Highway 520 bridge replacement efforts are underfunded

WASHINGTON doesn't have and can't raise the money needed to complete the Highway 520 bridge-replacement project without imposing major new taxes or changing the state's debt limit.

The greatly cut-back bridge project the state soon plans to start does not reach Seattle, does not address some of the bridge's most serious safety issues and does nothing to reduce congestion for westbound traffic, including transit.

The state spending cap for the Highway 520 project is $4.65 billion. Current revenue sources (appropriated state funds, awarded federal funds and bridge tolls that will begin next year) equal about 61 percent ($2.82 billion) of this amount. Even this funding may be questionable because of Washington's constitutional debt limit.

So where will the additional $1.83 billion come from?

The Highway 520 Legislative Work Group reported that two-thirds of the needed funds ($1.2 billion) could come from tolling Interstate 90. This is highly unlikely. I-90 is a federal interstate highway. The feds would have to authorize tolling I-90 and using the revenues to build the Highway 520 bridge, part of a state highway.

State legislators from the Eastside would also have to vote for 30 years of tolls, paid by constituents using I-90, so Highway 520 could be improved. The Legislative Work Group "spin doctored" the issue by saying I-90 would begin with tolls on HOT (high-occupancy toll) lanes and only move to general tolling if absolutely necessary. With I-90's general tolling projected to provide 26 percent of the project's total funding, there is little question it will be absolutely necessary.

Also lacking in the state's scaled-back plan are any repairs to columns supporting the western high rise and the Portage Bay Bridge. The state Department of Transportation has identified both as dangerous earthquake hazards.

Nor has the public been informed that the plan doesn't address congestion problems for westbound traffic because the scaled-back bridge goes from six lanes to four as it reaches the western high rise.

The remaining one-third ($630 million) of the project's unfunded budget is projected to come from increased transportation taxes (gasoline, automobiles or auto and truck registrations) or the creation of a King County Transportation Benefit District (TBD).

Transportation taxes would have to be raised statewide to pay for the 520 bridge. City and county governments everywhere are facing potential cutbacks in law enforcement, fire protection and other basic services. So any tax increase by the state Legislature would be difficult.

The creation of a TBD would increase taxes only in King County — where 520's benefits would occur. The problem with a TBD is that it asks King County residents to pay for 520 twice — once with tolls and a second time with higher local taxes. In today's economy, the chances of this happening are remote.

If the state Transportation Department goes forward with a Highway 520 project budgeted for $4.65 billion, when 39 percent ($1.83 billion) of the budget is not available, the supplemental environmental study indicates the project could be built without mitigation of its adverse impacts. The more likely scenario is that the project will include improvements only on the Eastside and the floating bridge, leaving the Seattle part of the corridor unfinished. Neither of these alternatives is attractive.

With tolls starting in 2011, and the funds already appropriated by the Legislature, there is enough money to proceed with Highway 520's congestion-management program and to fully address its safety issues.

Transportation planning is critically important to this region. We cannot risk discrediting it with a fiscally flawed implementation plan. It would be far better to immediately fix 520's safety problems and then go forward with an improved, time-phased, fiscally prudent bridge-replacement plan.