A reluctant yes, but still a yes.
For years I have thought that Washington state needed to spend more money on roads. Nonetheless, I intend to vote for I-912 this Tuesday to roll back the gas tax passed in the last session of the legislature. To explain that apparently paradoxical combination will require me to go back decades. I hope you will indulge me and follow me back.
When I left Washington state, shortly after graduating from high school, roads were not an issue that divided the parties. Both Democrats and Republicans favored them in general, and the main questions were about how much road building the state could afford. And it was also true that ordinary citizens and elites agreed on the subject; both favored better roads.
When I returned to Washington state for a few years, early in the 1980s, all that had changed. Large segments of the Democratic party opposed roads, and most elites had decided that it would be wise to shift toward mass transit. And those changes were even more obvious when I returned for good. But most citizens, though they might be willing to subsidize bus and even rail transit for others, are unwilling to use it themselves. In spite of very large subsidies for mass transit, most people continue to vote by putting their feet on their gas pedals and taking their cars, often by themselves.
(And I can't bring up this subject without pointing out that many who back mass transit never use it themselves — and never intend to use it themselves. They want other, lesser people to use mass transit so there is more space for them on the roads. It's a nasty point, but I repeat it because it is true, and because you can not understand this issue, if you do not understand that point.)
The shift toward cars and away from mass transit by ordinary citizens is driven by the desire of families for space. Young mothers commonly want yards for their children, older women often want to have gardens, and men of all ages usually want space so that they can work on their cars, or keep a boat, or something similar. But, as soon as you build housing with enough space for such common desires, you lose the density required to make mass transit practical.
Planners understand this and have encouraged changes in land use regulations to increase density. But ordinary citizens, contrary as ever, have reacted to those changes by moving still farther out. The vigorous population growth in this area is concentrated at the edges of the urban areas, or even farther out, despite the best efforts of the planners. The planners haven't given up, but so far the citizens have defeated their best efforts to increase density. I expect the citizens will continue to win.
(As far as I know, no planner in this area has proposed the logical end to these efforts to increase density, moving us all into an arcology. But I suspect some of our planners would like that. And, if getting rid of cars and reducing energy use are your goals, you can't beat arcologies.)
After watching this process for decades, I have concluded that the elites should concede defeat. The planners, the editorialists, the Democratic politicians, and all the others who are convinced that other people should ride on buses or trains, should accept that most citizens, especially those with families, will not do that, as long as they have a choice. If planners will accept their defeat, they can begin thinking about building facilities that fit what people want, not what the planners think people should want.
If the planners would concede defeat, we could immediately scrap some nonsensical programs. We could dump (un)Sound Transit and save billions, using some of the money to build safer roads. (And since I try to be kind, I would be willing to help purchase a toy train set for Ron Sims, which would give him almost as much pleasure as Sound Transit — and do almost as much for our transportation problems.) We could immediately get rid of some of our HOV lanes, or, as I have begun to call them, our High Accident Rate lanes. We could, in short, begin to think rationally about our transportation problems.
Now what does all this have to do with I-912? Isn't the recently enacted gas tax intended to at least alleviate some of the problems caused by the efforts of our planners to force people to use mass transit? Let me concede that it is, in part. But only in part. Most of the spending will not go to alleviate congestion, but for repairs that we are suddenly told are urgent. And nothing in the mix of projects cobbled together by the negotiators at the last minute even suggests that our planners are willing to concede that they have been defeated by the people. The tax increase is permanent and can go to any transportation use, not just roads.
Finally, though I dislike saying this, there is the matter of trust. Governor Gregoire gave no hint, at least to me, that she had anything like this in mind when she ran for office. I do not believe that, after years and years in office, she suddenly discovered these needs early this year. I think she intended this tax increase, or something similar, all along and did not say so during the campaign because she feared defeat — rightly, as we all know. So I do not trust our governor on this matter. Nor do I trust the Olympia bureaucrats and appointees working for her. We have had Democratic governors in this state since the election of 1984, and we have had almost no new roads since then. It is difficult (for me, impossible) not to conclude that the Olympia Democrats do not want to build roads — although they do want more of our taxes, as bureaucrats usually do.
So I will vote for I-912, because I think our transportation programs are based on a fundamental mistake, a belief that people can be coaxed or perhaps forced to use mass transit. Decades of experience have shown the falsity of that idea. And I will vote for I-912 because I do not trust those in charge, and do not want them to have more resources. Passing I-912 will not solve our transportation problems, but it may, finally, get our state government to think seriously about them.
(The web site for the proponents of I-912 is here; that of the opponents is here.)
Posted by Jim Miller at November 05, 2005 03:52 PM | Email ThisThe same crowd with the same ideas that got us here are taking more money using an emergency clause.
We have to change the culture in WA before any more money goes to Olympia.
Once they have demostrated they can be trusted as public servants then we can entrust them with our money to do our bidding.
Posted by: JCM on November 5, 2005 04:00 PMBy far the best, most rational, least emotional analysis I've read for 912 to date. I'm voting for 912 for the same reasons.
I would add that to those who favor density, and are actually making it happen in Seattle (see Matt's post a few weeks back) might be able to make the case to build mass transit to those close in, dense areas, in a medium term time frame. Yet this still make a case for 912, because such close in mass transit will be primarily the responsibility of Seattle, the only place in this region where that density can occur, and for now, still probably means buses, which obviates the need for a huge new vaguely alloccated tax.
But clearly, as you point out, both for economic and personal space reasons, the majority prefer new homes, on the outer edge of the metro area, to more dense housing in Seattle. And, that only makes sense, because downtown is no longer the primary endpoint of a commute. The commutes go every which way, and so to accomplish mass transit, we need a large region wide system, that will take more than 100 years to be built if it's done at a reasonable cost, instead of in huge bond or tax legislation. It's taken Paris, London, New York and the other large cities 100 years to accomplish such region wide systems, and they have greater density. It's foolish for us to tax ourselves into oblivion trying to make this happen in the short term.
Every single morning, each individual wakes up and makes the best economic, practical and time oriented decision for their commute. For the vast majority, this is the car. Mass transit is a futuristic folly that must be subordinated to the immediate need of increasing road capacity, and removing HOV lanes.
Posted by: Jeff B. on November 5, 2005 04:12 PMYou may be interested to know that your idea about HOV lanes being killers is pretty much right on the mark.
I was stationed in Germany 3 times, that's 9 years of driving on some of the best roads (autobahns)in the world. Before soldiers or their family members can drive in Germany, they have to go to a class, take a test, and then get a driver's license.
One of the first things that the instuctor and the book tells you is that almost all of the accidents on the autobahn are due to the extreme differences in speed that the cars are traveling.
I am hopeful that 912 will pass and I am also hopeful that the folks in Olympia will GET the message and dump the critter bridges, the landscaped lids, the sound walls, the filmsy cable barriers and all of the other luxury pork items in the current list of projects. It would also help if they would link the projects to the taxes and make the tax end when the projects/bonds are paid.
Posted by: sgmmac on November 5, 2005 04:23 PMI want to see these things fixed, and I could be convinced to vote for a gas tax increase if I knew what projects they were planning on building. But they won't tell us what the viaduct will be replaced with. I've heard plans to reinforce the existing structure (which sounds like a bad idea) to replace it with a similar, modern structure, to replace it with a tunnel and most recently to replace it with a massive cable-stay bridge (talk about blocking the view, I thought that was one of the complaints about the Viaduct).
I was living in Boston at the height of the Big Dig, 1996 though 2000. The project became a bad joke because of massive cost overuns that sucked all the funds for highways from the rest of the state. Only the MassPike, because it was tolled, was still highly maintained. It burst the budget by about 4-10 times (depending on who you listen to about the original estimates) and took about three times longer to complete... and its already leaking. Seattle wants to do the same thing here? And they think it'll only cost $4 billion? This gas tax doesn't even fund that $4 billion. Where is the rest of the money coming from? I'm guessing either magical fairies or another tax increase, by which time the project will be too far along to stop.
Frankly, if the Viaduct is so close to collapse that we needed an emergency funding bill for the planning stages, then the WSDOT needs to *SHUT IT DOWN* tonight. Close it, then start tearing it down before it falls and kills someone. The fact that now, three years after Nisqually, when it became clear that the structure needs replacement that no one even has the outlines of a plan ready is simply incompetance. That should have been priority number one. There are a lot of projects in Washington that could have been put on hold until the Viaduct and 520 bridge were addressed.
Instead, the governement wants us to throw our money at them, and trust them to come up with a plan. And when that plan is a tunnel that hits $10 billion and goes over time by 3 years, leaves downtown Seattle a mess and creates a massive money sinkhole from which only Sound Transit will escape, we'll be asked for additional taxes to cover it, because we can't let the project sit half done.
Posted by: Eirik on November 5, 2005 05:10 PMHow about if they prioritize the critical needs first? And how about those walls of rock that just fell down and killed two girls? Where are the plans to shore up walls? It sure isn't the sound walls they are building everywhere.
Posted by: sgmmac on November 5, 2005 05:39 PMOnce again, you hit it right on the mark - on every level of this controversy!
I would love to see your comments in a major newspaper.
Posted by: Deborah on November 5, 2005 06:21 PMAs far as Sound Transit goes, I'm afraid light rail will eventually be built. If anyone wants a preview of what it will be like, fly to Cleveland sometime and take their light rail equivalent into the city. Just keep your head down and your fingers crossed.
Posted by: Organization Man on November 5, 2005 06:26 PMAdditionally, Sound Transit is the only mass transit program in any state's largest city I've ever heard of that has ZERO state dollars in it.
Moreover, all economically healthy regions, and Seattle is one, will always have traffic congestion. It is simple supply and demand. Where there are lots of jobs, people will clamor to get to them from all over with whatever transporatation means they have available - cars, buses, trains etc.
That said I-405 probably should be expanded. However, in all reality, an I-5 expansion is impossible. Its cost would make Sound Transit look like pin money. Think on the order of $25 billion. Rearanging the lanes though would be a cheap and great fix, as lane drops and lane changes create backups.
And it is paramount that the Viaduct and the Evergreen Point Bridge be fixed. This tax gets some of the way there. Not all the way, but there is this thing called federal matching funds that should be available if WA state residents pony up. If the nation can get a bridge to nowhere in Alaska we can get this.
Maybe we should all concentrate on defeating Maria Cantwell next year?
Posted by: Dave on November 5, 2005 07:21 PMOn Sound Transit funding, I think the big point to keep in mind is there is only a finite amount of taxation for transportation that any community is willing to pay, and it generally is less that what is required to maintain roads, expand roads *and* pay for vanity projects like Sound Transit. Even if Sound Transit isn't directly related to I-912 a certain part of the frustration that leads to an I-912 movement certainly is caused by seeing billions allocated for a project with zero ROI in terms of decreased traffic, increased transportation capacity or safer roads.
Posted by: Marc on November 5, 2005 07:50 PM"Revenue from the four options must be used for transportation purposes only, including, but not limited to: the operation and preservation of roads, streets, and other transportation improvements; new construction, reconstruction, and expansion of city streets, county roads, and state highways and other transportation improvements; development and implementation of public transportation and high capacity transit improvements and programs; and planning, design, and acquisition of right of way and site for such transportation purposes."
The words "other transportation improvements" and "development and implementation of public transportation and high capacity transit improvements and programs" seem to show that this tax can, in fact, be used for Sound Transit and other mass transit projects.
I like it. While your fee schedule may be a bit high, why not start licensing bicycles to use those dedicated lanes and trails?
Posted by: Robert J on November 5, 2005 08:18 PMThe bottom line is that for the rest of us, we simply need more roads. Not more HOV lanes or an Eastside train...More regular lanes for the probably the 95% of us that have to drive in our cars.
The legislation needs a wake up call that they need to listen the public and at least pretend that they matter. I am so sick and tired of them lamenting about our initiatives. Don't they realize that they are calling us all stupid and that they think they know far better than us what is good for us? That is what they think of the public.
A Yes on 912 is a step in the right direction. Citizens need to wake up and start paying attention instead of whining when it is too late.
We have Unions overwhelmingly electing our government and we have been letting them. A union endorsement should be a kiss of death to a campaign and a signal for the rest of us to run in the opposite direction.
Vote YES on I 912!!!
Good article. Gregoire only has it in mind to plug the holes in a sinking fiscal ship in Washington State. The revenues collected from the new gas tax do not have to go only to transportation projects no matter what anyone says. Creative bookkeeping is necessary to shore up the sinking ship of state produced by successive liberal administrations. They refuse to allow performance audits because they would show gross financial mis-management. Cover-up is the order of the day, and you will continue to see more of it if liberals continue to get elected.
This is not an honest difference of opinion as Ron Sims said in his farcical lying commercial about I-912. Liberals are completely dishonest, to themselves as well as others, it is part of their pathology, and it is what makes them beleive in their own bull$hit.
Look at how proud they are of their AAA credit rating, and yet they never admit what it actually means. Our state credit cards are maxed out and, we are barely making the interest payments. That may be evidence of a strong economy to Christine Gregoire, but to me it means we are in trouble and they will have nowhere near enough credit available to borrow when we actually need the money necessary to fix projects like Alaskan Way or 520.
Under the liberals all we have heard for years is that we need more tax dollars spent on education. They receive raise taxes on tobacco and receive a huge settlement form the tobacco companies, and where are the improvements? Yet, they still scream for more. You can never satisfy the multi-headed hydra of a tax and spend liberal socialist and Gregoire is another in the long list of examples.
We simply cannot trust liberals who have it in mind to coerce us into counter-productive approaches to transportation any more than we need coercive fascism in anything else. The liberal left has gone completely out of their minds and this issue is just one symptom of a truly disturbing trend of liberal dishonesty, deceit, and disconnection from reality. The corresponding transformative outcomes of their policies manifest themselves everywhere around us negatively and yet they want more of the same.
The biggest problem with the new gas tax is, if those against I-912 disagree with the measure honestly, then why do they lie about it over and over and over. And if the reason they needed the new gas tax revenues was to fix “emergency projects,” then why don’t they fully fund em’ and fix em’????
The answer is because that is not what they intend to do and everyone can see it but the liberals.
I do not agree that either the Alaskan Way Viaduct or 520 bridge are high transportation priorities but that is debatable. Either way, the Alaskan Way Viaduct and 520 bridge projects should both be fixed by looking at intelligent design alternatives, creating rational fiscal plans, and formulating fair and realistic methods to fund them. If taxes are necessary, fine, but the new gas tax does NONE OF THESE any more than buying a used Corvette hubcap means I bought a Corvette!!!
Be sensible people, VOTE Yes on I-912.
I believe that we need to invest in our roads, and that such an investment is good for our economy. I like the project list of improvements funded by this measure, with a few notable exceptions like the pork-laden $50 million to partially fund the Columbia River Crossing I-5 bridge replacement. I think the 2003 Nickel Package was actually a far better transportation measure, with an actual project list built into the bill and a tax that expires once enough money was raised.
But I voted in favor of 912 for one simple reason: the emergency clause. The use of the emergency clause on this bill was a deliberate effort to stop the voters in this state from excercising their constitutional right to a referendum. Such an effort to derail the will of the people is simply unethical, and during the last legislative session the legislature perverted the emergency clause into something never-before seen in our state.
So I voted in favor of repealing the gas tax, and in the future I will vote to repeal ANY legislation carrying an emergency clause that is not a true emergency. Maybe if enough laws with false emeregency clauses get repealed, lawmakers will understand that the rights of the voters should not be trifled with.
Posted by: Randy Mueller on November 5, 2005 09:52 PMActually, the 2003 Nickel Package also contained an emergency clause: http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/6050-6074/6062_sbr_04272003.txt
As for this being something never before seen in our state, you should do a Google search to verify such a statement. Here's the search I used looking for the statement "The bill contains an emergency clause" in bills that made reference to the word "transportation" (remove the word "transportation" from the search criteria and the result set almost doubles: http://www.g00gle.com/search?as_q=transportation+&num=100&hl=en&c2coff=1&btnG=Google+Search&as_epq=The+bill+contains+an+emergency+clause&as_oq=&as_eq=&lr=&as_ft=i&as_filetype=&as_qdr=all&as_occt=any&as_dt=i&as_sitesearch=leg.wa.gov&as_rights=&safe=off
This resulted in the following 218 bill references dating back to the 1997-98 legislative year.
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2825-2849/2831-s2_hbr_032698.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2825-2849/2831-s2_sbr_022698.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5525-5549/5539-s_hbr_041797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5950-5974/5970-s_hbr_041597.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6050-6074/6061-s_hbr_042397.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6450-6474/6456-s_hbr_031398.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6500-6524/6515-s_hbr_030998.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6600-6624/6603-s_hbr_030798.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6600-6624/6603-s_sbr_030798.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1000-1024/1010-s_hbr_042597.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1000-1024/1010_hbr_012097.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1000-1024/1011-s_hbr_050597.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1000-1024/1011-s_sbr_041597.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1000-1024/1011_hbr_020797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1150-1174/1151_hbr_030597.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1250-1274/1257-s_hbr_050897.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1250-1274/1257-s_sbr_040997.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1250-1274/1257_hbr_031797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1325-1349/1338-s_sbr_040497.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1325-1349/1338_hbr_022697.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1350-1374/1351-s_sbr_031797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1550-1574/1566-s_hbr_031497.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1550-1574/1566_hbr_030697.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1575-1599/1581_hbr_050997.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1625-1649/1649_hbr_031297.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1850-1874/1872-s_hbr_032597.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1850-1874/1872_hbr_032497.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1975-1999/1975-s_hbr_042997.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1975-1999/1975_hbr_042497.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/1975-1999/1989_hbr_022897.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2075-2099/2083_hbr_031297.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2100-2124/2108-s_hbr_042297.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2100-2124/2108_hbr_041597.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2175-2199/2180-s_hbr_021098.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2175-2199/2180_hbr_031297.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2200-2224/2214_hbr_040897.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2225-2249/2237-s_hbr_032197.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2225-2249/2237-s_sbr_040497.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2225-2249/2237_hbr_031297.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2250-2274/2272-s_sbr_041797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2275-2299/2281-s_hbr_042197.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2350-2374/2366-s_hbr_021398.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2350-2374/2366_hbr_020998.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2475-2499/2496_hbr_021198.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2500-2524/2504_hbr_020798.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2500-2524/2514-s_sbr_022798.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2500-2524/2514_hbr_021198.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2725-2749/2734_hbr_021698.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2825-2849/2831_hbr_021798.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2825-2849/2836-s_sbr_022698.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2825-2849/2837_hbr_032398.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/2850-2874/2858-s_sbr_030398.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/house/3125-3149/3132_hbr_030498.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5175-5199/5183_sbr_020697.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5300-5324/5314_sbr_032797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5425-5449/5433_sbr_022797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5650-5674/5662_sbr_021197.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5900-5924/5912_sbr_030797.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/5950-5974/5955_sbr_030397.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6025-6049/6042_sbr_031197.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6050-6074/6062_sbr_032697.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6050-6074/6064_sbr_032697.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6350-6374/6363_sbr_021198.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6600-6624/6603_sbr_020698.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1997-98/senate/6625-6649/6639_sbr_020698.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1050-1074/1053-s_hbr_04301999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1050-1074/1053-s_sbr_04061999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1125-1149/1125-s_hbr_05191999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1200-1224/1212-s_hbr_04201999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1200-1224/1212-s_sbr_04051999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1300-1324/1324-s_hbr_04201999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1300-1324/1324-s_sbr_04051999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1575-1599/1588-s_hbr_03041999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2100-2124/2111-s_sbr_03311999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2250-2274/2260-s_hbr_04291999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2400-2424/2420-s2_hbr_03142000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2400-2424/2420-s2_sbr_02282000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/senate/5250-5274/5273-s_hbr_04141999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/senate/5575-5599/5598-s2_hbr_04051999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/senate/5600-5624/5615-s_sbr_04121999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1050-1074/1053_hbr_02181999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1075-1099/1080_hbr_04241999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1150-1174/1166_hbr_04011999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1200-1224/1212_hbr_02091999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1300-1324/1324_hbr_03021999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1550-1574/1550_sbr_04011999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1575-1599/1588_hbr_02181999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1825-1849/1845_hbr_04201999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1825-1849/1845_sbr_04011999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/1875-1899/1893_hbr_03111999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2200-2224/2224_hbr_03021999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2225-2249/2247_hbr_03091999.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2400-2424/2415_hbr_02082000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2400-2424/2420_hbr_02092000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2425-2449/2440_hbr_01272000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2500-2524/2512_hbr_02052000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2550-2574/2554_hbr_02042000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2625-2649/2627_hbr_02062000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2900-2924/2917_hbr_02032000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/2950-2974/2963_hbr_02062000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/3025-3049/3043_hbr_03072000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/1999-00/house/3100-3124/3102_hbr_02092000.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/5200-5224/5224-s_hbr_04082001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/5200-5224/5224_sbr_02202001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/5275-5299/5277_sbr_02052001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/5325-5349/5327-s_sbr_06112001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/5325-5349/5327_sbr_03222001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/Senate/5325-5349/5335-s_hbr_04102001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/Senate/5850-5874/5869_sbr_02162001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6150-6174/6151-s_hbr_05232001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6150-6174/6151-s_sbr_06252001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6150-6174/6151_sbr_04092001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/Senate/6175-6199/6177-s2_sbr_04202001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6175-6199/6181_sbr_04302001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6175-6199/6194_sbr_06192001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6325-6349/6347-s_sbr_03152002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6325-6349/6348_sbr_02282002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/Senate/6550-6574/6563_sbr_01292002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6700-6724/6709_hbr_03102002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6775-6799/6787-s_hbr_03142002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6775-6799/6787_sbr_03082002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6800-6824/6822_sbr_02262002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/senate/6825-6849/6835_sbr_03142002.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2001-02/house/1000-1024/1012_hbr_04102001.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1150-1174/1163-s_sbr_04092003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1550-1574/1550-s_sbr_04042003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1550-1574/1557-s_hbr_03202003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/1600-1624/1624-s_hbr_04232003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/1600-1624/1624-s_sbr_04082003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1775-1799/1796-s2_sbr_04012003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5275-5299/5277_sbr_02202003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5275-5299/5279_hba_03242003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5275-5299/5279_hbr_03282003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5275-5299/5295_sbr_01282004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5325-5349/5340_sbr_03192003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5375-5399/5392_sbr_02262003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5400-5424/5402_sbr_04162003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5475-5499/5499_sbr_03102003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5525-5549/5528_sbr_02262003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5525-5549/5538_sbr_03072003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5650-5674/5674_sbr_03052003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5675-5699/5692-s_hba_04022003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5675-5699/5692-s_hbr_04022003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5725-5749/5748_sbr_03052003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5850-5874/5850-s_sbr_04032003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5850-5874/5850_sbr_03072003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5875-5899/5891-s_hba_03312003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5875-5899/5891-s_hbr_04262003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5900-5924/5907_sbr_03032003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5950-5974/5953_sbr_03132003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5950-5974/5960_sbr_02252003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/5975-5999/5975-s_hba_03312003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/5975-5999/5987_sbr_03072003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/6050-6074/6061_sbr_04092003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/6050-6074/6062_sbr_04272003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/6050-6074/6074_sbr_04112003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/6100-6124/6106_sbr_01232004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/6200-6224/6215_sbr_02262004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/6225-6249/6233_sbr_03022004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/6425-6449/6442-s_hbr_03022004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/6600-6624/6612_sbr_02182004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/Senate/6625-6649/6636_sbr_02062004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/6675-6699/6680_sbr_02102004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/6675-6699/6697_sbr_03012004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/senate/6700-6724/6701-s_sbr_02162004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1150-1174/1163_hba_02222003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1150-1174/1163_hbr_04012003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1250-1274/1271_hbr_03102003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1525-1549/1545_hbr_03102003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/1550-1574/1557_hbr_03112003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1775-1799/1787_hbr_03052003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1975-1999/1977_hba_02272003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/1975-1999/1977_hbr_05062003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/1975-1999/1977_sbr_03142003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/2075-2099/2098_hba_03032003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/2125-2149/2146_sbr_04082003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/2225-2249/2226_hbr_04142003.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/2375-2399/2378_hba_02032004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/House/2750-2774/2768_hba_01272004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/3100-3124/3121_hba_02032004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2003-04/house/3175-3199/3187_hbr_02092004.txt
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1009-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1460-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1608-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1791-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/1975-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/2299-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/5058-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/5101-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/5150-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/5414-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/5952-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/House/6078-S.HBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1003.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1188-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1387-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1397-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1460-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/1854-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/2221-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/2282.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/2311-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5097.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5138.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5150-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5150.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5163.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5191.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5402.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5414-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5414.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5441.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5475.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5513.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/5662.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6068.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6091-S.SBR.htm
http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bill%20Reports/Senate/6091.SBR.htm
So the emergency clause argument loses quite a lot of its punch when faced with the overwhelming number of times it has been used before without anyone making a fuss about it.
Posted by: Daniel K on November 6, 2005 12:10 AMMany legislators across the state on both sides of the aisle worked to fund this package. You can make this about transit v. roads, but the fact is we need both. Transit drives development, ask any Republican developer. This provides opportunities for density and efficient travel for those who value that. This get them off your roads.
And yes, we need better roads. Safety first. Then fix the pinch points that can offer cost effective improvements. Then look at what sensible projects you might be able to complete. But remember, the reason more roads haven't been built is not folks like me. It is the simple fact that new roads are incredibly expensive and difficult to build these days. Even a project like adding two lanes each direction to 405 has an estimated cost of $11-20 billion for virtually no long term congestion relief. Talk about unSound...
Drop the oppositional politics. Vote NO on 912. Work locally for the road improvement you think is most needed. Jim would like you all to be cynical about the decisions we are making in this state. I believe we are finally making an attempt to deal with a roads backlog that we ignored for too long while trying to provide real mass transit that will influence growth 30 years too late. This will be an issue for years. Work for what you want, noisy folks always get attention.
Posted by: bfree2think on November 6, 2005 01:00 AMMany legislators across the state on both sides of the aisle worked to fund this package. You can make this about transit v. roads, but the fact is we need both. Transit drives development, ask any Republican developer. This provides opportunities for density and efficient travel for those who value that. This get them off your roads.
And yes, we need better roads. Safety first. Then fix the pinch points that can offer cost effective improvements. Then look at what sensible projects you might be able to complete. But remember, the reason more roads haven't been built is not folks like me. It is the simple fact that new roads are incredibly expensive and difficult to build these days. Even a project like adding two lanes each direction to 405 has an estimated cost of $11-20 billion for virtually no long term congestion relief. Talk about unSound...
Drop the oppositional politics. Vote NO on 912. Work locally for the road improvement you think is most needed. Jim would like you all to be cynical about the decisions we are making in this state. I believe we are finally making an attempt to deal with a roads backlog that we ignored for too long while trying to provide real mass transit that will influence growth 30 years too late. This will be an issue for years. Work for what you want, noisy folks always get attention.
Posted by: bfree2think on November 6, 2005 01:00 AMIf you go back and look at the original route for I5 in the Puget Sound Region, it was plotted well to the east of its current route. Starting in Centralia/Chehalis, I5 would have traveled through the Yelm area, then east of Roy; and well east of Ft. Lewis and McChord Air Force Base. (I limit my comments to these areas as I’ve viewed old plot maps indicating the 200’ corridor.)
The story goes that politicians in Olympia wanted I5 to bring travelers within view of the state capitol building, and various business organizations felt cities by-passed would fall into financial ruin without the north/south traffic within close proximity. The end product was the most deadly section of the entire I5, the Tumwater gulch; and constricted rather than expanded corridors through Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett.
If one overlaid the original planned route onto a map of the region today, you would see what I feel is the solution no one wants to address: We need a bypass from Centralia to north of Everett, with adequate east/west connections. And as well, Highway 395 improved to allow unimpeded oversized loads and truck traffic north/south travel from Canada-to-Mexico. Instead, we argue about an absurd tunnel along Seattle’s waterfront.
Another glaring planning failure is I405. I traveled it in 1969 (long before the explosive growth) while working in Bellevue. At that time it two-lanes north and south. Thirty-six years later there is one additional limited use lane each way.
Narrow thinking brought us to where we are today. And today we had better think about our competition to the west – China. They are finishing the Three Gorges Dam project soon, and when it’s finished the largest ocean-going freighters in the world will be able to travel over 1,000 miles inland, to what will arguably the most productive manufacturing and farming region in the world.
The lack of a strategic, long-term vision capable of solving transportation needs well beyond a crumbling eye-sore in Seattle is my reason for voting Yes. Bring me a plan that ensures our ability to compete internationally and solves our local traffic congestion and I’ll vote for it.
Posted by: Ted Slatten on November 6, 2005 07:38 AMYes they do, however, the tax payer pays a lot higher percentage to run a system of freeways for SOV drivers.
The current gas tax is 28 cents a gallon. Most cars are around 25-30 MPG on the highway, so on average, you spend 1 cent a mile on gas taxes.
Bus riders spend on average of $1.25-$2.50 (I don't know where people are getting this idea that bus fare only costs $1.25 no matter what) a ride on bus fare, unless they buy a pass. If they live in Everett or Bellevue, they spend $90 on bus pass. If they live in Tacoma, they spend anywhere from $108 to $144 for a pass (ST Bus fare is $3 from three zones, 4 for Sounder).
From Federal Way, whereabouts I reside, the Metro Transit 177 is almost always packed heading into Seattle, as well as the Sound Transit 565 to Overlake, during peak hours. The MT 177 is being converted over to Sound Transit 577 next February, increasing the fare to $2.50, and eventually it'll become an all day, every day service, replacing the MT 194 segment between SeaTac and Federal Way (ST 574 Lakewood-SeaTac Express will probably take care of Federal Way-SeaTac express service until Link comes through Federal Way Transit Center).
They DID increase the fares recently to match up with inflation with ST Express.
Folks, it's easy to state that you'll vote against road construction due to "Sound Transit", when it in reality you're slitting your own throats. As far as I've read of the project list, the only thing that's given to transit are that monies given to the Port of Seattle for helping congestion relief into airport expressway, including helping out with getting trackway into SeaTac for Link, and 520 replacement having rail.
To have this kind of return on investment on driving your own car with the just gas tax, you'd have to put tolls on I-5, I-405. The reality of the situation is that SOV's are the MOST subsidized form of transit, even now with the new gas tax, because of the sheer amount of whining, bitching, and feet stamping who seem to think it is their "god given right" to drive a single occupant vehicle.
Most SOV users spend a few hundred a month on car payments, plus insurance, just for their cars sitting on the driveway. My average transportation cost is $90 a month, and that's it. I save a lot of that money, but I also spend some on enriching my family life too. The difference here is that I spend my own funds that only go to the transit agency. You have to pay hundreds of dollars a month for the privilege of driving a car to people other than the state.
Sorry, when the gas tax is $1.25 to $2.50 a gallon, then you'll have a right to complain, because you'd actually be paying some of your fair share.
Go right ahead and vote for 912. I'm still going to take transit and use ST's direct access ramps from HOV lanes and be able to get to work using my notebook to instant message/email people (not using WiFi on buses yet, a data cable for my cellphone) and be relaxed to work rather than deal with traffic. I'm voting against 912 to do you folks a favor.
Posted by: Gray Coyote on November 6, 2005 07:53 AMsgmac - If you follow the link to my post, you will find links to studies that show that HOV lanes (and those next to them) have higher rates of accidents - unless the HOV lanes are physically separated from the other lanes.
doc - If the 520 bridge and the Alaskan viaduct fall down, the principal fault will lie mostly with the Democratic governors who have refused -- since 1985 -- to devote the necessary resources to our roads.
As Christine Gregoire just showed us, a governor who is determined to get a road package through the legislature can usually do that.
And I honestly believe that resistance to road improvements by these same Democratic governors (and by many others in the Democratic party) has already cost lives here in Washington state.
As for you personally, I hope that you are never in an accident because of those two decades of neglect.
Posted by: Jim Miller on November 6, 2005 08:48 AMBlaming HOV lanes for accidents is like blaming guns for gun crime. The biggest reasons why there's accidents on HOV lanes is when people don't pay attention when they merge onto HOV lanes, sometimes illegally because they're SOV's who want to get around the traffic.
Posted by: Gray Coyote on November 6, 2005 09:50 AMFirst off, thanks for the info on the 2003 Nickel Package. I didn't realize that it had an emergency clause, that is dissapointing if it is true. Still, there was never an initiative on the books to repeal it.
Second, I won't argue that there were plenty of other uses of the emergency clause this session besides on the gas tax. But I-912 is the only opportunity that I, as a citizen, have to repeal one of those abuses. If I had a chance to vote on an initiative to repeal those other laws, I would repeal those too! Alas, this is the only one I can take action on.
Posted by: Randy Mueller on November 6, 2005 09:57 AMThe second large rock slide on I-90 this year! The news is saying that the DOT has been aware of this danger for over a decade?.....yet - I don't recall seeing anything in the bogus *emergency* clause for funding for this dangerous problem....
The Democrats will take our money and will keep it for themselves and their agenda...Nothing will ever be accomplished with regard to our roads and our traffic problems... How many times can the people be fooled by these liberals?
Vote Yes on I-900 (performance audits) before we allow the Democrats to take any more of our hard earned tax dollars..
Vote Yes on I-912 - to make the State spell out exactly what they plan to do with our money and then put each major project up for a vote by the people.
Deborah,
That rock slide today is not good at all. It was dad's weekend at WSU and there was a sign coming out of Pullman for those thousands of dad's trying to get back home.
It is the principle of how Gregoire and the legislature ramrodded this tax increase through, without the will of the people. They too, (just like the current exec. situation in King County) can do better than that, and hopefully - the people will get the opportunity to hold Olympia's feet to the fire by passing I-912.
You can bet that legislature will get down to drafting a new highway projects bill - with a lesser gas tax increase and other means of funding - maybe, if they are competent enough, in I-912 passes. A vast majority of the projects won't start until 2008. WSDOT has their hands tied by the legislature - they will do the job, but there needs to be complete plans for all projects funded. It happened with the nickel package, which was a success and it can and should happen here - another gas tax increase after the nickel package expires plus some other funding mechanisms - such as for instance slashing the humongous waste from DSHS, and transferring it to transportation, which will be uncovered with the passage of I-900. The Dems in Olympia would squeal like stuck pigs if that has to be done - and the people would prefer it that way. Bottom line: The Dems in Olympia are not looking out for us here, through the guise of their no on I-912 campaign ads.
Posted by: KS on November 6, 2005 09:04 PMI-912 is an antiroads initative - the modest gas tax it repeals can only be spent on roads. You are reality stretching things when you say its spent on Sound Transit.
If you wanted to defund transit, you would have an initiative to repeal the weight fees the legislature passed last year - which fund roads and transit.
Sound Transit's light rail is here to stay - being built right now. It has nothing to to with I-912. If I-912 passes, it will be about the only new thing we build and we will be waiting to build roads for a very long time - and the costs will do up.
I don't get why you don't trust the state DOT - republicans have been running it for the better part of the past 20 years and its the one state agency that actually does something well.
Posted by: thor on November 7, 2005 06:43 AM"If you wanted to defund (sic) transit, you would have an initiative to repeal the weight fees the legislature passed last year - which fund roads and transit."
Fortunately, no one wants to de-fund anything except a runaway legislature and Fraudoire.
"Sound Transit's light rail is here to stay - being built right now." That's unfortunate because it will do virtually nothing to ease traffic congestion and will spend dollars better spent elsewhere.
"It has nothing to to (sic) with I-912."
Not on the face of it, but the commingling of dollars is there nonetheless.
"If I-912 passes, it will be about the only new thing we build and we will be waiting to build roads for a very long time - and the costs will do up."
This is disingenuous on the face of it because WSDOT and the liberal social engineers are determined not to ease traffic congestion as long as we insist on keeping private automobiles! A yes vote on I-912 sends the clear message to the state legislature and the WSDOT that we need to be consulted before spending our money!
"I don't get why you don't trust the state DOT - republicans have been running it for the better part of the past 20 years and its the one state agency that actually does something well."
Conflating the two statements doesn't add validity to either one. Who has sat in the governors chair for the last 20 years? Although control of the two houses of the legislature have varied over that period, control over the "culture" of the WSDOT, and even more importantly, the purse-strings that fund the WSDOT have been solidly in the hands of liberals. They have "run the show", and now look where we're at! A yes vote on I-912 repudiates the mismanagement and obdurate refusal to show an ounce of sense or pragmatism when it comes to transportation issues.
Vote yes on I-912!
Posted by: alphabet soup on November 7, 2005 08:11 AM??????
I tried to follow your argument...I got the part about my SOV costing me even if I don't drive it, but that's my cost, not anyone else's.
You then say my SOV commute is being supported by the "taxpayers," but it's supported by the gas tax.
You then say that your bus pays for itself, but that bus couldn't run without the subsidy the gas tax provides for the HOV lanes.
What were you trying to say?
Posted by: South County on November 7, 2005 08:23 AMWTF??? You have been listening to liberal media liars again. Please just turn them off. I912 will pass. Who here remembers the slimy liberal pollsters predicting Bush would lose? Raise your hands?
You see, the Democrats will lie, cheat steal - do whatever it takes to try to win. But the grassfire support that I912 got has been historical. No amount of slick-vertising will stop it. I am confident of this.
So chin up and smile. Tomorrow I912 will pass and once again the liberal media will be proven wrong.
Posted by: pbj on November 7, 2005 12:22 PMThis is the part where you lost me.
You then say my SOV commute is being supported by the "taxpayers," but it's supported by the gas tax.
Gas taxes are not the only source of road repair and construction monies. It is mandated that gas taxes go towards roads by the state constitution. That doesn't mean that it's the only source of funds.
To give another example, the WA Lottery proceeds mostly go to education, as mandated by state law. Does it follow that the education and public schooling is ONLY funded by the WA Lottery? Of course not. The Legislature uses general revenue to fund the state education department and local school districts, and the districts have their own taxes on property, etc etc etc.
You then say that your bus pays for itself, but that bus couldn't run without the subsidy the gas tax provides for the HOV lanes.
I wrote NO such thing, South County. None. What I stated was:
Well the tax payer pays 50 to 75% of the total cost to run the system
Yes they do, however, the tax payer pays a lot higher percentage to run a system of freeways for SOV drivers.
Was there anything in that posting that stated that I said that public transit pays for itself? It does not, and it never will. NO public transit agency has EVER paid 100% of it's own cost. The points of public transit is to reduce traffic congestion, as well as give people an opportunity to get to work without driving a car, or at least in my case, get to work with me not owning one.
The point is that the taxpayers in this state also subsidize your SOV during your commute as well.
What were you trying to say?
That's flame bait question if I've ever seen one.
Posted by: Gray Coyote on November 8, 2005 11:46 AM