Comments on Lying Email of the Day

Why doesn't someone introduce an initiative to ban Tim Eyman from creating more initiatives? He was causing problems and promoting BS causes when I lived in Seattle over 9 years ago. Kick that jackass to the curb - or at least into the center of a car pool lane.

HAHAHA -- you deleted the one with all the comments.

JTC is right, ECB.

Let's tax people who file more than three initiatives that are later found unconstitutional.

Opening the HOV lanes on 520 would actually make matters worse. Drivers looking to exit would need navigate three car-filled lanes, rather than two, in already stop-and-go peak conditions. Add to that articulated buses that must now fraternize with cars the entire stretch of highway and you'd make 520 on serious 15 mph death trap.

Both of you are incorrect, as usual.

What you're actually getting at is that congestion relief is not a long term solution to traffic problems. It is not a myth. If you open up an extra lane of traffic, that does relieve traffic congestion... albeit in the present, and over time, traffic demand can increase and the added capacity can fill up, but other factors are at play there.

$2-$5 per weekday each way can get expensive when you're already paying for tabs, gasoline, insurance and, if you don't already own the car outright, finance payments. You don't have to be rich, but it does drain your finances.

Eyman, obviously, is a rabble rousing obstructionist douchebag and his word has all the merit of a crackhead. But making equally illogical, farsighted, platitude-based arguments isn't any better. Someone who has openly stated her hatred for personal transportation probably shouldn't be making this argument if she cannot see the full picture and be objective.

Congestion relief?

You still believe in that pap?

Give me a frickin break.

The first Law of Slog:

If ECB is against it, then it must be good!

Long live Tim.

Hey, I didn't say it was a good idea. It does what it's supposed to do when used. There are still subsequent consequences. Pretending it doesn't do anything at all, however, isn't smart.

Thanks, Erica. We know Tim Eyman is full of shit, but it's nice having the various and sundry reasons enumerated.

Opening the HOV lane WORSENS congestion, because it slows the buses down to the same speed as the cars, and thus negates the sole advantage of the bus, thereby emptying the bus back into single-occupant cars. Those cars alone contribute far more to traffic load than the bus ever did.

In addition, the newly open lane just fills up. Any short-term easing of traffic not negated by the above will immediately fill with NEW traffic. Any increase in average speed over the bridge, to, say, 20-30 MPH, will draw a stampede of induced demand until the average speed once again slows to the minimum that people will tolerate, and which point they will start to seek other routes.

No, Gomez: congestion relief is not only a myth; it's an outright lie.

Comment eaten.

Gomez, you're wrong. Opening the HOV lane INCREASES congestion in two ways: one, it slows the buses down to the speed of the cars, negating the only advantage of buses and thus driving riders into cars instead; and two, the very temporary increase in average speed just draws induced demand until that speed goes down.

It CAN result in an increased number of vehicles that pass, but NOT an increase in people (80 single-occupant cars vs. one bus) or average speed (which is set by the tolerance level of drivers, not traffic needs).

I dare you to write a post that doesn't bold every other sentence. I don't think you have it in you.

The induced demand happens over a long term, unless there is a traffic problem along another major corridor. I don't disagree that it does not help over the long term.

From: Tim Eyman

Here's the part of the email that Ms. Barnett didn't want anyone to read:

I-985 opens carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours -- it's what other states do and provides immediate, cost-effective congestion relief. Opponents are squawking about this, whining that it's just not right for solo drivers to be able to drive in those lanes. But I-985's opponents support solo drivers using carpool lanes ... as long as they're rich. Lexus lanes are the future, say opponents, forcing solo drivers to pay twice for the 'privilege' of using carpool lanes.

With skyrocketing gas prices, food costs, layoffs, strikes, and economic insecurity, who can afford to pay twice? Rich people.

I-985 recognizes that taxpayers have already paid for these lanes with our state's highest-in-the-nation gas tax -- they shouldn't be double-taxed for using these lanes during non-peak hours. We all paid for these lanes and we should all be able to use them at least some of the time.

And, contrary to Gregoire's budget office, this policy change will not be expensive.

Here is the fiscal note on Senate Bill 5121, introduced during the 2003 legislative session, whose prime sponsors were Senators Dino Rossi and Don Benton. Cost estimate by Locke's budget office: $4.8 million.
https://fortress.wa.gov/ofm/fnspublic/showPackage.asp?RecordID=pdfs/2003/p57
59.pdf

Gregoire's budget office estimates the cost of I-985's opening of carpool lanes during non-peak hours (interestingly, they're the same hours as in SB 5121) would be $224 million.
http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/transportation/FiscalImpactStatement
_985_revised.pdf

This should tell you everything you need to know about the Governor's race: a second-term Governor Gregoire will spend 45 times more than Governor Rossi would in order to implement the same policy.

It is obvious that Gregoire's budget people have wildly exaggerated the cost -- but common sense tells you, backed up by the SB 5121's fiscal note, that it won't cost a lot. And I-985's dedicated revenue from red light camera profits alone will more than cover the cost to implement this voter-supported policy.