The Vancouver gambit for building roads and transit in Seattle
When British Columbia announced its $14 billion plans for new transit early this week, it upped the stakes for competition among West Coast cities in the transit Olympics. It also injected itself in what will be a hot debate in Washington state, starting in this session.
That's the question of using private investments to build the next generation of transit and highways. It's called P3, for private-public partnerships. You take private money (often pension funds) to cover all or part of the costs of a new project, and then pay off the private partner with tolls or fares or real estate swaps.
Washington House Speaker Frank Chopp, a Seattle Democrat, is stoutly opposed to the notion. At a legislative preview organized by the Seattle CityClub last week, Chopp went out of his way to try to stamp out the idea, which he said was taking root in Seattle. (Discovery Institute, a conservative think tank, is one of the main advocates for the idea, especially as a way to build a deep-bore tunnel under downtown Seattle, to carry Alaskan Way Viaduct traffic.). "It drives up interest charges," explained Chopp, who fought the idea for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge. The rates may not be higher, but interest charges are normally spread over more years than public debt.
Another objection is that a P3 toll road, once built, tries to prevent any competitive other free roads from happening, lest they siphon off paying customers, and that the P3 partnership has an economic interest in spreading tolls to other highways. Unmentioned are many Democrats' fear that P3s jeopardize union jobs.
The formidable obstacle of Chopp notwithstanding, pressure is building for P3s, if only because almost all other methods of paying for failing bridges and bottlenecked highways run into taxpayer resistance, the roads-transit schism, or Tim Eyman. Gov. Gregoire's call for early imposition of tolls on the Evergreen Point Floating Bridge is the entering wedge of the debate. Once the state can prove it can impose tolls, the private companies will be much more interested in investing here.
Curiously, even in more leftist Canada, P3s are very popular, particularly with the Liberal Party. The Vancouver projects will probably imitate the Hong Kong model, argues Miro Cernetig of the Vancouver Sun. That means laying out a new transit route, such as the proposed rail line along Broadway to UBC, and designating station areas for high-density hubs. The spike in real-estate value is then tapped to pay for the new transit, often by selling off those hubs to the private sector, who absorb much of the cost of building and running the new transit lines.
Sounds like just the kind of mega-deal that Mayor Greg Nickels loves? Environmentalists would likely support such an approach, since it serves densification goals. The main problem would be labor, but the unions might be assuaged if union pension funds become the "private" in the P3.







Comments:
Posted Tue, Jan 15, 12:59 p.m. inappropriate
TIF: the "main problem" to implementing the Vancouver/HK approach is not unions, but rather that the financing scheme you lay out, Tax Increment Financing, is illegal in Washington state. right?
Posted Tue, Jan 15, 2:50 p.m. inappropriate
The Hong Kong model...: ...is actually the US streetcar model from the 1900s to the 1930s. Private companies would buy land outside the city core (very quietly), then announce they were going to build a transit line, which would make the real estate they just purchased shoot up in value, and then either sell the land (or rent it out) and use the proceeds to build and operate the transit line.
Funny how old models become new and foreign when we've long since forgotten about them.
Posted Tue, Jan 15, 5:11 p.m. inappropriate
rose colored glasses: Anyone remember the fate of the Blackball Line, or why the numerous streetcar lines were first consolidated and then sold to the city to maintain?
With history like that we should be able to think though the ramifications this time around.
Posted Wed, Jan 16, 8:52 a.m. inappropriate
Pressure for P3s?: There are a few law firms, engineering firms and finance firms trying to build pressure for new privatization schemes in the state, but it does not appear that they are building much of a case to change the law here. They keep trying tough.
There are dozens of ways to proceed with private finance schemes, Washington law allows them, but with strings that the people who profit from these deals don't like so much.
The only people pushing to change Washington law on this subject are the people who will profit from them. Chopp is not the only barrier, but he is a handy target for these guys. These deals have also run into a buzz saw in Congress because some of them already on the ground appear to have been bad deals for the people now paying the tolls.
Posted Wed, Jan 16, 10:01 a.m. inappropriate
The Liberal Party isn't liberal: David,
It's worth remembering that BC's Liberal Party is actually right-of-center. In PNW terms, they'd be roughly like conservative democrats. (Curiously, they're not connected to the Canadian Liberal Party, which makes it tougher for us Yanks to understand Canadian politics.) So, the fact that Gordon Campbell or the provincial govt -- the Liberal Party, that is -- supports P3 is not a signal that it's popular with lefties or enviros.
Posted Wed, Jan 16, 10:53 a.m. inappropriate
P3 works when government doesn't: David, do some more research. The widely respected Cascadia Center may be a division of the Discovery Institutue, but the Cascadia Center is hardly conservative. They have been one of the biggest promoters of PROGRESSIVE ideas anywhere in the state, and have kept up a steady drumbeat of support for transit options.
The deep bore tunnel that you mentioned has support from the King County Building Trades, which is considering investing its own pension funds in the project. Many of these union-pension fund P3s are supported because these projects would be constructed with Project Labor Agreements, or PLAs. PLAs keep projects running on time since the workers can't strike. In return, there is an investment in Labor through apprenticeship hiring/training, benefits, and prevailing wages.
But the bottom line here in Seattle is that we keep operating out of fear. As Barack Obama noted in last night's Nevada Democratic debate, fear has been used to force Americans to behave a certain way and to endure an extraordinary loss of freedoms and civil rights. I believe that we in Seattle have been similarly frightened by What Might Happen If The Sky Falls Financially.
It is important to remember that 2 large toll bridges -- 520 and Hood Canal -- were paid off much earlier than expected. Opponents to projects around here always raise the spectre of failure, and we sheep, led by the media shepard, follow along and kill project after project after project. How long will we allow this to happen?
The naysayers tell us that people won't ride rail transit, yet the Tacoma light rail met 10-year ridership goals after a few months; even our SLUT has reached the year-end ridership goal, despite the fare, the weather, and the alleged lack of places to go on the route.
Enough with the fear. Vancouver is, again, kicking our collective whiny asses and is going to build more than 20 km of new light rail. We will sit and argue, and re-elect morons like Frank Chopp.
Posted Wed, Jan 16, 4:11 p.m. inappropriate
RE: rose colored glasses: The Black Ball line was forced into a labor dispute it didn't want, then nationalized, in a cynical move by the state to get it out of the way of a plan to replace the ferry fleet with a system of cross-Sound bridges that were never built.
Posted Wed, Jan 16, 11:07 p.m. inappropriate
Cascadia Respected? Rubbish: The assertions that the Cascadia Center of the Discovery Institute both progressive or widely respected are laughable. In most places Cascadia is regarded as one big disorganized Republican-backed, headline-seeking, joke pretending to be a think tank. They are likeable pranksters.
Occasionally Cascadia stumbles into something useful. But please look at their record in anti-light rail politics before fronting them as some type of transit supporting group that can bring us better rail than in BC.
Cascadia has been consistently on the other side.
Posted Thu, Jan 17, 6:28 a.m. inappropriate
Before my Time: This is before my time, but still valid speculation.
Perhaps the reason voters turned down the first light rail proposal wasn't because they were stupid but in fact because they realized the corruption associated with the backers?
Just a thought gentle reader, but perhaps we should have gotten rid of Preston Gates and Ellis in 1968?
-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma