Comments on: Pressure Mounts on R8A, State Transit Support

By: I-90 HOV - Seattle Transit Blog

I-90 HOV - Seattle Transit Blog — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 04:28:24 +0000

[...] HOV by Martin H. Duke Last session’s legislative attack on the I-90 two-way HOV project has been discussed mainly as an attack on East Link, and it was. Nevertheless, it’s useful [...]

By: Eric L

Eric L — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 20:10:42 +0000

Hmm… The article gave me more the impression that Fred Jarret was angling to be the guy who pulls off the Grand Compromise that Brings Both Sides Together and Saves East Link (probably while extorting a little money from them, but not the full billion Chopp wants)… you know the type. I may be wrong, but he can’t seriously think he has a shot at County Executive if he’s seen as responsible for killing East Link, right?

On a side note, has anyone else had the experience of going to comment on this blog and finding that someone else’s name and email address are filled in? Seems like a serious bug to me.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 17:09:31 +0000

In principle I like the idea of HOT lanes because I see it as a first step toward congestion pricing for all lanes.

However I wonder if the HOT experiment on 167 paid for the infrastructure required and administrative overhead, much less produced anything in the way of a meaningful surplus.

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 16:15:53 +0000

Which is exactly why opening them up to SOVs in the form of HOT lanes makes sense. You ease pressure on the general purpose lanes and collect a nice little revenue stream at the same time. It’s almost like a sin tax. It would really make sense to have this operational before they start work on the outer HOV lanes both from an economic and traffic management sense.

By: Take Action: Mail Legislators About Light Rail to Bellevue - Seattle Transit Blog

Wed, 01 Apr 2009 12:54:01 +0000

[...] talked about about R8A and other legislature inference plenty over the last few days. It’s time for us to take action. We need to contact leaders in [...]

By: Andrew Smith

Andrew Smith — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 10:30:08 +0000

I think the “when they realize the lay of demand can be harnessed to control traffic congestion and raise funds for highway maintenance” sentance has a problem. It’s not “when” it’s “if” and the “if” is a huge one.

If they could realize that, we’d be in a lot better position today.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:35:00 +0000

eddiew also ignores the fact there IS no traffic congestion to harness on the reversible I-90 lanes – not if you’re an eastside legislator’s constituent.

By: Jamie

Jamie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 07:32:09 +0000

eddiew is living in a fantasyland when it comes to tolling. Notice how he left Transporation Committee Chair Clibborn (D – I90) of the list of enthusiastic tolling supporters. She’s just a minor speed bump, right?

Here’s what bugs me most about eddiew’s light rail opponent friends in Olympia: while they do their best to thwart the voters’ will in regard to transit, they’re basically rewarding highway proponents who DIDN’T want their tax dollars going to highways. See, in 2007, there was a different version of Prop 1. Engineered by pavement-loving Democrats, and a couple Republikans. It failed, as we all know.

But you know where the most no voters lived? Yep. Along the very freeway corridors RTID would have funded – and the same corridors Clibborn and Chopp are protecting and enhancing in the House budget.

So, now that Clibborn and her pave-at-all-cost friends have passed a budget out of committee which jacks transit supporting voters, this same bunch wants to speed up highway projects even freeway-friendly voters OPPOSED.

How’s that for getting everything wrong all the time? While these Dinocrats are at it, why not appoint Chopp fan club President Tim Eyman as Secretary of Transportation? Similarly, Judy Clibborn can get that building industry goon Tom McCabe installed as Ecology Department head.

It’s amazing these clueless legislators can take themselves seriously.

By: John Jensen

John Jensen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:27:39 +0000

The Senator didn’t suggest tolls on I-90, he suggested HOT lanes as opposed to HOV lanes. I think Ben is saying that this suggestion is a distraction from the state failing to live up to its commitment.

I’m think every blogger here supports tolling on I-90, and tolling in general, as a means to help with congestion and remove subsidies from the system.

By: eddiew

eddiew — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 04:48:44 +0000

Ben,
Why will not I-90 be tolled? Why is it fake? Several seem to favor it: the last state Treasurer, the current state treasurer, the outgoing KC Exec, the Sierra Club, the feds, Professor Hallenback, UW. The Legislature and Governor will probaly come around when they realize that the law of demand can be harnessed to control traffic congestion and raise funds for highway maintenance. All modes will benefit.

By: Brian Bundridge

Brian Bundridge — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 03:22:00 +0000

This is true, HOT lanes would be the best option that can be inserted into any HOV lane on a highway and the shortest amount of time. One could also do a jersey barrier and make a semi-permanent East/West HOT lane. I’d totally go for it and besides, I already have a Good-To-Go transponder =)

By: Bernie

Bernie — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:45:04 +0000

What’s fake about it. It sounds like HOT lanes which is what seems to be the most easy to live with solution. However, without tolling all lanes on I90 I don’t think there will be much of a decrease in diverted traffic from SR520. Besides the pressure that’s going to add to I5, I405 and the “cut though” roads the diverted traffic results in a big hit to revenues on SR520. Better than nothing which is what I think a push for tolling all lanes of I90 would end up in.

By: Chris Stefan

Chris Stefan — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:44:18 +0000

Huh? why not? There are HOT lanes on 167.

By: Ben Schiendelman

Ben Schiendelman — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 02:33:46 +0000

It’s fake, it’s like podcars. It can’t happen, that’s why he’s pushing it.

By: Eric L

Eric L — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 01:39:56 +0000

From the Times article:

Jarrett, a member of the Senate Transportation Committee, said to raise money for the new car-pool lanes, the state could charge solo drivers a toll to enter the current express lanes and, later, the new car-pool lanes.

You know, I wouldn’t really object to that, if it were agreed to this year and the deal included turning the express lanes over to Sound Transit. It also didn’t occur to me until I read the Times article that of these problem legislators Jarret has the useful distinction of being influenceable by virtue of his being in a contested race for County Executive. Does he think he has a shot of winning if he is seen as someone who derailed East Link? Good on Phillips for putting pressure on him over this.

Now if only we could find credible primary challengers for Chopp and Clibborn.