Washington State Initiative 985
Tomorrow, voters in my home state of Washington will decide whether to enact Initiative 985 into law. From the Washington Secretary of State’s office, “This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.”[wei.secstate.wa.gov]
The full text of the initiative can be found in PDF format here.
To put it bluntly, the initiative is a bad idea. More after the jump.
I-985 it tries to do too much. There are parts of it that I don’t mind, and would vote for, if it were not for the rest of the initiative. It just feels like there are a couple things that the initiative’s author, Tim Eyman, wants to do, and has thrown in some other things to sweeten the pot. Eyman said on a talk radio show that his goal is to force the state government into realizing that transportation is a priority for Washington residents. He’s attempting to force the government into fiscal responsibility by funneling funding into specific areas. This is similar to his initiative to abolish vehicle excise taxes, in favor of a flat rate. The result was a huge drop in revenue for the state. Strongarming the legislature rarely helps things. The initiative is just too broad, requires too much, and does it all in the wrong way.
First, I-985 would open all HOV lanes during “non-peak hours”. What does this really mean? From the full text of the initiative, carpool lanes “are high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including express lanes, lanes like those established under RCW 47.56.403, off-ramp bypass lanes, and on-ramp bypass lanes on any highway, freeway, or roadway in the state.” Such lanes would be made open to all traffic during “non-peak hours”, which are defined as 9a-3p Mon-Fri, 6p-6a Mon-Thu, and 6p Fri-6a Mon. Peak hours are 6a-9a and 3p-6p Mon-Fri, according to the initiative.
- An independent group of traffic engineers reported that given the stipulations of the initiative, opening the HOV lanes under these circumstances would actually hinder traffic flow.
- Evening rush hour is does not begin at 3p, nor does it end at 6p. To open HOV lanes while still under peak load, slows all lanes to a crawl.
- The purpose of carpool lanes is to encourage carpooling. Carpooling reduces pollution, and prior to this initiative, decreases point-to-point travel time. Removing the travel time incentive will inevitably reduce carpooling, increasing the amount of cars on the road, making traffic worse.
- Transit buses use carpool lanes to get to their destinations. If these lanes are opened up to all traffic, mass transit will become less efficient, decreasing ridership, and again increasing the volume of cars on the road. This is bad for traffic and bad for the environment.
- It’s not that I’m opposed to opening HOV lanes, is that the timing is wrong. Seattle has morning and evening rush hour periods that are longer than 3 hours each, and while theory would suggest that adding a lane would help traffic flow after 6pm, the reality is it will have a chilling effect on carpool and mass transit usage that will ultmately make the problem worse.
I-985 would also shut off the tolls on any High Occupancy Toll lane during non-peak hours, and it directs any tolls collected which exceed the cost of construction and operating of the toll lanes, to be funneled into the “Reduce Traffic Congestion Account” (hereafter RTC Account) created by a later provision. This defies the purpose of the HOT lanes. The purpose of the HOT lanes is to maintain an average speed of 45 MPH or higher in the lane by using a variable toll. The notion that the highways with HOT lanes are only busy between 6 and 9am and 3 and 6pm on weekdays is just naive.
Secondly, 985 would require city, county, and the state government to synchronize traffic lights on arterials within their jurisdiction. Obviously, accomplishing this task places a burden on local governments. The initiative proposes to allocated funds from the RTC Account to assist local governments. More on this in a moment.
Thirdly, Initiative 985 calls for increased funding for emergency roadside assistance, encouraging governmental entities to contract out services to private companies, including towing companies. Maybe I’m not well-versed on this particular point, but it seems like when there’s a blocking disabled vehicle, that government response time is already very good.
Fourth, I-985 reallocates 15% of the taxes collected on retail vehicle sales to the RTC Account. My only issue here is that we already face a budget deficit. The last thing we should be doing is narrowly allocating funds that otherwise would be going into the state general fund, to pay for things like schools.
Fifth, this initiative mandates that revenue from red light cameras be allocated to the RTC Account. There is an extra $20 fine for running the red light. Currently, $8.50 of this goes to the state treasurer, and the remainder is deposited into he the city or county current expense fund. I-985 says that revenue to be deposited into the county or city current expense fund “shall instead be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account.” This effectively takes money out of the pockets of city and county governments! To relate this back to the traffic light synchronization provision, do you see what’s happening here? The initiative wants to take red light camera money away from the cities, the reallocate it back to them as the state sees fit for synchronization. You can bet that a lot of the red light camera money won’t be going back to the city it was taken from though. And synchronizing traffic lights is more or less a one time expenditure, whil red light revenue will continue to be funneled into the state’s RTC Account. I ask one simple question here. If someone runs a red light in Silverdale, why should part of that money go toward anti-congestion projects in Bellevue??? Local revenues should stay local!!
Sixth, I-985 removes a provision that states that out of appropriations for the construction of any public building one-half of one percent is allocated to the Washington State Arts Commission, for the acquisition of works of art to be displayed in or around public buildings, on public land, be part of a portable exhibition, or be loaned for exhibition in other public buildings. This half percent would instead be allocated to the RTC Account. That’s right, we’re going to sacrifice some culture for the sake of making more pavement!
Lastly, Initiative 985 mandates that any toll collected, except by the Ferry system, “that exceed the cost of construction, operation, or maintenance of toll facilities and new capital improvements to highways, freeways, roads, bridges, and streets, shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account.” TIm Eyman is trying to strongarm the government into fiscal responsiblity by narrowly allocating revenue from tolls into congestion projects. This money otherwise would go into the general fund to pay for things like schools, but Eyman wants to put this money into congestion. The problem is that this doesn’t work. If you take that money out of the general fund, the government isn’t going to reduce their expenditure, they’re going to raise taxes on something else. What happened when the vehicle excise tax went away? The gas tax increased. My point is that taking away taking away a child’s candy doesn’t make him want it less. It makes him look for a different way to get it.
The bottom line: Initiative 985 won’t help traffic flow, it places an undue burden on local governments while at the same time pulling the rug out from under them, and will lead to increased taxes on a state that is already one of the most highly taxed in the nation.
I encourage Washington voters to vote “no” on Initiative 985.
^Z
