Initiative 985: Pro-Con

By Tim Eyman

We supporters of Initiative 985 are proud of its congestion-relief policies. Carpool lanes opened during non-peak hours, traffic lights synchronized to optimize traffic flow, accidents cleared out faster, making it clear that people want “reducing traffic congestion” to be the top transportation priority, all without raising taxes.

They’re positive and important policies. But they’re not the primary reason we’ve sponsored I-985.

In 2005, voters gave State Auditor Brian Sonntag the authority to conduct independent, comprehensive performance audits of state and local governments by overwhelmingly approving Initiative 900. He’s hired experts to learn how state and local governments can spend tax dollars more effectively. He’s completed 11 audits, made 499 recommendations, and identified $3.2 billion in potential savings. But rather than embracing Sonntag’s recommendations, Olympia keeps ignoring them.

Our primary motivation for I-985 is to show Olympia that voters don’t want higher taxes; they want government to spend taxes more effectively by implementing Sonntag’s recommendations.

So we picked the performance audit on the state’s abysmal failure in reducing traffic congestion. Sonntag’s report on reducing congestion made 22 recommendations; Olympia ignored all of them. I-985 implements many of them. Requiring local governments to synchronize traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets would reduce traffic congestion 6-7 percent, and would clear out accidents faster.

Opening carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours is what other states do, and increased capacity reduces congestion.

A major priority
From Auditor Sonntag’s 2007 report: “Citizens have identified congestion as a priority, and therefore so must the Department of Transportation and the Legislature.”
Democrat Sonntag’s performance audit reported that 80 percent of citizens wanted “reducing traffic congestion” to be the top transportation priority. Taxpayers expect their money to strongly support the people’s top transportation priority. Sonntag’s audit and I-985 advocate getting better use from existing streets and highways while also addressing chokepoints with increased capacity to significantly reduce travel times for everyone.

Let me put an exclamation point on I-985’s traffic light synchronization requirement.

Every city and county in the state will benefit from I-985’s mandate that traffic flow be optimized within its jurisdiction, especially since I-985 provides state funds to pay for its costs.

I-985 dedicates existing transportation-related revenues that are currently being diverted to non-transportation spending.

I-985 doesn’t raise taxes. Instead it dedicates red-light camera profits, a small portion of vehicle sales taxes, and “½ percent for reducing congestion” for any transportation-related project (removes “½ percent for public art”) to reducing congestion. I-985 guarantees that tolls on a project won’t be diverted away from that specific project, preventing tolls from becoming just another pot of money for politicians to spread around. And I-985 empowers Sonntag to track revenues and expenditures, helping implement I-985’s reforms and reporting regularly to the public.

Washington is the fifth highest-taxed state in the nation; I-985 keeps us from hitting No. 1.

Opponents’ proposals force taxpayers to pay more. I-985 forces politicians to spend existing revenues more effectively, implementing immediate, cost-effective solutions. Experts’ professional, independent analysis showed Sonntag’s reforms will reduce congestion 15-20 percent and provide a $3 billion boost to our state’s struggling economy, benefitting everyone.

I-985’s opening of HOV (express, carpool, bus-only) lanes during non-peak hours reduces congestion. Taxpayers are tapped out. I-985 tells politicians to prioritize, spending what we already pay more effectively. Let’s tell politicians: Don’t take more from taxpayers. Adopt Sonntag’s growing list of audit recommendations. Vote “Yes” on I-985.

By Bill Fromhold

Tim Eyman promises reduced traffic congestion with his Initiative 985, which, in title, sounds great. Don’t believe it!.

Once again, Eyman stirs the pot with assurances that he has the answer to a big problem. This time, it’s traffic congestion. However, his initiative takes tax dollars generated in Clark County and elsewhere in the state and diverts them to Seattle.

In a nutshell, I-985 proposes setting aside 15 percent of the existing 6.5 percent state sales tax on new and used vehicles, and use of revenue from moving violations caught on “red-light” cameras, for congestion relief. Those funds would go into a “Reduce Traffic Congestion Account” and be used for the funding of synchronization of city and county traffic lights, costs for opening HOV lanes during “non-peak” hours to all traffic and to provide rapid response to congestion-causing traffic accidents.

As usual, there are more problems associated with this Puget Sound-focused Eyman initiative than there are solutions. In this case, shifting in excess of $100 million per year out of the general fund to fix Seattle’s problems will impact funding of education, criminal justice, health care and other essential services funded by the general fund statewide. The State Office of Financial Management predicts that the legislature will be faced with a $3 billion deficit in the next biennium … and removing $100 million-plus per year is going to help that situation? I don’t think so.

Why should the state mandate that all cities and counties synchronize traffic lights?

Local transportation planners are better judges of the factors that influence local intersections and are better able to make those decisions for their jurisdictions. This proposal erodes local control. Eyman might believe that such intrusion in local decisions is needed in the Seattle and central Puget Sound region but this kind of thinking is out of touch with the rest of the state. We should ask how communities with one or two stoplights benefit.

Critical programs hurt
Re-engineering, re-signing, and relighting High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes may benefit the Puget Sound region but it doesn’t do anything for Clark County, Lewis County, Longview, Yakima, the Tri-Cities or the rest of the state.

And on the flip side, the use of transit and vanpools is currently on the rise in the Puget Sound area and it’s happening without Eyman’s “assistance” through initiatives like this one. Opening up HOV lanes to all traffic simply slows transit and vanpools, thus defeating the purpose of HOV lanes and claims of I-985 benefits. Environmental groups agree that opening carpool lanes would make congestion worse.

Eyman purports to use common sense in reducing congestion with his initiative but in this case he has fallen short. This makes no sense.

Do you detect that giant sucking sound yet? It’s money from the sales of vehicles in Clark County and other regions throughout the state flowing into Seattle and Central Puget Sound.

Eyman says the initiative will force state government to make reducing traffic congestion a top priority. His further claim of reducing congestion without raising taxes is more than a bit perplexing. If you take $100 million away from the general fund, how do you replace it? Many opponents are concerned about the revenue hit to the general fund. Responsible voters can see through the magic trick of taking ten dollars out of one bucket and putting it in another. They simply should not allow education and other critical programs and services to struggle for funding even more than they are today.

An Elway Poll conducted in September indicates that support for the initiative is dropping. Are voters starting to get wise to Eyman’s ways?

Environmental groups, business organizations, labor, civic leaders who support transportation reform and elected officials are not supporting I-985. Read the initiative in full. You will agree that the title is misleading. The content of the initiative tells the real story.