When something sounds too easy, it usually is. Tim Eyman’s I-985 is not the simple fix to our traffic problems. It sounds good: funds could go to clearing accidents, synchronizing lights, and reducing congestion. The “catches”:
1) The money comes from existing state and local funding; translation: cuts in other areas.
2) “Traffic” doesn’t end at 9 a.m. and 6 p.m., so add at least a half hour getting home if you’re a bus commuter after 6, for this opens up Second and Fourth Avenue transit lanes and Third Avenue restrictions in Seattle, and Pacific Avenue transit lane in the U District, freeway HOV ramps, Shoreline’s BAT lanes, the I-90 center roadway, etc. to all vehicles, and the resultant bus’ time disadvantage means even more people driving cars, which equals congestion.
3) All HOV lanes become 2+, and the westbound HOV approach to SR 520 will probably be closed for safety reasons, thus buses will be jammed with the two lanes of cars there.
4) All extra spending is subject to legislative appropriation votes, turf war survivors.
5) Funds after HOV changes, traffic light synchronization, expanding emergency roadside assistance, and state auditor monitoring go to expanding road capacity and general purposes, specifically excluding transit, ferries, park and ride lots, bike paths and lanes, wildlife crossings and landscaping.
Some proponents envision adding four lanes to I-5: How many condemnations and years of disruption that will take! It’s estimated that transit agencies’ operating costs will rise at least 10 percent with I-985; read: service reductions. The requirements start 12/4/08, while funding doesn’t begin until the Legislature appropriates it during the 2009 Legislative session, add another year to implement it completely. Confusion will reign in the interim.
Lastly, why should votes and transportation funds from folks outside the Puget Sound region go towards our issue?
Brian Doennebrink
Shoreline
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
