"Son of 695" -Is it realistic?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

With regards to the elimination of HOV lanes, I found the following information on the FHWA site after about 10 minutes of searching. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/operations/hovguide.htm http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/policy/hovmemgd.htm

Pay special attention to when the document was published...May 13, 1999....some 5-1/2 months after New Jersey opened the HOV lanes on Routes 80 and 287 to general purpose traffic in December 1998. Faced with the possibility of returning the federal funds that constructed the 20+ miles of HOV lanes (can be 50% or more on these projects), NJ Republicans lobbied FHWA hard for the change in operation. The FHWA eventually allowed the change without NJ having to repay the federal funding.

The end of Section 2 in the Program Guidance states "If funds from these programs were used to acquire the right-of-way, design, or construct HOV lanes, the FHWA Division Office or FTA will require the repayment of these funds before any significant change to the operation of an HOV lane, or any conversion of an HOV lane to a general purpose lane." I am still unclear if this document was written in response to New Jersey's change in operation. What is clear is that FHWA and FTA now have documented their jurisdiction over HOV lane operation that were constructed with certain types of federal funding.

Does anyone know of any effort to contact the FHWA to lobby against the repayment of federal funding? Does anyone have any idea how many millions (or billions) of federal dollars would have to be repayed should the FHWA reject the Federal Review?

Interested on any information you may have on the subject....

-- Corey (snertalert@jps.net), December 28, 1999

Answers

The only practical thing that can be cited is what happened in New Jersey. The threat of repayment was put into the legislation for deterrence. The first time that a case came up, the feds blinked. There is in Congress, no real love of HOV lanes, and states that convert them back to GP lanes probably aren't going to be treated any differently than New Jersey. Particularly not in an election year.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.

Local decisions under assault

I read how Tim Eyman, the main sponsor of the successful $30-car-tab initiative, I-695, recently filed a new initiative he hopes to put on the statewide ballot next November. This wide-ranging measure would, among other things, withdraw funding from the Sound Transit rail system currently under development, and redirect these dollars to an intensive highway-construction program.

This is an outrageous assault on local decision-making.

The people of King, Pierce and Snohomish counties voted overwhelmingly to build the Sound Transit system three years ago, and the funds to build the system are only collected in those three counties.

Voters statewide shouldn't decide how Puget Sounders should spend our own money: We have already agreed among ourselves to use it for public transit. Why doesn't Eyman just ask voters in Delaware to resolve this for us while he's at it?

This sets a very dangerous precedent. Now, anytime a community votes to fund anything Eyman doesn't like, he can just tack a repeal clause onto his next statewide ballot measure.

Eyman has crossed the line between grass-roots populist and right-wing demagogue. Like any demagogue, Eyman commands an army of followers who will no doubt be out in force gathering signatures. If they approach you for your signature over the coming months, don't sign.

-- shallora (shallora@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.


Shallora,

Don't spend much time reading threads Shallora? Why did you bother to read this one that obviously has the WRONG initiative in the title?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.


OK, now I've read several times in this forum that the voters passed Sound Transit "overwhelmingly". Does anyone have the exact vote percentages on this item? I seem to remember that the first one or two times it came up it was defeated, and barely passed only after some impressive gerrymandering. And some of the proponents of this item should reflect on the fact that there were absolutely no alternates presented, particulary none involving building more roads. For the record, I voted against this turkey every time it came up, recognizing it as a horrendous boondoogle. Unfortunately, living in Bellevue where NOTHING is ever voted down, this was a foredoomed excercise.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), December 29, 1999.

"OK, now I've read several times in this forum that the voters passed Sound Transit "overwhelmingly". Does anyone have the exact vote percentages on this item? I seem to remember that the first one or two times it came up it was defeated, and barely passed only after some impressive gerrymandering. " It passed by about the same margin as I-695. It got 70+% in Seattle, less everywhere else. Lost in a few areas around Kent and Federal Way. Barely passed in Pierce County. It was the fourth attempt. The third emphasized light rail, and got hammered. The fourth attempt scaled back light rail severely, and added express buses to draw votes from the Eastside. The fourth attempt also put in the provision requiring funds raised in an area to be used in the area, a reaction to the conniving and finagling that Seattle did with the Kingdome siting decision. And you are correct. No alternatives were offered. The choice was to do this or do nothing.

-- Graig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.


Shallora,

I can't listen to you for you are not Tim. Must follow Tim, Must follow Tim, Must follow Tim. What you don't realize is that us pro- 695ers are absolutely being brainwashed by Tim! We do not have the ability to think, act or vote for ourselves because that might go against what Tim has to say.

Are you for real? Nobody went into this blindly! In fact I never once saw a pro 695 ad on TV but numerous anti ads. You tell me who's a follower. All I want is my money back!

JT

-- JT (t-jtuttle@amazon.com), December 29, 1999.


Thanks, Craig, for your reply to my question regarding the Sound Transit vote. BTW, if you had access to the Eastside Journal yesterday, you probably noticed an article headlined "Millennium hindsight: If only we'd realized..." where the EJ interviewed various public officials about anything they might have regreted not doing in the past several decades. Quote #1, from the Prez of BCC; "...we should have done anything we could to have mitigated the traffic debacle we have created today." Quote #2, from a former B'vue mayor; "We should have put aside NIMBY politics in the late 1980's and aggressively planned the expansion of capacity on the 520 corridor and the Evergreen Point floating bridge". The humerous thing about all this breast-beating is that they would NEVER have admitted something like this except for the passage of I-695. Also, there was never ANY chance of getting new roads built during the past several decades, not because of dumb public officials, but because the majority of the voting public absolutely HATED the idea of building new roads. The environmentalists had such a public relations stranglehold on the Eastside (and still do, I fear) that for any politician to even mention roadbuilding was the kiss of death. The last elected official on the Eastside that I can even remember being in favor of any new road capacity was a guy from Kirkland, I think named Al Leland, serving back in the 1970's. The media detested him, and gave him the derisive sobriquet of "Asphalt Al". I seem to recall that they finally dug up enough dirt on him to run him out of office. I guess my point is that as far as traffic on the Eastside, our much vilified politicians have given the populace EXACTLY what the voters wanted. I have to admit that I'm sort of sitting back now and rather enjoying the whole situation. Thank GOD I'm retired and don't have to get on the roads on any sort of schedule.

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), December 29, 1999.

Watch out Shallora has her spamanizer turned on.. you gonna get the same commentary on many different legs of the forum..

Shallora it ain't an assault against local decisions. It is obvious that you don't understand mucha about government or transportation...cause you don't work in transportaion...

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 29, 1999.


Albert-

The truly amazing thing about that article was the comments by Ron Sims. He didn't say anything about transit, but indicated that we strongly needed to start building more roads. It was posted on a thread on this forum

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 29, 1999.


You are correct Marsha...I did have the wrong initiative in the title....should have been the "Traffic Improvement" initiative.

My error aside, I didn't see any serious responses. I think FHWA reaction is not so easily dismissed. New Jersey got away with the change in operation and it is entirely possible that their actions led to this Program Guidance memo.

I will email FHWA and let you know what I find out....there was a name on the memo as a contact.

-- Corey (snertalert@jps.net), December 29, 1999.



Corey,

I doubt the Feds could let one State slide by and hold the rest to a different standard, no matter when the memo/policy was created.

Without a dollar amount attached to your subject, (how much, if any?) it would be hard to make addtional comments.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.


Corey,

In addition, if funds were disbursed under this program with the requirement for repayment policy known, then accountability by the States for repayment would be proper.

If that policy was created after the fact, (and it sounds like it was, by your mention of date,) then it would explain why New Jersey was forgiven the "repayment" requirement.

I doubt the Feds would have much of a chance collecting the repayment of funds disbursed prior to the policy (speculating that it was) AND in light of the forgiveness of the repayment for another State.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ