The people have spoken. They decisively shot down Proposition No. 1, the ambitious and complex fix for Puget Sounds traffic woes. Granted, Prop. No. 1 was imperfect, but no more so than any other grandiose solution that might have been put before the voters. The best of plans will always be a compromise.
People arent shy in telling why they voted against it. Aside from being aghast at the $47 billion price, voters criticisms were all over the map. It wont solve my local traffic issues, they complained. Too much emphasis on mass transit. I want more freeways, forget rails. No way are they going to condemn my property for right-of-way.
Though Prop. No. 1 is history, the problems that brought it into being are still with us and worsening every day. It would be nice if failure at the polls meant we could plunge ahead with some Plan-B but that cant happen. For planners, its back to the drawing boards to draft an alternative and that takes time. For now, the good citizens of the area can look forward to three realities.
First, well get along somehow without strategic cures for gridlock. It wont be fun. Morning newscasters will add some minutes to last years commuting time to Seattle. Another gazillion houses will spring up in the suburbs to add more cars to already overloaded roads and highways. How much overloaded? Thats hard to say because the DOT wont publicize engineers maximum-capacity figures and with reason. If the public were to know how far our highways are running over capacity, it would raise a really big stink.
Second, counties will separately apply band-aids to high-hazard corridors. A new turn-lane here, new traffic lights there. Patchwork without coordinated regional design.
Third, regional government will look elsewhere for money to fix our roads just as regional governments are doing across the nation. Before Proposition No. 1 failed, 71 regional authorities were already dickering with corporations that want to privatize highways. Our area could be number 72.
The way it works, big-money outfits like Goldman Sachs or Blackstone contract to take care of certain highways for the next 50 years if they can run them for profit. The money-men give the state a few billions of dollars in a lump sum and we give them certain arterials to operate and maintain. If Governors Ed Rendell and Jon Corzine have their way, operation of Pennsylvania and New Jerseys turnpikes will soon be handed over to for-profit operators.
Two major concerns. Once highways are privatized, toll booths spring up where they can snag most highway users. No more cruising I-5 for free. On the plus side, road work might get done more cheaply because corporate concessionaires arent required to use union workers. On the down side, the need to wring profits from freeways may conflict with the publics plans for needed interchanges.
Think of up-front payments of billions as substitutes for taxes. When voters refuse to approve money issues, state government has to look elsewhere for cash to fund education, public safety, parks and the whole nine yards. Bloated corporate treasuries are on the lookout for secure investments like this. After all, theyre already running prisons.
Why is corporate control of roads a concern? Having seen how legislators squander rainy-day funds and subvert state lottery receipts away from public education where it was supposed to go count on them making short work of those billions. Once the money is gone, under-funded programs will limp along until someone proposes another state function to privatize. State hospitals? The State Patrol?
Anyone thinking of privatizing (proposals are being pushed in every state capitol) should watch whats happening elsewhere. In July, a private Australian-Spanish consortium took over the 157-mile highway linking Chicago with Ohio. The company agreed to operate and maintain highways and pocket tolls collected for 75 years in exchange for a lump payment to the state of $3.8 billion.
Virginia lawmakers are attempting to resist toll increases on the privately operated Dulles Greenway, though the states control over tolls isnt all that clear. In Texas, after much consideration, officials of Harris County declined to allow privatization of highways in the Houston Area.
Indiana is in its fifth month of an agreement that traded away highway operation for immediate cash. Tolls for passenger cars on a 50 year-old toll-way jumped from $4.65 to $8 in September. Truckers were hit with a similar increase. More increases are scheduled.
Privatizing has become a convenient legislative alternative whenever voters decide not to tax themselves. In voting down public financing, we open the door to private interests running the show. Is that truly a cost-effective choice? Should we assume that corporations will run state transportation systems much more cheaply than the state? Fifty years is a long time for corporate operators to skim guaranteed profits and a longer time should Indianas legislature to wish it could get out of the deal.
Who are the private highwaymen that are buying up U.S. transportation concessions? Cintra (Spain), partnered with Macquarie Infrastructure Group (Australia), is a frequent bidder. Lone Star Infrastructure and Granite Construction are American. Then there are Skansa BOT AB (Sweden), Telvent (Spain), Brisa Auto Estradas (Portugal) and Companhia de Concessoes Rodoviarias (Brazil). And of course, Halliburton. All of the above and others are actively seeking contracts with regional U.S. governments to run segments of Americas highways. It seems were being globalized.
Proposition No. 1s loss didnt just scuttle a plan. It also set lawmakers searching for some other solution to Puget Sounds vexing transportation problems. For citizens, the issue boils down to this, which do you trust more, public servants planning and operating public transportation systems for the common good or corporate interests operating highways and mass transit for profit.

Comments may be addressed to: rgraef@verizon.net.