After more than two year’s of deliberation, the Governor’s Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation (BRCT) released its findings and recommendations on November 29, 2000. Media reports focused on the tax sources that were recommended and the higher costs for drivers. The Commission proposed many new taxes and fees plus increased borrowing to fund maintenance and expansion of the state’s transportation system. Still, the Commission fell considerably short of finding enough revenue to meet their goal "to prevent the gridlock on our roads and highways from irreparably damaging the state’s environmental health and economic prosperity and diminishing the personal well-being of citizens."

Several of the BRCT’s recommendations give a boost to Sound Transit and its light-rail system:

1. Funding for Link Light Rail is recommended as a part of "increased transportation choices". Phase I extended to Northgate was included in an "Early Action" investment strategy without explicit identification.
2. Sound Transit is evidently eligible to tap one or more of the new "flexible" revenue sources to pay for completion of Phase I to Northgate and pay all of its operating costs through 2010, and thus be able to avoid going back to voters to get permission to use more of its current tax authority.
3. Sound Transit remains in a position to fund its long-range light rail program. However, local bus transit would continue to struggle for sufficient funds to meet basic mobility needs and expand service as the region grows.

The BRCT’s revenue proposals address the financial dilemma for each component of the Puget Sound region’s transportation system. Each faces a revenue shortfall in expanding system capacity to meet regional growth, and sometimes there is not even enough money available to preserve and maintain the existing system. The fiscal problem is shown in the following tables produced by the Puget Sound Regional Council following release of the BRCT’s report. Table 1 summarizes the costs of a proposed action strategy for regional transportation investments over the next 10 years.

The basic needs category – resources needed to maintain, preserve, improve the safety of, and operate the existing system – does not take into account new demands that result from increases in population, vehicle-miles per capita, or transit ridership expected over the next ten years. Local transit’s tax sources show a 7% shortfall for basic transit service, while Sound Transit’s tax sources are secure and its program is fully funded. Local transit will fall much farther behind in its ability to serve the region’s growing population without new revenue. The shortfall increases to 38% of the estimated investment needed to keep up with growth during the next 10 years.

The BRCT’s tax and fee recommendations attempt to remedy the deficits facing the region’s various transportation agencies. Table 2, produced by the PSRC, shows the estimated 10-year fiscal impact if all of the new revenue sources recommended by the BRCT were to be put in place. Each would require authorization by the legislature and, in some cases, additional action by local and regional governments.

A comparison of Tables 1 and 2 indicates that the BRCT’s recommendations for revenue additions totaling $10.6 billion would eliminate only about half of the region’s $23.5 billion transportation funding gap. However, the new sources would allow much more flexibility in the use of the new revenue. About three-fourths of the new revenue is free from the constraints of the 18^th Amendment, which limits certain revenues to support of highways and ferries. This good news for local transit would likely set in motion a major struggle between contending interests.

The BRCT acknowledges that its revenue recommendations are insufficient. It recommends the implementation of "aggressive efficiencies, traffic demand management, telecommuting and other emerging technologies" as a substitute for more revenue for system investments. How much these will deliver in real congestion and air quality benefits is highly problematic.

Although the BRCT’s 6-year "early action" investment strategy explicitly targets numerous highway and transit projects for funding, Sound Transit and its Link light-rail project is not specifically mentioned. Instead, the report indirectly supports its funding by endorsing transit and other investments that "expand choices" and "are ready to go." Funding in the range $3 to 4 billion is identified for these projects, and new tax sources are provided.

As is well known, Sound Transit’s biggest problem is to find enough money for Phase I from Sea-Tac to Northgate. So far, Sound Transit has failed in two efforts: gaining a share of King County’s general sales tax increase for transit and winning a substantial increase in state funding. The 2000 legislature did grant a token $15 million. The practical challenge for Sound Transit is how to raise the money without going back to voters in the three counties for permission to use more or all of the sales tax (currently 0.4 cents of 0.9 cents) and the MVET (currently 0.3% of 0.8%) authorized by the legislature. Increasing either would be difficult. And even though there is a large amount of tax capacity remaining in these sources (about $3.7 billion), it would be particularly awkward since only one subarea, North King County, is in deficit.

BRTC has put Sound Transit in position to tap one or more of the proposed new flexible funding sources. As indicated in Table 1, by current estimates Sound Transit needs another $713 million to fund construction from Sea-Tac to Northgate, and to operate that system plus its other high-capacity transit -- commuter rail and express buses -- through 2010. PSRC documents suggest that this revenue be made available through state sources such as a sales tax on fuel. Meanwhile, the local bus services that provide most of the transit ridership in the region will be trying to fill their own $3.5 billion gap in funding, shown in Table 1.

While Sound Transit has been nominated by the Blue Ribbon Commission to remain in a better revenue position than the one faced by local bus service, state legislators are not likely to provide more funding for Sound Transit in the 2001 session.