State transportation spending is in need of serious reforms. Washington State’s methods of paying for key transportation projects encourage waste. Securing a better transportation future necessitates change. GOP state Senator Doug Ericksen has identified two fixes our state can employ to kick-off necessary reforms and “pass muster with taxpayers.”
First, Washington would achieve significant savings by improving the efficiency of ferry-construction projects—British Columbia provides a perfect example. Last summer, B.C. purchased three ferries from a Polish shipyard for the price of what our state currently spends on a single ferry. B.C. spent a total of $132 million in U.S. dollars for three ferries. The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) spent $144 million for one ferry last year.
The ferries are relatively comparable in size. Each Canadian ferry has a capacity of 145 cars and 600 passengers. Alternatively, Washington’s new “Olympic”-class ferryboats will accommodate 144 cars and 1,200 passengers. Currently, the second of three boats is under construction for the projected cost to our state of $393.5 million—almost exactly three times what B.C. will spend.
Ericksen presents the cost differences as a lesson in efficiency. “There are some differences in design, but this ought to tell us something,” he said. “Of course we can be more efficient.
The Washington State Auditor agrees. According to a new report, Washington taxpayers pay “some of the highest costs in the nation to build ferries.” A large part of the cost is due to mandates that “ban truly open bidding for ferry construction.”
The Washington Policy Center points out that discounted ferries are not the only cost efficiency taxpayers are missing out on due to the mandates. Canadians receive substantial cost-saving guarantees from ship builders, including penalties and even full refunds for contract violations. Canadians also receive modern upgrades, new ferries that can “run on diesel or clean natural gas, improving air quality and reducing carbon emissions.” Alternatively, Washington’s newest ferries continue to only burn diesel.
Second, Washington would be able to redirect billions toward construction under current spending proposals by eliminating the sales tax on road-construction projects. Currently, our state engages in a “longstanding practice of charging itself sales tax for materials used in road-construction projects.” The practice “allows the state to transfer gas-tax money from the state transportation fund to the general fund.
The funding mechanism evades a constitutional amendment (passed by Washington voters) that restricts fuel taxes for transportation purposes. And, while legal, it “drives up the cost of road construction.”
Ericksen points out that people underestimate how much the state loses by applying this practice and paying sales taxes for transportation projects. Approximately $1.5 billion to $1.8 billion more revenue from the state fuel tax could go to road projects by ending the diversion from the transportation budget to the general fund.
Ericksen has introduced SB 5428 for the purpose of eliminating the state sales tax on public road-construction projects. He expects to introduce a bill that would implement more efficient practices for ferry-construction later this session.
Before taking into consideration any new funding method for transportation, it is essential to ensure that taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars are being used efficiently and accountably.
So, are the Republicans in the Senate actually going to pass a transportation bill this year, or will they do what they did for the past two years — yammer endlessly about the need for “reforms” and “efficiency” in WSDOT, while they themselves get paid our tax dollars for accomplishing exactly nothing?
Ericksen has introduced SB 5428 for the purpose of eliminating the state sales tax on public road-construction projects. He expects to introduce a bill that would implement more efficient practices for ferry-construction later this session.
How about he and the Senate debate the transportation bill the House already passed? Or is admitting the other chamber has been getting things done just too painful for him?
tensor, the liberal socilast make flawed policies that cost tax payers millions of dollars and jobs. Are you anti-military by chance?
You uneducated liberal fool, get a real job in the private sector and quit sponging off the nanny state. It’s time to move out of your parents basement.
Again corrupt government , why do we elect clueless politicians ..
Why? It is so obvious that you prove my point over and over again. The voters will believe anything that their political party says and do which it makes the voters clueless as well. Instead of hearing one side of the story, people need to do their homework and find out who these people are by seeing what they did in the past (unbiased information only).
.
Since the 89% of the Americans are clueless and too lazy to do some research they will take whatever sounds good within their political party and listen to biased media. How can you make a change in goverment when you keep picking people in the same pool. It is like cooking fish with the hopes that it will taste like beef stew. No matter how you season the fish it will taste like a fish and never like beef stew.
.
People get offended (especially TENSOR) when you call them sheep because they know it is true, and they don’t want to be reminded of the truth. A person can be part of the flock is the 89% which would go with the flow and vote whatever their shepherd (politicians) say. A person that is not part of the flock is the 10% because they are independent thinkers and will do research prior to voting. The wealthy 1% love the 89% because it will help them get more powerful.
.
Do you think that liberals don’t have corporations in their pocket not to mention wealthuy? They are not saying or admit to it but how can they pay for millions of dollars on ad and media time? The REP are the same but the Liberals always claim that the REP are the one who have corporations in their pocket.
Well said , the voters need to wake up , term limits ?
I have been screaming about term limits for a long time, but the voters will not allow it because their shepherds will say it is the will of the people for them to stay in power for ever. We all know it is not the will of the people but their power hungry corruption making a career out of a public servant position which should not have personal gains and no retirement benefits.
We don’t need term limits; we can vote politicians out of office any time we want. Here in Seattle, we voters terminated the career of four-term City Council Member Conlin. I’m sure you approve of our having done that, and with whom we chose for his replacement. Do tell. 🙂
So, do you believe that US Presidents should not have term limits either?
So, do you believe that US Presidents should not have term limits either?
Was the American Presidency part of the dialog here about imposing term limits? I didn’t think it was, as that office already has such a limitation.
Meanwhile, three members of the Seattle City Council have announced they will not seek re-election. That means at least four seats on the nine-seat council will have new occupants in just two years. You can talk about term limits all you like; it’s not a topic which gets much interest in Seattle, since we obviously don’t need them.
Meanwhile, we can easily gage your true support for limiting politicians’ terms in office: do you approve of our replacing four-term incumbent Conlin with never-having-held-office Sawant? Do tell.
Eventhough the American Presendency is not part of the dialog I was making a point. There was no such presidential limitation until FDR was elected the 3rd time. Congress and Senators had some sense back then and “nip it in the bud” before it would have become problematic. Can you imagine a president making a career in the White House for 10 plus years?
If you look across the country there are corrupted Senators that have made a “PUBLIC SERVANT SEAT” a career with 30 plus years. Honestly, I don’t believe they win those seats legimately (that goes for both REP and DEM). IF you believe there is no corruption going on during election and there is no need for Voter’s ID Card you are fooling yourself. Look at the Gregoire vs. Rossi where there where Rossi won first, then a recount was in progress where Gregoire won, then another count favored Rossi again, then a discovery of “UNCOUNTED BALLOTS” were “DISCOVERED” Rossi went to court and lost. Needless to say this mystery “UNCOUNTED BALLOTS” were counted and Gregoire won. Sounds like they (REP and DEM) were purchasing votes from who know who.
“Meanwhile, we can easily gage your true support for limiting politicians’ terms in office: do you approve of our replacing four-term incumbent Conlin with never-having-held-office Sawant?” Yes, I still support limiting politicians’ terms regardless what political party it may be. If Seattle chose its fate in a Socialist, well it is your problem, that explains a lot what kind of people live there. Seattle’s people want Big Daddy to take care of them because self reliance and personal responsibility doesn’t ring a bell in Seattle.
“You can talk about term limits all you like; it’s not a topic which gets much interest in Seattle, since we obviously don’t need them.”
– It is safe to say that Seattle don’t care about the rest of the Country with a such a problem. Why worry if it doesn’t pertain to you, right?-
I hope that Seattle and tensor will care when they read the following or maybe the information below is antiquated and irrelavant with the times.
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out –
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak
out – Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – Because
I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak
for me.
.
There was no such presidential limitation until FDR was elected the 3rd time.
There was no formal limit in our written Constitution at that time; there was a tradition, begun by President Washington, of a two-term limit.
Can you imagine a president making a career in the White House for 10 plus years?
Under our current Constitution, a person may indeed hold the office of our Presidency for ten years:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
So, a Vice-President who has served for the second two years of her predecessor’s term could seek election to the Presidency twice, and thus serve for ten consecutive years.
Rossi went to court and lost. Needless to say this mystery “UNCOUNTED BALLOTS” were counted and Gregoire won.
You really need to review Judge Bridges’ ruling, but we’re so far off-topic already that I will stop here.
Thanks for your answers. I just learned something new about presidency.
You haven’t answered me yet. Are you going to? Perhaps Tim! Will come to your rescue again and cocktail block me.
So nice to hear a reasoned voice Of similar minds. The only problem, as you mentioned above, we are out numbered by idiots in spades.
Yeah the Republicans are at fault for all our state’s problems…. Let’s just blame BUSH while we are at it… (lib;s remind me of my 3-year old NEVER taking responsibility),they just blame somebody else when THEY are in charge,,, SAD!!!!
Inslee: Would it be good for my campaign contributors? Nah, not going to happen.