Washington Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative (2008)

From Ballotpedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Washington Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative, also known as I-985, appeared on the November 4, 2008 ballot in Washington, where it was defeated.[1]

I-985, had it passed, was intended to open carpool lanes to everybody during non-rush hours, require cities to synchronized traffic signals on main streets, and provide more money for emergency roadside assistance in order to clear accidents more quickly. I-985 would also have created a special account to be spent for traffic congestion relief, to be funded by revenues already being collected: 15 percent of the sales tax on vehicle sales, the former half-percent-for-art money if it comes from a transportation-related public works program, and revenue from red-light ticket cameras in cities. The measure creates no new revenue sources.

I-985 was a citizen-initiated state statute.

The official ballot measure summary read, "This measure would: open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all vehicles Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and 6:00 p.m. Friday to 6:00 a.m. Monday; require traffic light synchronization, and mandate increased funding for roadside assistance. Certain existing revenues, including 15% of state sales and use taxes on vehicles, certain traffic infraction penalties, and certain tolls would be dedicated to traffic-flow purposes."

Election results

Washington I-985 (2008)
Votes Percentage
Yes 1,079,726 39.87%
NO 1,628,487 60.13%
Total votes 2,708,213 100%

Fiscal impact

The Office of Fiscal Management (OFM) released a July 31, 2008, report estimating that the initiative would redirect $668.6 million over the first five years from other projects and activities to congestion relief activities. The report estimates that the measure would cost the state about $324.6 million over the first five years. The report also suggested the measure would cost the Washington State Arts Commission $500,000 over the next five years. Most of the costs of the measure would occur in the early years, according to the OFM.[2] [3]

Supporters

I-985 was sponsored by Voters Want More Choices, headed by Tim Eyman, Jack Fagan, and Mike Fagan. "There is plenty of revenue," Eyman said in an interview with TheNewspaper.com. "When something is the first priority of the public, it should be the first dollar spent. It's all about reducing congestion without raising taxes."[4]

The Washington Policy Center, a conservative policy analysis group covering a wide range of state issues, said it believes the measure could contribute significantly to reducing delays on state roads. It also concluded that reforms had to be made through the referendum process because lawmakers were reluctant to tackle the issue.[5]

"During the 2008 legislative session, two bills were proposed that would have elevated congestion relief in the list of state priorities, but neither received a hearing," the think tank's Center for Transportation Director Michael Ennis wrote. "Initiative 985 would seismically shift the State's current policy back toward one that ties spending to a specific performance goal, traffic congestion relief."[5]

Many of I-985's features are based on an October 2007 report by State Auditor Brian Sonntag (D). The provision mandating traffic engineers to synchronize traffic lights at high-traffic intersections would bring the benefits, according to Sonntag's report, of a reduction in travel time, emissions, and fuel consumption of 10 to 25 percent at very little cost.

Supporters cite a poll released by the Washington Policy Center as evidence that I-985 is in tune with voters. The poll suggested that 70% of Washington voters considered traffic congestion an "extremely important" or "fairly important" issue for state government to address.[6]

Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi supports I-985.[7]

Tim Eyman mortgaged his home in April to loan $250,000 to the campaign to cover the expenses of collecting and processing so many signatures. Eynman siad that "failure is simply not an option."[8]

Eyman readily admits that the initiative is an attempt to strengthen the power behind one of his earlier initiatives, I-900. That initiative gave power to State Auditor Brian Sonntag to perform wide-ranging performance audits. Eyman says Olympia ignored one of the first efforts by Sonntag's office, an audit last year that made 22 recommendations for reducing traffic in Puget Sound.[9]

"It's the whole ballgame," he says of the real motive behind I-985. "It's telling them (state officials and legislators) that Sonntag's doing a great job, you're not."[9]

Eyman contends the I-985 provision that most bothers legislators is the one that would restrict the use of toll revenues. He said that assures that toll money could not be spent on nontransportation programs.[10]

"They want to treat tolls like taxes: Impose them on anyone and spend them on anything," Eyman said of state legislators.[10]

Supporting quotes

  • THE OLYMPIAN'S EDITORIAL BOARD: The Olympian's editorial board recommends a "yes" vote based in large part on the message it sends to lawmakers: Comprehensive solutions to the congestion problem must be found. ... This initiative is about legislative inaction. Every ignored performance audit is a potential initiative.
  • JOHN CARLSON, COLUMNIST / TALK RADIO LEADER: This is not a close call -- If there was ever a department of government that needed to receive a message from the voters, it's the Department of Transportation. This Eyman initiative is reasonable, sensible and long overdue. Yes on I-985. Yes 10 times over.
  • YAKIMA VALLEY BUSINESS TIMES: Governmental complacency and incompetence often are initiative Petri dishes and that's what has happened here -- we would like to see the people of the state of Washington send the following signal to our elected officials and our bureaucrats: ignore the results of a performance audit at your own peril.
  • PAM DZAMA, KITSAP SUN COLUMNIST: Initiatives like I-985 would be unnecessary if the Legislature would respond to the transportation needs of the citizens. It's time to make traffic congestion relief a transportation goal.
  • CENTRALIA CHRONICLE EDITORIAL BOARD: We urge a yes vote on I-985 -- it will help reduce traffic congestion, and perhaps more important, send a message to Olympia to start acting upon Auditor Sonntag's recommendations for a more efficient government.
  • STATE AUDITOR BRIAN SONNTAG: "Tim's effort to take our audit findings, to take our audit reports and the constructive nature of that and try to move it into action I think is a laudable next step."
  • DINO ROSSI: Republican gubernatorial candidate Dino Rossi confirmed he planned to vote for I-985 because he believes it will reduce congestion.
  • STATE AUDITOR BRIAN SONNTAG: Brian was asked "is the approach that Eyman's taking a fair interpretation of your audit?", he responded: "Yes, yes it is." And after Brian said he was staying neutral on I-985, he was asked: "But between you and me and our small public radio audience, do you think it's a good idea?", Brian responded: "Sure I do. I think it's a good idea"

Arguments for I-985

  • I-985 doesn't increase the tax burden but requires government to spend existing taxes more effectively.
  • The state has failed in dealing with traffic congestion, and since it is an important issue to most Washingtonians, it should be a priority for tax dollars.
  • I-985 will lower the incentive for people to carpool or use the bus by opening up the carpool lanes to other traffic during certain hours.


From the Washington Policy Center:

  • I-985 would not raise taxes and would generate about $1.7 billion for transportation infrastructure every ten years.
  • I-985 would increase the projected statewide budget deficit by about $290 million during the next two year budget cycle and about $284 million in the 2011-13 biennium.
  • I-985 would reduce the state’s reliance on the fuel tax for transportation infrastructure.
  • I-985 would shift the state’s current policy back toward one that ties public spending to traffic congestion relief.
  • I-985 would open HOV lanes during non-peak hours, which would reduce overall delay, because more drivers would be able to pass through the system. It may also increase congestion on sensitive direct access lanes and ramps.
  • Opening HOV lanes during non-peak hours would also increase travel times for buses and cost transit agencies higher fuel and labor expenses and the loss of up to $20 million in federal grant money.
  • I-985 would expand the emergency roadside assistance program and could reduce minor accident clearance times by nearly 10 percent.
  • I-985 would synchronize most traffic signals and reduce travel times up to 20 percent on major arterials and up to 7 percent overall.
  • I-985 would protect toll revenues in the same way the Washington State Constitution protects gas tax revenues.

Funding

According to Public Disclosure Commission filings through Aug. 28, 2008, ReduceCongestion.org had raised $520,661.20 for 2008. The largest single contribution came from Michael Dunmire ($100,000). Top contributors include Michael and Physllis Dunmire ($285,000), Voters Want More Choices ($84,059.54), the Sam Adams Alliance ($30,000), and Kemper Holdings LLC ($25,000).[11]

Opponents

The No on I-985 campaign is a coalition of businesses, civic groups and leaders, including the League of Women Voters, the Association of Washington Businesses, the Washington PTA, and the Sierra Club. In addition, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Seattle Times, the Spokane Spokesman-Review, the Tacoma News Tribune, the Everett Herald, along with virtually every other major newspaper in the state, have come out against I-985.[12]

Washington members of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) voted Oct. 8, 2008, to oppose I-985. "The best professional judgment of these engineers is that I-985 contains significant flaws that will likely, on net, increase congestion and possibly impact safety on the roads and highways of metropolitan Puget Sound," the ITE reported on its web site.[13] The ITE has released a detailed report on its findings, concluding that I-985 would increase congestion at major Puget Sound traffic bottlenecks; increase accident risk; and slow down transit service, spurring many carpoolers and bus riders to switch back to driving alone.[14]

Opponents also state that I-985 is unfair to eastern Washington residents, citing a new analysis by Sightline Institute, a non-partisan think-tank, which concludes that of the $582 million tax dollars I-985 would draw from all over Washington State, 90 percent would ultimately be directed towards Greater Seattle (King, Snohomish, and Pierce counties). This is the eqivalent of $229 for a family of four living outside greater Seattle.[15]

Washington Research Council, an independant policy research group, released a report concluding that though the introductory section of I-985 asserts that the Initiative “provides voters with the opportunity to implement the strategies recommended in the [audit] report" the Initiative directly addresses only two of the audit’s 22 recommendations. Opening HOV lanes to all vehicles outside of peak hours—the Initiative’s most significant policy change—was not a recommendation of the audit report. The report also stated that I-985 would widen 2009-11 General Fund Deficit.[16]

Gov. Chris Gregoire opposed I-985.[7]

House Transportation Committee Chairwoman Judy Clibborn (D-Mercer Island) said lawmakers realize the electorate is frustrated by traffic problems, but the state's long-term highway plans also have to tackle safety and maintenance worries. "I think we're as interested in getting congestion relief as anybody is," Clibborn said. "I don't think we're ignoring things. It's just that we have emergencies and safety issues that take precedence."[17]

State Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen said I-985 is predicated on a false premise and won't achieve what Eyman intends. "Congestion is our number one priority," Haugen said. "We do spend money on congestion relief."[18]

She also argued that opening the carpool lanes during non-rush hours to all traffic will work against efforts to get cars off the road. Buses use those lanes, and people ride them to save time, she said, but she believes people will go back to driving if buses start to get jammed up in traffic.[19]

Doug MacDonald, Washington transportation secretary from 2001 to mid-2007, said Eyman is giving voters the impression that a portion of highway construction money is being spent on frivolous art projects and that I-985 will stop that practice. But MacDonald said no highway project spends money on art.[10]

Letting cars use some highway on-ramps in Seattle that are now reserved for buses would only worsen traffic congestion and create safety problems elsewhere, MacDonald said.[10]

The Washington Association of Cities has taken an official stance against Initiative 985.[20]

Opponents argue that I-985 would take a big chunk out of the $3.9 billion 520 Bridge project because of the requirement that tolls on any project be used solely on that project. Opponents say this undermines the multicorridor tolling strategy state and transportation officials are considering to close the bridge-replacement funding gap.[21]

Arguments against I-985

From the No on I-985 campaign website:

  • I-985 blows a $600 million hole in the state budget over 5 years.
  • I-985 siphons tax money from rural communities to pay for pet transportation project in urban Puget Sound.
  • I-985 takes away money from schools, safety, and law enforcement.
  • I-985 contradicts the state congestion audit. I‐985’s supporters say that it

implements the recommendations of the State Auditor’s recent congestion report. They’re wrong. I‐985 completely ignores most of the audit’s recommendations, and directly contradicts the audit’s suggestions on HOV lanes and transit.

  • I-985 cripples carpools, vanpools, and buses. During rush hour, carpool lanes are

the most efficient part of the road network: they carry more passengers (and sometimes more vehicles) each hour than general purpose lanes. I‐985 restricts carpool lanes to just three hours each morning and afternoon— much shorter than actual rush hour—which will cripple their usefulness in fighting congestion.

  • I‐985 likely eliminates all of the funding that currently pays for red light

cameras—undermining local efforts to make school zones, railroad crossings, and major intersections safer. Local taxpayers, rather than red light runners, will have to pay for the cameras.

  • I-985 makes key highway chokepoints worse. Carpool lane restrictions will force more

traffic into key chokepoints on westbound SR‐520, I‐5 through downtown, and I‐405, creating even worse congestion than we have today.

  • I-985 undermines smart road management. Among many problems: I‐985’s definition of

“peak hours” is flat out wrong. Rush hour lasts longer, and good luck with weekend Mariners, Husky, and Seahawks games! I‐985 effectively kills the state red light camera program, undermining safety in school zones and dangerous intersections. I‐985 even gets traffic light synchronization wrong; some localities have more important priorities for their money, like snow and ice removal. We shouldn’t let initiative writers make misguided, one‐size‐fits all rules for the whole state!

  • I-985 makes our budget woes worse. Washington is already facing a budget deficit. I‐985

will just add to the strains on the general fund, forcing tax increases or cuts in other general fund priorities, such as education, health care, and law enforcement.

  • I-985 slows down transit. By eliminating bus‐only lanes and clogging carpool lanes, I‐985

will slow down transit, drive up costs, and shrink service. Slower and less reliable buses will encourage current transit riders to switch back to their cars—adding to traffic woes. (With bus ridership surging, it’s an awful time to bog down transit!)

"Fact Check" opposition website

Opponents to Initiative I-985 created a website, No on I-985, to argue against claims made by initiative supporters.

Claim #1: "I-985 blows a $600 million hole in the state budget over 5 years."

True

Over five years, approximately $622.6 million would be redirected from projects and activities supported by state and local general and transportation funds to congestion relief activities. (Secretary of State, I-985 Fiscal Impact Statement)

Claim #2: "I-985 takes money away from schools, safety, and law enforcement."

Partially true.

The initiative will create an account called the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account (Initiative Measure 985 Text, Section 10, pdf). Money from taxes and various projects will be deposited in this account including:

  • 15% of the total sales tax revenue collected from the sale of motor vehicles, except for retail car rentals (Secretary of State, I-985 Explanatory Statement).
  • "Revenue from infractions detected with the use of automated traffic safety cameras..." (Secretary of State, I-985 Explanatory Statement)
  • 0.5% of the money allocated to state agencies for transportation-related public works projects after December 4, 2008 (Initiative Measure 985 Text, Section 13, pdf).
  • Revenue from tolls after December 4, 2008, except for the Washington State ferry toll (Initiative Measure 985 Text, Section 15, pdf).

Opponents to this Initiative believe that this money could better be used towards schools and law enforcement rather than reducing traffic congestion (Initiative 985: Concerns with Funding, 20 October 2008).

The Washington Research Council reported in a Policy Brief that the Initiative would divert $290 million from the General Fund to the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account through the end of the 2009–11 biennium.

Claim #3: "I-985 siphons tax money from rural communities to pay for pet transportation projects in urban Puget Sound."

True. (This is not explicitly stated in the Initiative text, however, it is expected to occur if I-985 is approved.)

Sightline Institute, in the report "Giant Sucking Sound: How Initiative 985 Would Siphon Millions of Dollars from Central and Eastern Washington to Greater Seattle" (pdf) states that:

An analysis of I‐985’s spending priorities suggests that roughly 90 percent of [the General Fund to the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account] —more than $518 million over 5 years—would ultimately be directed towards Greater Seattle (King, Snomish, and Pierce counties). Together, these three counties have...

  • All of the carpool lanes that would be affected by I‐985;
  • About 90 percent of aggregate traffic congestion delays in the state;
  • Just over half of the state’s total population—enough to sway crucial political decisions about how state congestion money would be spent.

Claim #4: "Independent traffic engineers agree: I-985 would make congestion worse."

True.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers said in an October 3, 2008 memorandum titled "Predicted Traffic and Transportation Impacts of Initiative 985" (pdf) that, "I-985 contains significant flaws that will likely, on net, increase congestion and possibly impact safety on the roads and highways of metropolitan Puget Sound."

They also had other concerns with the I-985, saying, "(1) an increased risk of car crashes; (2) reductions in the ability of emergency and incident-response vehicles to travel quickly in crowded HOV lanes; (3) direct contradictions with federal requirements for the management of direct access ramps, potentially forcing closure of some facilities at off-peak hours; and (4) reductions in the speed, reliability, and cost-recovery of transit service that could reduce performance for transit users and could lead some drivers to switch to driving alone—increasing traffic volumes on already crowded roadways."

Polling information

See also Polls, 2008 ballot measures.
Month of Poll Polling company In Favor Opposed Undecided
October 2008 Washington Poll 45 percent 43 percent 12 percent[22]

Path to the ballot

Secretary of State Sam Reed certified Initiative 985 on July 18, 2008, confirming that enough valid signatures were submitted to earn a spot on the November 2008 ballot.[23]

Supporters filed 290,000 signatures on July 3, 2008. Only 224,880 valid signatures are required to make the November ballot.[24]

Supporters were expected to turn in signatures in Olympia on June 19, 2008. Tim Eyman said in late June that he barely had the needed signatures and hoped to collect 50,000 more by the July 3 deadline to guarantee a spot on the November ballot.[25]

See also

External links

Additional reading


References

  1. ↑ Official election results
  2. ↑ Fiscal Analysis for Initiative 985
  3. ↑ Washington Policy Center: Analysis of fiscal impact report, Aug. 5, 2008
  4. ↑ TheNewspaper.com: "Referendum would force congestion reduction"
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 TheNewspaper.com: "Washington Think Tank Gives Thumbs Up to Traffic Reduction Measure," Sept. 5, 2008
  6. ↑ Washington Policy Center Traffic Congestion Poll
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 KNDO-TV News: "Gregoire opposes Eyman initiative, Rossi for," Oct. 9, 2008
  8. ↑ theNewspaper.com: "Washington: Anti-Congestion Referendum Gathers Momentum," June 19, 2008
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Yakima Herald: "How does I-985 affect Yakima?," Sept. 11, 2008
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 10.3 News Tribune: "Eyman pushes traffic solutions; others have doubts," Sept. 12, 2008
  11. ↑ Public Disclosure Commission database of contributions
  12. ↑ [1]
  13. ↑ Crosscut.com: "Congestion conjecture: Eyman's I-985," Oct. 8, 2008
  14. ↑ Western ITE: "Predicted Traffic and Transportation Impacts of Initiative 985," Oct. 3, 2008
  15. ↑ [2]
  16. ↑ [3]
  17. ↑ Newest WA initiative aims to reduce traffic jams
  18. ↑ HeraldNet: "Eyman initiative targets traffic"
  19. ↑ HeraldNet: "Eyman initiative targets traffic"
  20. ↑ KNDO-TV: "City Council Prepares for Hearing on Initiative 985," Oct. 6, 2008
  21. ↑ Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "Critics fear traffic backup with I-985," Oct. 10, 2008
  22. ↑ PolitickerWA:, "Washington Poll finds support for every major ballot initiative", October 27, 2008
  23. ↑ Seattle Times: "Eyman's traffic Initiative 985 qualifies for WA ballot," July 18, 2008
  24. ↑ Voters Want More Choices web site: signature filing announcement
  25. ↑ Mason County Daily News: "Associated Press News Briefs for 6/19/08"

To connect to everything on Ballotpedia about Washington state and its ballot—laws, history, statewide ballot measures, ballot access, and more, visit:

Retrieved from "http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/Washington_Reduce_Traffic_Congestion_Initiative_%282008%29"
Personal tools
Toolbox