leave it with its proposed property tax increase (still a viable option).  That would have been an easier approach and would have saved many of us a huge amount of time, several weekends, and a holiday.  The current transportation bill is about providing an opportunity to protect homeownership while also moving Utah's transportation policy forward in a broad, comprehensive manner.  It's not about catering to every whim and impulse of the SL Co. council.

Sen. Killpack has provided a good summary of the key points of the bill (Prioritizing Transportation).  Let me give some additional background.  Anyone who knows me knows that I oppose wasteful, pork-barrel spending.  I also hate knee-jerk patches, particularly targeted exclusively at a single city or county.  I appreciate policies that will provide long-term benefit; that empowers individuals to address their own needs.  As Sen. Killpack, Rep. Lockhart, and many others looked at the problem, we determined that the best approach to this bad situation would be to (1) craft fair and balanced legislation that would be applicable across the state, (2) develop legislation continuing our policies of providing greater transparency of the transportation project selection process and focusing on letting the scientific data, rather than political clout, target the limited transportation funds to the most critical regional transportation needs, and (3) ensure that necessary transportation corridors are preserved in perpetuity.

These are significant and beneficial policy decisions, providing a better funding tool while empowering local governments within each county to create the prioritization process and then select those transportation projects that will provide the greatest benefit to their constituents.  It also has the possibility of securing the 2/3 vote required to take effect before the election.  Without being able to clear that high bar, we might as well just wait for the general session in January.  (Personally, I'm in no particular hurry.)

It's an option that the council could choose to adopt, if approved by the legislature.  Otherwise they could stay with the horse they are currently riding.  Despite the inaccurate report, no one is forcing the council to make the change (or pulling the rug out from under them).

So, here we are, getting ready to debate the future of transportation in Utah -- a topic that now overshadows income tax reform.  Should we provide tools to develop the roads,rails, and airports to the future or should we leave SL Co. riding their horse to nowhere?

Hot Off The Presses, Part 2

It's been a busy week.  Here's the draft of the "Local Option Funding For Regionally Significant Transportation Infrastructure" bill that the legislature could see in a special session next week.  Happy reading.

RegionalTransportation_2006S40005.pdf

Not So Fast, Mary -- Pres. Bush on Line 1

Just when she thought she could settle into life in the private sector, President Bush nominated Mary Peters to replace the retiring Norman Mineta as secretary of transportation.  Mary was the former federal highway administrator, stepping down a little over a year ago.  She was also a former director of AZ DOT (and a coworker and friend of Utah's own Mr. Transportation, Tom Warne).

Here's a little excerpt from the DNews article:

Peters said that if confirmed, she would try to improve a transportation infrastructure that is showing signs of aging.

"We are experiencing increasing congestion on our nation's highways, railways, airports and seaports and we're robbing our nation of productivity and our citizens of quality time with their families," Peters said. "In some cases this is the result of systems and structures that are more suited to a bygone era than to the 21st century."

Peters is an advocate of user fees, or tolls, for building new highways. In a recent interview, she said that the federal highway program will run out of money by decade's end without substantial changes and, rather than raise taxes, some states are turning to toll roads already to fill gaps.

"You just can't depend on the federal government to bring the money in that was around when the interstate system was first built," Peters said.
(Bush picks former highway administrator as next Transportation secretary)

Based on Mary's comments, you can see why Utah has been taking proactive steps to shift our transportation policies in a forward-thinking manner.  With the highway trust fund scheduled to go bankrupt before 2010, it's important for states to address their transportation needs without heavy dependence on the federal governments.  Times are changing and strong leadership is needed.  Mary Peters is a great choice.

The Legacy Agreement

The official Legacy Parkway agreement has been inked.  I received it Monday night at 10:50pm.  Not a thing of beauty, but should be sufficient to let us proceed with building the road.  (Download the officially signed agreement here: LegacySettlementAgreement.pdf.)  The timeline now consists of (1) approval of the agreement by the Gov and (2) an up or down vote by the legislature (no amendments, no changes).  As Rep. Ure mentioned on KSL today, this agreement is 1000 times better than what we received in July (although he still intends to vote against it).

This was a win-lose agreement.  Either way the Sierra Club, et al. won and the travelling public lost.  The key debate will now be whether this settlement is better than just continuing the battle in court.

See also
Deseret Morning News: Legacy lawsuit is all but settled

More on Legacy

I've been somewhat amused as I've listened to people rant and rave about the possible Legacy Highway settlement.  Perhaps it would be beneficial to correct some misperceptions.

1.  The Legacy Parkway has always been planned as a 4-lane highways (2-lanes in each direction).  It is not a single lane in each direction and the settlement has not changed the planned number of lanes.  The design also has the same number of interchanges in the same locations as well.

2.  The Legacy Parkway project has increase by $220M or so.  This does not mean the litigation cost the taxpayers $220M.  The hard costs are much less (attorney costs, contract termination fees, increased study expenses).  The soft costs, increase travel costs for Wasatch Front citizens, is indeterminate.  Some attribute the increased project costs to increased taxpayer costs, but that would not be completely accurate.  Since the State was tied up in litigation, we spent available funds on other pending transportation projects, accelerating their completion.  This doesn't mean that the litigation hasn't already cost us plenty anyway.

3.  Truckers are complaining that they will be paying for a road they don't use.  In reality, truckers are paying for an alternate route in case of emergency/incident, (which they don't have currently) as well as increased capacity on I-15, resulting from commuters move to the Legacy Packway.  They'll be paying less if they keep moving, than if they are parked on the freeway.

4.  Why settle you ask?  Either way the environmental community gets a win.  We could drag out this litigation out for another 5-10 years before building the road, but that would be a win for them as well.  It all rests on the Federal process.  (Essentially, Congress hands them the gun, loading the chamber, and then expects us to negotiate.)  Don't like it?  Contact your Congressmen (and/or one of their opponents).  The State's option is how do we cope with a bad situation and minimize its impact on the taxpayers.

Highway Robbery

The following is an article I wrote that appears in the Utah Taxpayers Association's October newsletter:

If you read or listened to the news a couple months ago, you would have thought it was Christmas in July.  With reports like "Congress approves $286 billion national highway bill; almost $1.8B for Utah transportation, bill provides $200M for commuter rail," or “Bevy of Utah projects to gain funding in bill,” and “The most federal funding ever committed to Utah in a transportation bill” who could blame you?  The news media listed project after project that was going to be built because of all this money from Washington.   It sounded a lot like “free money” – free for the taking.  The reality?  The money for the transportation bill came from someone, and the someone is you and me.  (We never saw any headline proclaiming: “Utah citizens send more gas taxes back to Washington than ever before.”)

To make matters worse, Utah, like many of the other states in the nation is a “donor” state, meaning for every $1 in gas tax that we send back to D.C. we receive less than $1 in return.  You could think of it like those casino games advertised on the billboard in Nevada guaranteeing “98% loose slots.” In other words, we’re pretty much guaranteed to lose money in the transportation bill.

But it doesn't stop there. Congress then divides the money in categories that it thinks should be funded and adds additional regulation that drives up the costs of projects, but does nothing to improve quality.  The net result?  Federal money is much less effective than state money (some claim 10-20% less effective).

Add to the process the pork barrel spending where Congressmen pick those projects that will curry political favors and popularity with certain powerful constituency, all at the expense of an effective transportation system. The current reauthorization bill has over 6,000 earmarked projects all at the dictate of Congress, overriding the local cities, counties, departments of transportation, and state legislatures. The process fosters a groveling at the Congressional trough for the detriment of America and its transportation system.

In fact, the desire to spend was so great that the recently approved bill not only exceeded the limit the President claimed would bust the budget, but early reports indicate that the spending levels in the newly passed transportation bill will bankrupt the Highway Trust Fund in the 2009-2010 timeframe – meaning Congress will be spending more than is being infused into the trust fund.

Is there a better way?  This past session, the Utah legislature took the opposite approach to transportation funding.  The legislature recognized that the most important objective for transportation funding is to ensure that our limited transportation funds were directed at the most critical needs in the State. So, rather than earmarking a set of new capacity projects, the legislature created the Transportation Investment Fund and is requiring the Transportation Commission to utilize an open, scientific criteria-driven process for ranking project needs to make sure that our limited funds go to our most essential projects, engaging science more and politics less.

Legacy Lovefest and the Morning After...

After the Legacy Parkway Lovefest last Wednesday, you'd think the whole matter has been resolved and it's just a matter of a few months before motorists and wildlife alike will roam the parkway hand-in-hand.  To set the matter straight, House Majority Leader Jeff Alexander jumps back in the blogging saddle to discuss the current status of the Legacy Parkway settlement

Last week's ceremonial signing by the Governor was only the settlement [Agreement in Principle].  The final agreement - the real deal - has to be drafted.  This will take at least a month and will be much larger than the outline presented last week.  Once this draft is put together it will be reviewed by the Legislature.  A lot will depend on the content of this final agreement.  Some have already said they could vote for the outline but if certain things are in the final agreement they won't vote for it.  Also, don't forget that it is an up or down vote.  No changes can be made by the Legislature once the final draft is presented.  There can be debate for and against, but in the end it will be an up or down vote. (Are we getting ahead of ourselves?)

So stay tuned.  There's still a lot of work and negotiating to be done before any agreement is finalized.

Can You Smell the Bacon Cooking?

Well the numbers are finally becoming available for the transportation reauthorization bill (SAFETEA-LU) that was passed by Congress in July.  Much has been said about the amazing amount of funding that was being provided, so here's the latest info that I have:

• The FHWA estimates Utah will receive $1.4 billion total in highway funds over the five-year life of the bill.
• There was a total of $263.35 million (30 projects) earmarked in the bill for Utah.
• Earmarks represent 18% of the total funds Utah will receive under SAFETEA-LU (equivalent of one full year of our state transportation improvement program (STIP)).
• Those earmarks are congressional directives for what projects will be built and the money comes right out of our general transportation funding.
• As a result of that earmarking, the STIP is anticipated to be funded at FY02 levels (approx. $189M).  So cuts will need to be made to project priorities due to lower than anticipated funding resulting from the earmarking.

In case you're wondering why we need a state legislature, transportation commission, and department of transportation when we've got Congress directing the projects to be built (do worry, I wonder too) -- it's probably 'cause someone has to mind the homefront and fry up the bacon.

Legacy Parkway -- No Longer a Mirage?

Earlier this evening I was reading what is hopefully the final draft of the Agreement in Principle regarding Legacy Parkway (I lost track, but this is something like revision 4,321,945 give or take...).  The legislature's settlement working group will be taking this agreement to our legislative caucuses on Wednesday for their support.  It has been a difficult process, getting something that everyone should be able to live with.  Neither side got everything they wanted, but such is the negotiating process.  We think/hope that we have something that the legislature can support.

UDOT deserves a lot of credit for working diligently on bring the various players together and trying to broker the agreement.  It's been a challenging process, but hopefully they will reap the success of their diligence.

So, here's the remaining steps:
1.  Guage legislative support for the Agreement in Principle
2. Gov. and plaintiffs sign Agreement in Principle
3.  Full agreement is executed
4.  Gov calls special sessions
5.  Legislature approves the full agreement

This could be done in as little as 30 days.