Eyman's I-985 attacked for reducing incentive for cities to introduce red light cameras

Eyman's I-985 invites road tragedies

By JOEL CONNELLY
P-I COLUMNIST

DURING THE past decade, our state's less savvy citizens have seen voting for Tim Eyman's tax initiatives as a pain-free way of giving local government a poke in the eye.

The officials so often abused by the initiative kingpin -- Eyman talks endlessly of an unnamed "they" and "them" -- bend over backward to ease the impact and maintain pared-down essential services.

Initiative 985 carries more pain -- physical pain.

Vote in favor of the initiative and your kid may get smashed in the legs by fenders of a car running a red light, or your grandmother killed as she uses a crosswalk after getting off a bus.

Why? Initiative 985 erects a financial barrier that will prevent cities from installing or maintaining cameras at busy and dangerous intersections.

"Traffic cameras are an attempt to begin to level the playing field between powerful cars and human bodies out there. Eyman could give a rat's rear about that," said Andrea Okomski, whose son, Joe, suffered permanent injuries when hit by a car on North 85th Street.

Lori Koidal has become an activist for pedestrian rights since her mother was killed last year by a driver who ran a red light at a busy Kenmore intersection. The driver was not found criminally liable.

"It makes me mad to see something gain traction, and then not happen," Koidal added. "Something CAN work, and this takes it away.

"We're talking about holding people accountable for their actions. If you know there is a camera, you're going to be less likely to run a red light. You will be more likely to slow down."

Eyman, not surprisingly, takes a different view. Displaying the insight that marks him as a leader of bitter men, he used a Friday e-mail to blast traffic cameras as "a lucrative cash cow profit center."

The initiative would take away from cities all of the fines and penalties raised by traffic cameras. The money would instead be sent to a state decongestion fund. It would be used to time traffic lights rather than installing cameras to monitor traffic at sensitive intersections and around schools.

"I hate those cameras, but I believe in them. They make me be careful," King County Executive Ron Sims said in a Seattle CityClub debate with Eyman.

Sims draws on personal experience. He was hit by a car after school as a third-grader in Spokane.

We've seen a common pattern on previous Eyman initiatives. The Elway Poll, about two weeks out, shows a sharp decline in voter support. But time runs out on opponents.

Eyman squeaks through with about 51.12 percent of the vote. He loses in King County but carries rural areas by heavy margins. A guy who could strut sitting down, he then descends on Olympia and claims to be a tribune of the regular guy.

The traffic camera issue is making him squirm.

He tried the Big Brother gambit before CityClub, claiming there is "a little bit of ACLU in all of us." He has tried to demonize camera makers for contributing to the campaign against I-985.

How much is the anti-985 war chest? It totaled $186,000 as of Friday, compared with the $6.2 million raised by supporters and opponents of Initiative 1000, which would legalize physician-assisted suicide.

Above all, argues Eyman, "I-985 removes the profit motive for photo red light cameras and photo speeding cameras."

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the consequences. The cameras become unaffordable to install or maintain.

Eyman has recently heard that message from both the Renton and Burien city councils. He was told in Renton that cameras have cut speeding around schools and freed up police officers to pursue criminals.

Will cities continue to install cameras if money from fines gets sent to Olympia? "We would not be able to afford them," Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels said on a recent podcast.

The national growth of intersection accidents underscores a need to do exactly what Eyman's initiative would render fiscally impossible.

Drivers running red lights cause more than 100,000 crashes a year, killing nearly 1,000 people and injuring 90,000 others. According to the Federal Highway Administration, this has become a leading cause of fatal collisions in metropolitan areas.

"This should be viewed as an outrageous epidemic," Richard Retting, chief traffic engineer with the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, told the Ladies Home Journal. "We're not talking about a rare illness that requires decades of billion-dollar research to prevent or cure. This is a situation where people are dying from something that's 100 percent preventable."

Okomski makes another telling point. We simply don't have enough police to make people be civil on the road, or to cover intersections prone to side-impact "T-bone" crashes.

Yet, I-985 is aimed at preventing the prevention. Eyman doesn't stand for tax relief. He is promoting road kill.

British AA believes changing traffic signals can reduce Greenhouse emissions

Traffic light changes 'would cut emissions'

Last Updated: 12:01am BST 16/04/2008

Carbon dioxide emissions could be cut dramatically by changing traffic light sequences, says the AA.

The AA says that tailbacks could be reduced by re-phasing traffic lights leading into cities

The motoring organisation believes that more than 645 tonnes of environmentally harmful CO2 could be saved by cutting traffic queues by just one minute a day on three major roads leading into any city.

It says that tailbacks could be reduced by re-phasing traffic lights and improving co-ordination of roadworks carried out by different utility firms.

This would mean that car engines would not spend as much time idling and so pump out fewer emissions. The cut in CO2 would top that saved by switching off 2,000 street lights, calculated by one local authority to be 590 tonnes.

Edmund King, of the AA, said: "Councils should be accountable for CO2 reduction, by upgrading gridlocked junctions, co-ordinating roadworks and reducing waiting times at traffic lights."
advertisement

The AA believes that 1,000 cars held up for 10 seconds every working day while heading to and from work produce enough extra carbon dioxide to fill three and a half squash courts.

Using the Eastside as Hi-tech Guinea Pig

Make Eastside a proving ground for innovative transportation ideas

By Bruce Agnew

Special to The Times

By some measures, traffic congestion is worse on the east side of Lake Washington than in Seattle itself, with hourlong commutes to Bellevue from Everett and Auburn becoming common. Striking growth, led by some of the world's most innovative companies, has transformed Eastside suburbs into a dynamic new metropolitan core, apart from Seattle and with its own transportation challenges.

Harnessing that entrepreneurial spirit to cut the Gordian knot of regional transportation politics and traffic bottlenecks will require joint public and private funding, new technology and better decision-making. As Sound Transit is seeking new ideas through a major community-survey effort, the region should recognize that the vibrant Eastside crescent is a good place to test some key transportation solutions.

The Puget Sound Regional Council is working to help better coordinate signalized intersections; there are 2,300-plus in our four counties. Greater synchronization, where signals actually talk to each other, could significantly cut congestion. Related strategies use real-time traffic information to alter electronic roadway signs, signals and even lane configurations, maximizing capacity. Applying developer contributions to higher-tech traffic operations is a natural under the state's Growth Management Act. The Eastside is an ideal proving ground.

Then, let's improve the bus experience. On the Eastside, crucial suburb-to-suburb transit remains a challenge even after the 2006 Metro measure added new express bus routes. Microsoft's private Connector buses with their reservation system, Wi-Fi and that magical morning-commute invention, the cupholder, are the gold standard. Other Eastside companies could copy this approach, utilizing grants from the state's Trip Reduction Performance Program and, eventually, carbon-tax credits.

The Eastside is also prime territory to jazz up the dead zones we call park-and-ride lots. They're transformable into high-tech hubs with joint housing, retail services, plug-in electric vehicle stations, technology-office clusters and many transportation choices. One could be a new idea called flexible carpooling, pioneered by a New Zealand entrepreneur named Paul Minett now seeking regional business and political support. Prescreened drivers and commuters pair up in designated park-and-ride areas for trips to different employment clusters, under a market-based credit and debit system. Missed your car pool? Catch the next one!

The abandoned BNSF rail corridor from Snohomish to Redmond and Renton offers a potential 42-mile rail and trail combo that, with track rehabilitation, could feature quiet, high-tech, double-decked, biodiesel-burning, bike-carrying, north-south trains to connect to east-west express bus lines on Highways 522 and 520, and Interstate 90. Private sector cost-sharing is distinctly possible. One example: At the nexus of the rail line, Highway 520 and Interstate 405, where an old Safeway distribution center stands, Wright Runstad is proposing a 36-acre office and housing development (the Spring District). The company could share costs for the trail and a commuter rail station complex.

At stops in Bellevue and South Kirkland, why not add a remote airport clearance station for future transit connections to Sea-Tac Airport that are actually convenient for Eastsiders, as suggested by Port of Seattle Commissioner Bill Bryant? Utilizing commuter rail that could eventually go as far as Renton, and then a speedy connecting bus, you could first check your bags and then go through all the plane preboarding paces with no stinting on security. Upon arrival at the airport, you'd go straight to your gate.

What about state highway projects from Snohomish County to Pierce County that were only partially funded with recent gas-tax hikes? We should use current state transportation-benefit-district legislation as an umbrella to leverage private funding with new public funding in the three-county area.

The centerpiece could be the I-405/Highway 167 corridor from Lynnwood to the Port of Tacoma. Convert the I-405 HOV lanes into time-variable, electronically tolled high-occupancy/toll (HOT) lanes. (High-occupancy cars, van pools and employer-sponsored and public transit would travel free, while solo drivers would pay a toll.) Then add another HOT lane in each direction on I-405 and on Highway 167, where one will open on each side of the King County stretch this spring under a state pilot program.

You'd then have at least two managed lanes and two general lanes, each way, for the entire corridor. This would include the unfunded 11-mile extension to the Port of Tacoma.

Tolls for the HOT lanes would retire the construction debt and pay for the operations of the expanded corridor, including additional express buses.

To add to the regional roads and transit funding pool, implement more HOT lanes and also bring in public employee or building-trade-union pension funds as investors, while maintaining public control of the assets, and tolls or fares.

Eastside suburbs already becoming an economic powerhouse can transform surface transportation by helping the broader region transcend boundaries, harness technology and private initiative, and prioritize completion of the best projects, sooner rather than later. Let's seize the opportunity to innovate. Our region's future depends on it.

Initiative 985 Text - Congestion Relief Eyman

Initiative Measure No. 985 Filed JAN 14 2008 Reduce Congestion . org Secretary of State Reduce Traffic Congestion Initiative

Complete Text

AN ACT Relating to reducing traffic congestion on public highways, freeways, streets, and roads; amending RCW 46.61.165, 47.66.090, 47.56.403, 82.08.020, 43.17.200, 43.46.090, 47.56.030, 47.56.160, and 47.56.170; reenacting and amending RCW 46.63.110; adding a new section to chapter 35.21 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 36.01 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 47.01 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 82.12 RCW; adding a new section to chapter 46.68 RCW; creating new sections; and providing an effective date.


BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:


POLICIES AND PURPOSES


NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. During these tough economic times, the people deserve a common sense proposal to reduce traffic congestion by implementing basic congestion relief strategies and improving Washington's transportation system with better use of existing public resources. In 2005, the voters of Washington overwhelmingly approved Initiative 900 granting the state auditor the power to conduct independent, comprehensive performance audits of state and local governments. The auditor was hired by the people to determine ways for government to deliver services as effectively and efficiently as possible. Through extensive outreach with citizens, including focus groups and town hall meetings, in 2006, the state auditor learned that eighty percent of citizens said reducing traffic congestion is their number one transportation priority. Traffic congestion incurs incredible costs to citizens, businesses and government; it is an important aspect of transportation and is an indicator of how well the state's transportation system is working. Reducing traffic congestion means minimizing vehicle trip delays, the amount of time

Electronic Transmittal 1 1-1866.1



it takes a vehicle to get from point A to point B. So the state auditor contracted with the prestigious auditing firm of Talbot, Korvola and Warwick, LLP who brought years of experience in performance auditing. They hired subject-matter experts with internationally recognized experience in traffic and congestion management. Members of the audit team had more than two hundred years' of cumulative experience auditing transportation systems. In October 2007, the state auditor released the results of their independent performance audit report "Managing and Reducing Congestion." Their number one finding was that traffic congestion relief is not a top priority of the department of transportation so the audit's fundamental recommendation was: "Commit to congestion management and reduction as a primary goal." The anger, defensiveness, and condescending dismissal of the report by the department of transportation, the legislature, and the governor was swift and resolute. The new head of the department of transportation rejected the recommendations on the day they were released. House of representatives and senate transportation committees refused to acknowledge the report or even hold a public hearing as required under Initiative 900. At the public hearing held by an unaffiliated legislative committee, legislators lashed out at the state auditor for even broaching the topic. The governor's chief of staff said citizens do not understand transportation and simply take for granted what government does. Legislators quoted from statutes that no longer existed to defend the status quo. Some promised legislative retribution on the state auditor and interference in future audits, which is illegal under Initiative 900. The state auditor identified and retained internationally recognized experts in state, federal and international transportation issues. Their recommendations are crystal clear. This act provides voters with the opportunity to implement the strategies recommended in the report that will have an immediate impact on reducing traffic congestion using existing infrastructure and resources. Upon its approval by the voters, it is incumbent upon the department of transportation, the legislature, and the governor to listen to the people and make traffic congestion management and reduction the primary goal of transportation. As State Auditor Brian Sonntag says in his accompanying letter to the report: "Citizens have identified congestion as a priority, and therefore, so must the Department (of Transportation) and the


Electronic Transmittal 2 1-1866.1



Legislature." It is clear from the establishment's reaction to this transportation performance audit that the only way for voters to change the attitude of those in power is to approve this act. This measure would open carpool lanes during non-peak hours, require synchronization of traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets, increase funding for emergency roadside assistance, and dedicate a portion of existing vehicle-related revenue for these purposes. The intent of sections 2 and 3 of this act: We all pay taxes for our carpool lanes, so everyone should be allowed to use them at least some of the time. This act strikes a reasonable balance by allowing our carpool lanes to be open to everyone during non-peak hours, meaning midday and evenings on weekdays and all day and all night on weekends. Existing road capacity must be utilized to maximize its effectiveness. How can we increase road capacity and reduce traffic congestion on our most congested highways and roadways without spending billions of dollars? By opening our carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours. This will quickly, significantly, and cost-effectively relieve traffic congestion and increase traffic flow on our most congested highways and roadways and illustrate that increased road capacity results in reduced traffic congestion. These sections do not create or impose new tolls on carpool lanes; but if tolls or charges are imposed on carpool lanes, then these sections ensure that the toll revenue is used to reduce traffic congestion. The intent of sections 4 and 15(1)(b) of this act: due to the voters' approval of Initiative 960 in 2007, any tolls or charges must be decided and approved by a simple-majority vote of the Legislature, not unilaterally imposed by unelected bureaucrats on the transportation commission. Such decisions are too important and too impactful to be made by anyone other than our elected representatives. The intent of sections 5 and 6 of this act: To increase traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion, each city must synchronize the traffic signals on heavily-traveled arterials and streets within its jurisdiction. Heavily-traveled arterials and streets include routes of regional and local significance and include major and secondary arterials and streets. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets outside of a city, the county must synchronize the traffic signals. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets that are the


Electronic Transmittal 3 1-1866.1



responsibility of the state or other local government, it is the responsibility of the state or other local government to synchronize the traffic signals. What is the use of having a top-notch Medic One system if it simply gets stuck in traffic? Synchronizing traffic lights ensures increased traffic flow, reduced traffic congestion, and better safety. Transferring goods to and from our ports, and other freight mobility necessities, are hampered by stop-and-go traffic at successive traffic lights. Reducing traffic congestion and increasing traffic flow is critical for freight mobility. Synchronization of traffic signals is a coordinated set of timing plans for a group of signals on arterials and streets used to facilitate smooth traffic flow. The objective of synchronizing traffic signals is to allow progression through arterials and streets with the fewest stops at intersections, while minimizing delay for the side street. Synchronizing traffic lights creates more uniform speeds along streets, increases traffic flow, reduces time delays at intersections, and creates opportunities for traffic from side streets to safely enter a main street. This act helps cities, counties, and other governments fund these improvements. The intent of section 7 of this act: Traffic accidents and other temporary obstructions greatly hinder the smooth flow of traffic and must be responded to and cleared as quickly as possible. This involves coordination, communication, equipment, and manpower. A blocked highway or roadway can result in miles of backups and long delays. A large portion of all traffic congestion is caused by collisions, disabled vehicles, spills, and other events that impede the normal flow of traffic. An initial incident has the potential for creating secondary incidents such as vehicles running out of fuel or overheating, or collisions that occur from lane changing and rapid braking in the initial incident's traffic backup. The quicker the initial incident is cleared, the less time motorists and response personnel are exposed to traffic hazards and the possibility of a secondary collision. The Washington state department of transportation and other government entities and contracted companies, including tow truck operators, must expeditiously assist in the safe, prudent, and quick removal of vehicles and other debris involved in traffic accidents or other temporary obstructions. The people want the roads cleared and drivers helped as quickly as possible to reduce traffic congestion and restore the normal flow of


Electronic Transmittal 4 1-1866.1


traffic. This act provides increased funding for these programs. We need to fix what we already have using the taxes we're already paying. Taxpayers can't afford to pay for the mega-platinum option for every mega-project, especially when it's simply to satisfy the aesthetic preferences of Seattle's elite. A perfect example is the decade of debate over the Alaska Way viaduct (Highway 99), a major north-south state highway that everyone is paying for. The people want practical, pragmatic solutions that will reduce traffic congestion, not make it worse. Government too often has a knee-jerk reaction: If their pick-up truck gets a flat tire, rather than repairing the tire, they instead replace the pick-up with a Mercedes. The people want a solution that reduces traffic congestion for the thousands of vehicles that travel over state highways every day, but at a minimum, it shouldn't be made worse. Taxpayers are already paying billions of dollars in taxes and they expect and demand improvements now, rather than promises of "less bad" decades from now. Taxpayers want transparency and accountability with the focus on solving the problem rather than using the problem to leverage the public to swallow yet another tax increase. It is way past time for the people to get something in return for the taxes they're already paying. The intent of sections 8 and 9 of this act: In order to reduce traffic congestion, it is essential that existing vehicle taxes be spent on this critical priority. Vehicle purchases generate approximately $850 million per year in state tax revenue and using 15% of those revenues to reduce traffic congestion is reasonable and prudent. People who purchase vehicles want their taxes to go toward reducing traffic congestion on our roads, streets, and highways at the state and local level. The intent of section 11 of this act: To provide additional revenue for the policy requirements of this act, moneys collected from fines and civil penalties from red light traffic cameras shall be used to reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow. The intent of sections 12 through 14 of this act: To provide additional revenue for the policy requirements of this act, any transportation-related public works project shall not be required to spend a percentage of its funds on purchases of art, instead a percentage will be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion. Taxpayers don't have bottomless wallets so every dollar possible must


Electronic Transmittal 5 1-1866.1



go toward the people's top priority: reducing traffic congestion. The intent of sections 15 through 17 of this act: These sections do not create or impose new tolls; but if tolls or charges are imposed, then these sections ensure taxpayers are protected. There has been talk of simply charging people extra just to drive on existing highways, freeways, roads, and streets, including adding global positioning system (GPS) devices or transponders to vehicles or other methods to collect revenue. If citizens are double-taxed, then any tolls or charges will be used to reduce traffic congestion. Year after year, Washington voters have repeatedly rejected the business-as-usual, the-only-solution-is-a-tax-increase mentality. During these tough economic times, the people deserve a common sense proposal to reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow by implementing basic traffic congestion relief strategies and improving Washington's transportation system with better use of existing public resources. Reduced traffic congestion ensures a growing, thriving economy that is essential in generating the tax revenue necessary to fund government services. This measure will make travel times faster immediately on our highways and roadways, reduce traffic congestion, increase traffic flow, increase safety and freight mobility, and result in fewer vehicles idling thus decreasing carbon emissions, all by maximizing the use of existing public resources.


OPENS CARPOOL LANES TO EVERYONE DURING NON-PEAK HOURS

Sec. 2. RCW 46.61.165 and 1999 c 206 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: The state department of transportation and the local authorities are authorized, subject to the requirements in this section, to reserve all or any portion of any highway under their respective jurisdictions as carpool lanes, including any designated lane or ramp, for the exclusive or preferential use of public transportation vehicles or private motor vehicles carrying no fewer than a specified number of passengers when ( (eueh)) the limitation will increase the efficient utilization of the highway or will aid in the conservation of energy resources. Regulations authorizing ( ( ) ) exclusive or preferential use of a highway facility ( (mmaybe dcelaredtebe)) are


Electronic Transmittal 6 1-1866.1



effective ( (at all ti cser)) only at the specified times of day ( (ems)) and on the specified days designated in this section. In order to reduce traffic congestion, existing road capacity must be utilized to maximize its effectiveness. On and after December 4, 2008, all carpool lanes shall be opened during non-peak hours for use by all traffic otherwise lawfully abiding by the rules of the road of this state, including RCW 46.61.100. This policy shall be in effect for any carpool lane in effect on January 1, 2008, and for any new or expanded carpool lanes designated after January 1, 2008, on any highway, freeway, or roadway in the state. Electronic and nonelectronic signage must be substantially updated and expanded to ensure that drivers are fully alerted to the policies required under this section. For the purposes of this section: (1) "Carpool lanes" are high-occupancy vehicle lanes, including express lanes, lanes like those established under RCW 47.56.403, off-ramp bypass lanes, and on-ramp bypass lanes on any highway, freeway, or roadway in the state. (2) "Non-peak hours" mean midday on weekdays, evenings on weekdays, and all day and all night on weekends. (a) "Midday on weekdays" is between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday; (b) "Evenings on weekdays" are between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. on Monday through Thursday; (c) "All day and all night on weekends" is between the hours of 6:00 p.m. on Friday and 6:00 a.m. on Monday; (d) "Peak hours" are between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. on Monday through Friday. ( 3) During hours not specified as non-peak hours under this section, the use of carpool lanes by a motor vehicle is limited to those carrying two or more persons, except in the case of a motorcycle, which may use a carpool lane if carrying one or more persons. (4) A governmental entity, authority, or agency shall not avoid the requirements of this section by redesignating a carpool lane as another name or designation. (5) To reduce traffic congestion by encouraging traffic to use carpool lanes during non-peak hours, a toll may not be charged on any vehicle in a high-occupancy toll lane under RCW 47.56.403 during non-


Electronic Transmittal 7 1-1866.1



peak hours, and any tolls or charges imposed and collected for such lanes during peak hours which exceeds the costs identified in section 3 of this act must be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. This section does not restrict the operation of RCW 46.44.080, 46.61.100, or 46.61.135, thus continuing restricted truck usage of city streets. Violation of a restriction of highway usage prescribed by the appropriate authority under this section is a traffic infraction.

Sec. 3. RCW 47.66.090 and 2005 c 312 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: The high-occupancy toll lanes operations account is created in the state treasury. The department shall deposit ( (a31)) only those revenues received by the department as toll charges collected from high-occupancy toll lane users that are necessary to cover the costs of construction and operation of the toll lanes. Moneys in this account may be spent only if appropriated by the legislature. ( (Meneyin this ? count may be used for, but be net lifaited te 6 a


eee aney tell lane and to inereasc trans-it, vanpeol and , and trip rcduction scrviccG in the eerrider. Areamse l of the nreneys in this account moot be dedieatcdto increase transit ageol, carpeel, and trip reduction ocrviees in the eerrider. '


the corridor.)) All toll charge revenues exceeding these costs shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.

Sec. 4. RCW 47.56.403 and 2005 c 312 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: ( 1) The department may provide, subject to the requirements of RCW 46.61.165, 47.66.090, and any other applicable law, for the establishment, construction, and operation of a pilot project of high-occupancy toll lanes on state route 167 high-occupancy vehicle lanes within King county. The department may issue, buy, and redeem bonds, and deposit and expend them; secure and remit financial and


Electronic Transmittal 8 1-1866.1



other assistance in the construction of high-occupancy toll lanes, carry insurance, and handle any other matters pertaining to the high-occupancy toll lane pilot project. (2) Tolls for high-occupancy toll lanes will be established as follows: (a) The schedule of toll charges for high-occupancy toll lanes must be established by the transportation commission and collected in a manner determined by the commission. (b) Toll charges shall not be assessed on transit buses and vanpool vehicles owned or operated by any public agency. (c) The department shall establish performance standards for the state route 167 high-occupancy toll lane pilot project. The department must automatically adjust the toll charge, using dynamic tolling, to ensure that toll-paying single-occupant vehicle users are only permitted to enter the lane to the extent that average vehicle speeds in the lane remain above forty-five miles per hour at least ninety percent of the time during peak hours as defined in RCW 46.61.165. The toll charge may vary in amount by time of day, level of traffic congestion within the highway facility, vehicle occupancy, or other criteria, as the commission may deem appropriate. The commission may also vary toll charges for single-occupant inherently low-emission vehicles such as those powered by electric batteries, natural gas, propane, or other clean burning fuels. (d) The commission shall periodically review the toll charges to determine if the toll charges are effectively maintaining travel time, speed, and reliability on the highway facilities. ( 3) The department shall monitor the state route 167 high-occupancy toll lane pilot project and shall annually report to the transportation commission and the legislature on operations and findings. At a minimum, the department shall provide facility use data and review the impacts on: (a) Freeway efficiency and safety; (b) Effectiveness for transit; (c) Person and vehicle movements by mode; (d) Ability to finance improvements and transportation services through tolls; and (e) The impacts on all highway users. The department shall analyze aggregate use data and conduct, as needed, separate surveys to assess usage of the facility in relation to geographic,


Electronic Transmittal 9 1-1866.1



socioeconomic, and demographic information within the corridor in order to ascertain actual and perceived questions of equitable use of the facility. ( 4) The department shall modify the pilot project to address identified safety issues and mitigate negative impacts to high-occupancy vehicle lane users. (5) Authorization to impose high-occupancy vehicle tolls for the state route 167 high-occupancy toll pilot project expires if either of the following two conditions apply: (a) If no contracts have been let by the department to begin construction of the toll facilities associated with this pilot project within four years of July 24, 2005; or (b) Four years after toll collection begins under this section. ( 6) The department of transportation shall adopt rules that allow automatic vehicle identification transponders used for electronic toll collection to be compatible with other electronic payment devices or transponders from the Washington state ferry system, other public transportation systems, or other toll collection systems to the extent that technology permits. ( 7) The conversion of a single existing high-occupancy vehicle lane to a high-occupancy toll lane as proposed for SR-167 must be taken as the exception for this pilot project. ( 8) A violation of the lane restrictions applicable to the high-occupancy toll lanes established under this section is a traffic infraction. ( 9) Procurement activity associated with this pilot project shall be open and competitive in accordance with chapter 39.29 RCW.


REQUIRES SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON HEAVILY-TRAVELED ARTERIALS AND STREETS


NEW SECTION. Sec. 5. A new section is added to chapter 35.21 RCW to read as follows: (1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, each city must synchronize the traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets within its jurisdiction to optimize traffic flow. Heavily-traveled arterials and streets include routes of regional and local significance and include major and secondary arterials as defined in RCW 35.78.010. For heavily-traveled


Electronic Transmittal 10 1-1866.1


arterials and streets outside of a city, the county must synchronize the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets that are the responsibility of the state or other local government, the state or other local government must synchronize the arterials' and streets' traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. Cities, counties, and other governments must cooperate and coordinate their efforts in implementing this traffic light synchronization mandate. Funding shall be allocated from the dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act to assist efforts after January 1, 2008 by cities, counties, and other governments to synchronize traffic lights to optimize traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion. (2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance benchmarks using best practices for traffic light synchronization to optimize traffic flow under this section. The state auditor shall investigate and track local governments' progress on these benchmarks and shall provide information on such progress and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 6. A new section is added to chapter 36.01 RCW to read as follows: ( 1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, each county must synchronize the traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets within its jurisdiction to optimize traffic flow. Heavily-traveled arterials and streets include routes of regional and local significance and include major and secondary arterials as defined in RCW 35.78.010. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets in an incorporated city or town, the city or town must synchronize the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. For heavily-traveled arterials and streets that are the responsibility of the state or other government entity, the state or other government entity must synchronize the traffic lights to optimize traffic flow. Cities, counties, and other governments must cooperate and coordinate their efforts in implementing this traffic light synchronization mandate. Funding shall be allocated from the dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act to assist efforts after January 1, 2008 by cities, counties, and other local governments to synchronize traffic lights to optimize traffic flow and reduce traffic congestion.


Electronic Transmittal 11 1-1866.1



( 2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance benchmarks using best practices for traffic light synchronization to optimize traffic flow under this section. The state auditor shall investigate and track local governments' progress on these benchmarks and shall provide information on such progress and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis.


INCREASES FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE


NEW SECTION. Sec. 7. A new section is added to chapter 47.01 RCW to read as follows: ( 1) To reduce traffic congestion and increase traffic flow, the department of transportation and other governmental entities must rapidly respond to traffic accidents and other. obstructions on highways, freeways, roads, and streets, and clear these accidents and obstructions as expeditiously as possible. The department and other governmental entities must receive increased funding for emergency roadside assistance from the dedicated revenue in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Relief Account created in section 10 of this act. To maximize flexibility and response times, the state, the department, and other governmental entities may and are encouraged to contract out emergency roadside assistance services to private companies, including tow truck operators. ( 2) The state auditor shall identify and establish performance benchmarks using best practices for emergency roadside assistance under this section and shall investigate and track progress fulfilling this requirement, providing this and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis. DEDICATES A PORTION OF EXISTING VEHICLE-RELATED REVENUE TO HELP FUND THE OPENING OF CARPOOL LANES TO EVERYONE DURING NON-PEAK HOURS, HELP FUND THE SYNCHRONIZATION OF TRAFFIC LIGHTS ON HEAVILY-TRAVELED ARTERIALS AND STREETS, AND INCREASE FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE

Sec. 8. RCW 82.08.020 and 2006 c 1 s 3 are each amended to read as follows: ( 1) There is levied and there shall be collected a tax on each retail sale in this state equal to six and five-tenths percent of the


Electronic Transmittal 12 1-1866.1



selling price. ( 2) There is levied and there shall be collected an additional tax on each retail car rental, regardless of whether the vehicle is licensed in this state, equal to five and nine-tenths percent of the selling price. The revenue collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the multimodal transportation account created in RCW 47.66.070. ( 3) Beginning July 1, 2003, there is levied and collected an additional tax of three-tenths of one percent of the selling price on each retail sale of a motor vehicle in this state, other than retail car rentals taxed under subsection ( 2) of this section. The revenue collected under this subsection shall be deposited in the multimodal transportation account created in RCW 47.66.070. ( 4) For purposes of subsections ( 3) and ( 8) of this section, "motor vehicle" has the meaning provided in RCW 46.04.320, but does not include farm tractors or farm vehicles as defined in RCW 46.04.180 and 46.04.181, off-road and nonhighway vehicles as defined in RCW 46.09.020, and snowmobiles as defined in RCW 46.10.010. ( 5) Beginning on December 8, 2005, 0.16 percent of the taxes collected under subsection ( 1) of this section shall be dedicated to funding comprehensive performance audits required under RCW 43.09.470. The revenue identified in this subsection shall be deposited in the performance audits of government account created in RCW 43.09.475. ( 6) The taxes imposed under this chapter shall apply to successive retail sales of the same property. ( 7) The rates provided in this section apply to taxes imposed under chapter 82.12 RCW as provided in RCW 82.12.020. ( 8) To effectively utilize existing resources to reduce traffic congestion, beginning on December 4, 2008, fifteen percent of the taxes collected under subsection (1) of this section on the retail sale of those vehicles taxed under subsection ( 3) of this section shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. This subsection ( 8) of this section dedicates a portion of existing vehicle sales tax revenue and does not raise taxes.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 9. A new section is added to chapter 82.12 RCW to read as follows:

Electronic Transmittal 13 1-1866.1



Beginning on December 4, 2008, fifteen percent of the taxes collected under RCW 82.12.020 on vehicles taxed under RCW 82.08.020 ( 3) based on the rate in RCW 82.08.020(1) shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.


CREATES "REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"

NEW SECTION. Sec. 10. A new section is added to chapter 46.68 RCW to read as follows: ( 1) The Reduce Traffic Congestion Account is hereby created in the state treasury as a subaccount of the motor vehicle fund. All receipts from: The fifteen percent of sales and use taxes dedicated in RCW 82.08.020(8) and section 9 of this act; any tolls or charges collected under RCW 46.61.165(5) and 47.66.090; revenue from infractions dedicated to reducing traffic congestion under RCW 43.63.110; appropriate allocated funds under section 13 of this act; and any tolls or charges collected under RCW 47.56.030 and 47.56.170 must be deposited in the subaccount. Moneys in the subaccount may be spent only after appropriation. Expenditures from the subaccount may be used only: (a) To pay for costs associated with the opening of carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours as required under RCW 46.61.165, including new and modified electronic and nonelectronic signage; lane striping, improvements, and maintenance; and shoulder maintenance and improvements, including bumpers; (b) To pay for costs associated with synchronizing traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets as required under sections 5 and 6 of this act; (c) To provide increased funding for emergency roadside assistance as required under section 7 of this act; and (d) To provide funding for the activities of the state auditor required under this section and sections 5, 6, and 7 of this act. ( 2) After payment of costs identified in subsections ( 1) (a) through (d) of this section, any other purpose which reduces traffic congestion by reducing vehicle delay times by expanding road capacity and general purpose use to improve traffic flow for all vehicles may be provided funding from the subaccount. Purposes to improve traffic flow for all vehicles do not include creating, maintaining, or

Electronic Transmittal 14 1-1866.1




operating bike paths or lanes, wildlife crossings, landscaping, park and ride lots, ferries, trolleys, buses, monorail, light rail, or heavy rail. ( 3) Revenue deposited in the subaccount and not appropriated shall be retained by this subaccount. (4) To measure the level of compliance with the policies, purposes, and intent of this act, the state auditor shall investigate and track the revenues and expenditures required under this act and shall report this and other relevant information to the public on a regular basis. DEDICATES REVENUE FROM RED LIGHT TRAFFIC CAMERAS TO THE "REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"

Sec. 11. RCW 46.63.110 and 2007 c 356 s 8 and 2007 c 199 s 28 are each reenacted and amended to read as follows: (1) A person found to have committed a traffic infraction shall be assessed a monetary penalty. No penalty may exceed two hundred and fifty dollars for each offense unless authorized by this chapter or title. (2) The monetary penalty for a violation of (a) RCW 46.55.105 (2) is two hundred fifty dollars for each offense; (b) RCW 46.61.210 ( 1) is five hundred dollars for each offense. No penalty assessed under this subsection ( 2) may be reduced. (3) The supreme court shall prescribe by rule a schedule of monetary penalties for designated traffic infractions. This rule shall also specify the conditions under which local courts may exercise discretion in assessing fines and penalties for traffic infractions. The legislature respectfully requests the supreme court to adjust this schedule every two years for inflation. ( 4) There shall be a penalty of twenty-five dollars for failure to respond to a notice of traffic infraction except where the infraction relates to parking as defined by local law, ordinance, regulation, or resolution or failure to pay a monetary penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter. A local legislative body may set a monetary penalty not to exceed twenty-five dollars for failure to respond to a notice of traffic infraction relating to parking as defined by local law, ordinance, regulation, or resolution. The




Electronic Transmittal 15 1-1866.1



local court, whether a municipal, police, or district court, shall impose the monetary penalty set by the local legislative body. ( 5) Monetary penalties provided for in chapter 46.70 RCW which are civil in nature and penalties which may be assessed for violations of chapter 46.44 RCW relating to size, weight, and load of motor vehicles are not subject to the limitation on the amount of monetary penalties which may be imposed pursuant to this chapter. ( 6) Whenever a monetary penalty, fee, cost, assessment, or other monetary obligation is imposed by a court under this chapter it is immediately payable. If the court determines, in its discretion, that a person is not able to pay a monetary obligation in full, and not more than one year has passed since the later of July 1, 2005, or the date the monetary obligation initially became due and payable, the court shall enter into a payment plan with the person, unless the person has previously been granted a payment plan with respect to the same monetary obligation, or unless the person is in noncompliance of any existing or prior payment plan, in which case the court may, at its discretion, implement a payment plan. If the court has notified the department that the person has failed to pay or comply and the person has subsequently entered into a payment plan and made an initial payment, the court shall notify the department that the infraction has been adjudicated, and the department shall rescind any suspension of the person's driver's license or driver's privilege based on failure to respond to that infraction. "Payment plan," as used in this section, means a plan that requires reasonable payments based on the financial ability of the person to pay. The person may voluntarily pay an amount at any time in addition to the payments required under the payment plan. (a) If a payment required to be made under the payment plan is delinquent or the person fails to complete a community restitution program on or before the time established under the payment plan, unless the court determines good cause therefor and adjusts the payment plan or the community restitution plan accordingly, the court shall notify the department of the person's failure to meet the conditions of the plan, and the department shall suspend the person's driver's license or driving privilege until all monetary obligations, including those imposed under subsections (3) and ( 4) of this section, have been paid, and court authorized community restitution has been completed, or until the department has been notified that


Electronic Transmittal 16 1-1866.1


the court has entered into a new time payment or community restitution agreement with the person. (b) If a person has not entered into a payment plan with the court and has not paid the monetary obligation in full on or before the time established for payment, the court shall notify the department of the delinquency. The department shall suspend the person's driver's license or driving privilege until all monetary obligations have been paid, including those imposed under subsections ( 3) and ( 4) of this section, or until the person has entered into a payment plan under this section. (c) If the payment plan is to be administered by the court, the court may assess the person a reasonable administrative fee to be wholly retained by the city or county with jurisdiction. The administrative fee shall not exceed ten dollars per infraction or twenty-five dollars per payment plan, whichever is less. (d) Nothing in this section precludes a court from contracting with outside entities to administer its payment plan system. When outside entities are used for the administration of a payment plan, the court may assess the person a reasonable fee for such administrative services, which fee may be calculated on a periodic, percentage, or other basis. (e) If a court authorized community restitution program for offenders is available in the jurisdiction, the court may allow conversion of all or part of the monetary obligations due under this section to court authorized community restitution in lieu of time payments if the person is unable to make reasonable time payments. ( 7) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this section and not subject to the limitation of subsection ( 1) of this section, a person found to have committed a traffic infraction shall be assessed: (a) A fee of five dollars per infraction. Under no circumstances shall this fee be reduced or waived. Revenue from this fee shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the emergency medical services and trauma care system trust account under RCW 70.168.040; (b) A fee of ten dollars per infraction. Under no circumstances shall this fee be reduced or waived. Revenue from this fee shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the Washington auto theft prevention authority account; and


Electronic Transmittal 17 1-1866.1



(c) A fee of two dollars per infraction. Revenue from this fee shall be forwarded to the state treasurer for deposit in the traumatic brain injury account established in RCW 74.31.060. ( 8) (a) In addition to any other penalties imposed under this section and not subject to the limitation of subsection ( 1) of this section, a person found to have committed a traffic infraction other than of RCW 46.61.527 shall be assessed an additional penalty of twenty dollars. The court may not reduce, waive, or suspend the additional penalty unless the court finds the offender to be indigent. If a court authorized community restitution program for offenders is available in the jurisdiction, the court shall allow offenders to offset all or a part of the penalty due under this subsection ( 8) by participation in the court authorized community restitution program. (b) Eight dollars and fifty cents of the additional penalty under (a) of this subsection shall be remitted to the state treasurer. The remaining revenue from the additional penalty must be remitted under chapters 2.08, 3.46, 3.50, 3.62, 10.82, and 35.20 RCW. Money remitted under this subsection to the state treasurer must be deposited as provided in RCW 43.08.250. The balance of the revenue received by the county or city treasurer under this subsection must be deposited into the county or city current expense fund. Revenue to be deposited into the county or city current expense fund from infractions issued under RCW 46.63.170 shall instead be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. Moneys retained by the city or county under this subsection shall constitute reimbursement for any liabilities under RCW 43.135.060. ( 9) If a legal proceeding, such as garnishment, has commenced to collect any delinquent amount owed by the person for any penalty imposed by the court under this section, the court may, at its discretion, enter into a payment plan. ( 10) The monetary penalty for violating RCW 46.37.395 is: (a) Two hundred fifty dollars for the first violation; (b) five hundred dollars for the second violation; and (c) seven hundred fifty dollars for each violation thereafter.


DEDICATES REVENUE PREVIOUSLY ALLOCATED TO ART TO THE "REDUCE TRAFFIC CONGESTION ACCOUNT"


Electronic Transmittal 18 1-1866.1




NEW SECTION. Sec. 12. RCW 43.17.200 and 2005 c 36 s 4 are each amended to read as follows: All state agencies including all state departments, boards, councils, commissions, and quasi public corporations shall allocate, as a nondeductible item, out of any moneys appropriated for the original construction of any public building, except for appropriations after December 4, 2008 for transportation-related public works projects, an amount of one-half of one percent of the appropriation to be expended by the Washington state arts commission for the acquisition of works of art. The works of art may be placed on public lands, integral to or attached to a public building or structure, detached within or outside a public building or structure, part of a portable exhibition or collection, part of a temporary exhibition, or loaned or exhibited in other public facilities. In addition to the cost of the works of art, the one-half of one percent of the appropriation as provided herein shall be used to provide for the administration of the visual arts program, including conservation of the state art collection, by the Washington state arts commission and all costs for installation of the works of art. For the purpose of this section, building shall not include highway construction sheds, warehouses or other buildings of a temporary nature.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 13. To provide additional funds for reducing traffic congestion, all state agencies, including all state departments, boards, councils, commissions, and quasi public corporations shall allocate, as a nondeductible item, out of any moneys appropriated after December 4, 2008 for any transportation-related public works project, an amount of one-half of one percent of the appropriation to be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. The people find that their top priority is reducing traffic congestion.

Sec. 14. RCW 43.46.090 and 1983 c 204 s 1 are each amended to read as follows: The legislature recognizes this state's responsibility to foster culture and the arts and its interest in the viable development of her artists and craftsmen by the establishment of the Washington


Electronic Transmittal 19 1-1866.1


state arts commission. The legislature declares it to be a policy of this state that a portion of appropriations for capital expenditures, except as provided in RCW 43.17.200 and section 13 of this act, be set aside for the acquisition of works of art to be placed in public buildings or lands. There is hereby established a visual arts program to be administered by the Washington state arts commission.


CRITICAL TAXPAYER PROTECTION: PREVENTS POLITICIANS FROM DIVERTING TOLL REVENUE TO THE GENERAL FUND; TOLLS ON A PROJECT GET SPENT ON THE PROJECT


Sec. 15. RCW 47.56.030 and 2002 c 114 s 19 are each amended to read as follows: (1) Except as permitted under chapter 47.46 RCW: (a) The department of transportation shall have full charge of the construction of all toll bridges and other toll facilities including the Washington state ferries, and the operation and maintenance thereof. (b) The transportation commission shall determine and establish the tolls and charges thereon, subject to all applicable laws, and shall perform all duties and exercise all powers relating to the financing, refinancing, and fiscal management of all toll bridges and other toll facilities including the Washington state ferries, and bonded indebtedness in the manner provided by law. Except for Washington state ferries toll facilities, revenue from any new tolls or charges established after December 4, 2008, that exceed the cost of construction, operation, or maintenance of toll facilities and new capital improvements to highways, freeways, roads, bridges, and streets, shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. Except for Washington state ferries toll facilities, in the absence of any capital improvements, revenue from any new tolls or charges established after December 4, 2008, that exceed the cost of collecting the tolls or charges shall be dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act. (c) The department shall have full charge of design of all toll facilities. (d) Except as provided in this section, the department shall


Electronic Transmittal 20 1-1866.1



proceed with the construction of such toll bridges and other facilities and the approaches thereto by contract in the manner of state highway construction immediately upon there being made available funds for such work and shall prosecute such work to completion as rapidly as practicable. The department is authorized to negotiate contracts for any amount without bid under (d) (i) and (ii) of this subsection: (i) Emergency contracts, in order to make repairs to ferries or ferry terminal facilities or removal of such facilities whenever continued use of ferries or ferry terminal facilities constitutes a real or immediate danger to the traveling public or precludes prudent use of such ferries or facilities; and (ii) Single source contracts for vessel dry dockings, when there is clearly and legitimately only one available bidder to conduct dry dock-related work for a specific class or classes of vessels. The contracts may be entered into for a single vessel dry docking or for multiple vessel dry dockings for a period not to exceed two years. (2) The department shall proceed with the procurement of materials, supplies, services, and equipment needed for the support, maintenance, and use of a ferry, ferry terminal, or other facility operated by Washington state ferries, in accordance with chapter 43.19 RCW except as follows: (a) Except as provided in (d) of this subsection, when the secretary of the department of transportation determines in writing that the use of invitation for bid is either not practicable or not advantageous to the state and it may be necessary to make competitive evaluations, including technical or performance evaluations among acceptable proposals to complete the contract award, a contract may be entered into by use of a competitive sealed proposals method, and a formal request for proposals solicitation. Such formal request for proposals solicitation shall include a functional description of the needs and requirements of the state and the significant factors. (b) When purchases are made through a formal request for proposals solicitation the contract shall be awarded to the responsible proposer whose competitive sealed proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the state taking into consideration price and other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposals. No significant factors may be used in evaluating a proposal that are not specified in the request for


Electronic Transmittal 21 1-1866.1



proposals. Factors that may be considered in evaluating proposals include but are not limited to: Price; maintainability; reliability; commonality; performance levels; life cycle cost if applicable under this section; cost of transportation or delivery; delivery schedule offered; installation cost; cost of spare parts; availability of parts and service offered; and the following: (i) The ability, capacity, and skill of the proposer to perform the contract or provide the service required; (ii) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience, and efficiency of the proposer; (iii) Whether the proposer can perform the contract within the time specified; (iv) The quality of performance of previous contracts or services; (v) The previous and existing compliance by the proposer with laws relating to the contract or services; (vi) Objective, measurable criteria defined in the request for proposal. These criteria may include but are not limited to items such as discounts, delivery costs, maintenance services costs, installation costs, and transportation costs; and (vii) Such other information as may be secured having a bearing on the decision to award the contract. (c) When purchases are made through a request for proposal process, proposals received shall be evaluated based on the evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. When issuing a request for proposal for the procurement of propulsion equipment or systems that include an engine, the request for proposal must specify the use of a life cycle cost analysis that includes an evaluation of fuel efficiency. When a life cycle cost analysis is used, the life cycle cost of a proposal shall be given at least the same relative importance as the initial price element specified in the request of proposal documents. The department may reject any and all proposals received. If the proposals are not rejected, the award shall be made to the proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the department, considering price and the other evaluation factors set forth in the request for proposal. (d) If the department is procuring large equipment or systems (e.g., electrical, propulsion) needed for the support, maintenance, and use of a ferry operated by Washington state ferries, the


Electronic Transmittal 22 1-1866.1



department shall proceed with a formal request for proposal solicitation under this subsection (2) without a determination of necessity by the secretary.

Sec. 16. RCW 47.56.160 and 1984 c 7 s 258 are each amended to read as follows: Except for revenues to be deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account under RCW 47.56.030(1)(b), ( (A))all tolls or other revenues received from the operation of any toll bridge or toll bridges constructed with the proceeds of bonds issued and sold hereunder shall be paid over by the department to the state treasurer. The treasurer shall deposit them forthwith as demand deposits in a depository or depositories authorized by law to receive deposits of state funds. The deposit shall be made to the credit of a special trust fund designated as the toll revenue fund of the particular toll bridge or toll bridges producing the tolls or revenue, which fund shall be a trust fund and shall at all times be kept segregated and set apart from all other funds.

Sec. 17. RCW 47.56.170 and 1984 c 7, s 259 are each amended to read as follows: From the money deposited in each separate construction fund under RCW 47.56.160, the state treasurer shall transfer to the place or places of payment named in the bonds such sums as may be required to pay the interest as it becomes due on all bonds sold and outstanding for the construction of a particular toll bridge or toll bridges during the period of actual construction and during the period of six months immediately thereafter. The state treasurer shall thereafter transfer from each separate toll revenue fund to the place or places of payment named in the bonds such sums as may be required to pay the interest on the bonds and redeem the principal thereof as the interest payments and bond redemption become due for all bonds issued and sold for the construction of the particular toll bridge or toll bridges producing the tolls or revenues so deposited in the toll revenue fund. All funds so transferred for the payment of principal or interest on bonds issued for any particular toll bridge shall be segregated and applied solely for the payment of that principal or interest. The proceedings authorizing the issuance of bonds may provide for setting up a reserve fund or funds out of the tolls and


Electronic Transmittal 23 1-1866.1


other revenues not needed for the payment of principal and interest, as the same currently matures and for the preservation and continuance of the fund in a manner to be provided therein. The proceedings may also require the immediate application of all surplus moneys in the toll revenue fund to the retirement of the bonds prior to maturity, by call or purchase, in such manner and upon such terms and the payment of such premiums as may be deemed advisable in the judgment of the department. The moneys remaining in each separate toll revenue fund after providing the amount required for interest and redemption of bonds as provided in this section shall be held and applied as provided in the proceedings authorizing the issuance of the bonds. If the proceedings authorizing the issuance of the bonds do not require surplus revenues to be held or applied in any particular manner, they shall be ( ( Be the eenstructien, eperatren, and tcnr,n" of the tell bridge e-r bride a=thc depa cnt may determine)) dedicated to reducing traffic congestion and deposited in the Reduce Traffic Congestion Account created in section 10 of this act.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 18. This act does not inhibit or prohibit the department of transportation or any other state or local government agency or body from allocating or expending other revenue from other sources to fund costs associated with opening carpool lanes to everyone during non-peak hours, synchronizing traffic lights on heavily-traveled arterials and streets, or increasing funding for emergency roadside assistance as required under this act.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 19. The provisions of this act are to be liberally construed to effectuate the intent, policies, and purposes of this act.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 20. Subheadings used in this act are not any part of the law.


NEW SECTION. Sec. 21. If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected.


Electronic Transmittal 24 1-1866.1





NEW SECTION. Sec. 22. This act shall be known and cited as the Reduce Traffic Congestion Act of 2008.

NEW SECTION. Sec. 23. This act takes effect December 4, 2008.


--- END ---

King county increases Traffic Light Coordination

Suburbs getting traffic signals synchronized to ease the squeeze

Wednesday, February 20, 2002

By LARRY LANGE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

During morning and afternoon commuting peaks, it becomes almost impossible to get into or out of the parking lot at Issaquah's Front Street Market.

Cars jam the street all the way from Interstate 90 to the Issaquah-Hobart Road as commuters and school buses vie for space on the main street in the city's historic district.

So even though synchronizing traffic lights may be only a temporary answer, market manager Lori Steendahl was glad to hear it will be done on Front Street near the store.

"It couldn't hurt," Steendahl said yesterday after King County announced $415,000 in light-synchronization work countywide. Speaking of Front Street, Steendahl said, "I don't know why they haven't tried that yet."

County Executive Ron Sims announced the latest batch of traffic-light synchronization work yesterday, the second year the county has conducted the work. Financed with money from a 0.2 percent sales-tax boost approved by voters in 2000, the work is scheduled to continue for two more years.

This year's work includes synchronizing five lights on Issaquah's Front Street, to improve traffic flow there at an estimated cost of $25,000 for five lights. But the list of nine projects range includes the coordination of 29 traffic lights on two sections of Seattle's Rainier Avenue between I-90 and 57th Avenue South.

The projects cover lights on some of the region's busiest roads. Not everyone has noticed a difference in traffic flow where the lights have been synchronized, but officials said many drivers have and seem pleased with it.
Map

Officials haven't yet estimated the time savings for the new projects. In Seattle, coordination of 20 lights on Aurora Avenue last year cut typical driving time 20 percent between Green Lake and North 145th Street, city transportation spokesman Michael Graubard said.

Savings can be achieved both in travel time and changes in speed, and some of the biggest improvements come in suburban areas, far away from the jammed streets of Seattle. Last year, synchronizing 11 signals on the West Valley Highway in Kent cut rush-hour driving time on the 3.5-mile stretch from more than 15 minutes to just under 11. Speed increased from 14 mph to 22.

Some of the savings are small but look bigger when the length of the congested roadway is considered. Speeds on a stretch of Northeast 85th Street in Kirkland increased 3 mph during rush hour after the county program synchronized five lights between 114th and 132nd avenues. It's only a one-mile stretch, but the change means speeds are one-third faster.

Some may not notice a difference. Representatives of three South King County businesses that use the West Valley Highway said their drivers hadn't mentioned any improvement in traffic speeds. Doug Kushan of City Beverage in Kent said many of his company's drivers start at 3:30 a.m. "so they miss a lot" of rush-hour traffic.

In Seattle, however, "people are noticing the difference, and they've been appreciating it and they're telling us," Graubard said. In addition to readjusting the Rainier Avenue lights, the city plans to spend $185,000 of its own money synchronizing 37 other signals -- 20 on Lake City Way, 12 on California Avenue Southwest and five on Northeast 145th Street, as part of a program of changes to be completed by April.

The fixes are just temporary. Traffic experts say traffic signals need to be recalibrated every three to five years to reflect changes in traffic patterns. That's what the city will be doing on the two sections of Rainier Avenue, where lights were last adjusted in 1998.

Federal Government Congestion Relief Initiative 2006

Overview

3/8/06

Transportation system congestion is one of the single largest threats to our nation's economic prosperity and way of life. Whether it takes the form of cars and trucks stalled in traffic, cargo stuck at overwhelmed seaports, or airplanes circling over crowded airports, congestion costs America an estimated $200 billion a year. In 2003, Americans lost 3.7 billion hours and 2.3 billion gallons of fuel sitting in traffic jams and wasted $9.4 billion as a result of airline delays. Congestion is also affecting the quality of life in America by robbing us of time that could be spent with families and friends and in participation in civic activities.

The Bush Administration does not believe that this is an inevitable fate.

The National Strategy to Reduce Congestion on America's Transportation Network (the "Congestion Initiative") is premised on the fact that there exist innovative and demonstrated strategies that more efficiently and effectively provide relief to traffic gridlock than current practice. These options include technologies such as congestion pricing and high-speed open road tolling, and the billions of dollars in private capital available for investment in public infrastructure.

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Transportation, led first by Secretary Norman Mineta and then Secretary Mary Peters, announced a major initiative to reduce transportation system congestion. This plan provides a blueprint for Federal, State, and local officials to consider as we work together to reverse the alarming trends of congestion. It includes several major components: (1) Congestion Relief Programs; (2) Public Private Partnerships; (3) Corridors of the Future; (4) Implementing Technological and Operational Improvements; and (5) Increasing Aviation Capacity.

1 The Congestion Problem:
Causes and Solutions

The root causes of congestion have long been understood, and there is now broad consensus that congestion generally reflects a fundamental imbalance of supply and demand. That is, during hours of peak usage of the transportation facilities most desirable to motorists, the supply of, for example, roadway capacity is insufficient to meet the demand for those facilities. Economists have long understood that such an imbalance stems from inefficient pricing, where the true costs of usage are not reflected in prices paid by the users. For example, travelers are not generally charged for the impact their trip will have on others using the same facility (e.g., increased levels of congestion) or on other members of society (e.g., increased air pollution). In fact, in this country, access to highway travel is, for the most part, rationed by delay.

Congestion pricing can provide the balance
between supply and demand that allows
traffic to flow more smoothly, avoiding scenes
of congested traffic like this one.
The imbalance of supply and demand leading to congestion is also impacted by the absolute volume of traffic (e.g., demand) on a given facility relative to its physical capacity (e.g., supply). When we look at traffic congestion from a demand perspective, we are looking at how many vehicles compete for space on a particular facility at a given time. The demand for a facility is a function of individual decisions as to when, where, how, and even if highway travel will take place.
On the supply side, congestion is a function of physical constraints and how the driver interacts with a given facility as well as with other vehicles on the facility. On-the-road congestion is characterized as either recurring (routine) or nonrecurring (random). Recurring congestion happens in roughly the same time and place on the same days of the week. It results when physical capacity is simply not adequate to accommodate short-term demand during peak periods. Recurring congestion may also result from improperly timed traffic signals. As indicated in Figure 1, recurring congestion accounts for close to half of total delay. On the other hand, nonrecurring congestion is caused by transitory events such as construction work zones, traffic incidents, and bad weather. The significance of nonrecurring congestion is that it can temporarily prevent full utilization of the existing physical capacity.

Figure 1. Congestion experienced by highway travelers is caused by many different factors.
Consistent with the paradigm of its causes, there are four distinct, but nonetheless related strategies available to attack congestion. It is important to note that the strategies, while individually of merit, work best when implemented as a coordinated package of tools.
Bring Supply and Demand into Alignment through Congestion Pricing. Congestion pricing or peak-period pricing, entails fees or tolls for road use that vary by level of vehicle demand on the facility. As with market pricing in other sectors, road pricing helps allocate limited supply - in this case that of available road space.
With user charges assessed at the point of use, greater efficiency results through improved response to market forces. Charges are typically assessed electronically to eliminate delays associated with manual toll collection facilities. Road-use charges that vary with the level of vehicle demand provide incentives to shift some trips to off-peak times, less-congested routes, or alternative modes; or to cause some lower-value trips to be combined with other trips or simply to be eliminated.
Congestion pricing has several important objectives. First, it seeks to balance demand with available capacity, i.e., the supply of road space. Second, it seeks to fairly allocate the costs associated with operating, maintaining, and expanding the transportation system to meet growing travel demand. Third, it seeks to improve operation of the highway system. A fourth objective may include revenue generation.
Provide Better Choices as to How, When, Where, and If to Travel. The goal with this strategy is to reduce the number of vehicles on a given road. This may take the form of promoting alternative commute options s

uch as employee telecommuting options or making transit easier and more attractive to use. Also of interest in managing demand are driver incentive programs that, for example, promote ridesharing and off-peak use.

Strategically Invest in New Transportation Capacity. Although there is significant and widespread demand for new highway capacity, concerns about air pollution, noise, and urban sprawl often stand in the way of expanding the system. Equally significant, adding new capacity can be enormously expensive and physically challenging. Despite the barriers, however, new construction that serves critical strategic purposes will go forward in order to preserve or improve system performance.

Although widespread capacity increases are a thing of the past, many of the barriers may be addressed through increased expenditures. Environmental concerns may be mitigated and physical challenges overcome (for example, through tunneling). However, the resources to fund such improvements simply are not available through traditional sources. For this reason, many professionals in the transportation community are enthusiastic about the opportunities potentially afforded by public-private partnerships and road pricing.

Improve the Management and Operation of the System. This area of interest involves better managing the vehicles that are actually on the road, and the road itself. "Smart" roads, traveler information, and improvements to the management and operation of the facility are options available for using the available system more productively and bringing it to peak performance. Management and operations strategies are targeted at managing temporary disruptions (e.g., incidents) in a way that will return the system to full capacity quicker; ensuring more efficient day-to-day operations through coordinating and up-to-date traffic signal timing and operational improvements to relieve bottlenecks; and providing real-time information about the system to that travelers can make immediate decisions about when, where, and how to travel, and transportation agencies can make real-time adjustments to improve system operations.
Effective and efficient management and operation of the system is foundational to all of the above congestion reduction strategies. This is true because as traffic volumes have grown over time and physical capacity has remained relatively constant, the system has become less able to absorb "surprise" - or nonrecurring events. In the realm of managing the highway system, the margin for error is very small and continues to decline. In addition, operational fixes to the system are also helpful in addressing the recurring congestion resulting from bottlenecks and improper traffic signal timing.
To combat the country's growing transportation congestion problem, the U.S. Department of Transportation launched the National Strategy to Reduce Congestion to America's Transportation Network. Not surprisingly, one element of this initiative is focused on applying 21st century tools to manage and operate the system at peak efficiency.
>2 U.S. DOT Congestion Initiative:
" >Operations & Technology
Why is my route to work always congested, and why isn't more being done to reduce congestion?
The U.S. Department of Transportation's Strategy to Reduce Congestion focuses on the answer to this question. While the root causes of traffic congestion have long been understood, there is now broad consensus that congestion generally reflects a fundamental imbalance of supply and demand. The core principle of the Department's Congestion Initiative is that we can bring transportation system supply and demand into alignment through congestion pricing, which is detailed in the Relieve Urban Congestion point of the initiative (one of six points). The Operational and Technological Improvements point of the Congestion Initiative focuses on the supply side - how we can better manage and operate the transportation system (supply) to relieve congestion.

Recurring congestion (non-optimized supply not meeting user demand) experienced by drivers on the road today is caused by physical bottlenecks and poor traffic signal timing. Other congestion events are caused by non-recurring factors, such as crashes and other incidents, highway construction, and bad weather. The goal of this point of the Congestion Initiative is to have transportation system managers manage these recurring and nonrecurring conditions successfully (in conjunction with a congestion pricing approach to balancing supply and demand) so that the system is optimized and more efficient. For more information on how Operational and Technological solutions fit into the overall congestion problem, read about the Congestion Problem and its Causes and Solutions.
The operational and technological solutions presented in this point of the Congestion Initiative include providing traveler information, improving traffic incident management, enhancing mobility in the vicinity of work zones, improving traffic signal timing, and reliving traffic congestion at bottlenecks (see Key Focus Areas box at the top right of this page or Figure 1, an interactive diagram visually showing how some of the elements in this point of the Congestion Initiative fit together, for links to the focus areas). Collectively, these practices provide operators, planners, decision makers, and travelers with information that allows for more informed decisions, better coordination, and quicker actions that can help avoid and reduce traffic congestion.
The Federal Highway Administration and State and local transportation officials are building on early successes with these focus areas and are demonstrating the potential for significant benefits to national mobility, with the ultimate goal of deploying these technologies and practices broadly across the country.
Operations & Technology Home

3 Traffic Incident Management

Good Practice Examples

Atlanta, Georgia
San Antonio, Texas
>Florida
>You're driving in rush hour traffic, traffic is heavy, but it's still moving. Then, all of a sudden, traffic comes to a stand still. You wonder why. When you finally make it to the "problem" it seems to be nothing more than a flat tire. Often, there will be no apparent reason for the slowness and traffic returns to its normal speed. What happened? Why did such a small event cause such a big problem?Lane-blocking incidents affect traffic flow far out of proportion to the number of lanes blocked. An incident blocking one lane out of three on a freeway reduces the capacity of that facility by approximately 50 percent. Blocking two lanes of three reduces capacity by nearly 80 percent.
If a lane is blocked when traffic flow is at or near the capacity of a facility the queue of traffic that accumulates behind the incident will not dissipate after the incident is removed until the traffic flow into the queue decreases - in other words until the peak period ends. Thus a standing queue of traffic may exist for several hours, even after the incident is removed, depending on when the incident occurred, how many lanes were blocked, and how long the blockage lasted. In general, each minute of lane blockage creates 4 minutes of congestion after the incident is cleared.

The safety of responders, such as the law enforcement, fire, and emergency medical services personnel shown here, continues to be of utmost importance under Federal and State initiatives on incident clearance.
Not surprisingly, of all the reasons for traffic congestion, traffic incidents cause approximately 25 percent of total delay. For this reason the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has in place a robust Traffic Incident Management (TIM) program to assist State and locals transportation agencies in reducing the time it takes to restore capacity following a traffic incident. TIM is a planned and coordinated process to detect, respond to, and remove traffic incidents and restore capacity as safely and quickly as possible. Quick clearance of traffic incidents also reduces the likelihood of secondary incidents such as crashes, or stalls from overheating or running out of gas. Quick and coordinated clearance also increases safety for travelers and incident responders. Promoting more aggressive and widespread traffic incident management is an important strategy to lessen the effects of nonrecurring congestion as well as provide a safer driving environment.
Under the banner of the USDOT Congestion Initiative FHWA signaled out TIM four strategies for particularly intense focus:
Full-Function Service Patrols
Driver Removal ("Move It") Laws
Safe, Quick Clearance Policy Agreements
Integrated Communications for Transportation and Public Safety Agencies
These strategies complement the recently ratified National Unified Goal (NUG) for Traffic Incident Management. The NUG, developed through the efforts of the National Traffic Incident Management Coalition (NTIMC), is intended to improve safety for incident response personnel and facilitate clearing incidents as quickly as possible. The NTMIC includes 20 national transportation, public safety, and private sector associations working together to improve traffic incident management in the United States.

4 Traffic Signal Timing
Good Practice Examples
ACS-Lite
Texas, California, and Florida - Upgrading Systems
Puget Sound Washington

Every morning on your way to work, you pass through the same series of intersections. And, every morning you are stopped by a red traffic signal for no apparent reason; where you sit in a very long line of cars. The green signals never seem to be long enough, and once you make it through the intersection you are soon stopped by another red traffic signal. It is a tremendous source of irritation! The signals change colors but traffic never seems to move efficiently. You may be the victim of poor traffic signal timing and this scenario is repeated daily all around the country.

Updating traffic signal timing is a cost effective way to improve the flow of traffic on arterials and is one of the most basic strategies to help mitigate congestion. Of the estimated 330,000 traffic signals in the United States, and as many as 75 percent could be made to operate more efficiently by adjusting their timing plans, coordinating adjacent signals, or updating equipment. In fact, optimizing signal timing is considered a low-cost approach to reducing congestion, estimated at $2,500 to $3,100 per intersection to update. Optimizing traffic signal timing can produce benefit to cost ratios as high as 40 to 1. Those benefits include:

An image showing vehicles traveling through multiple traffic signals along a busy roadway.

• Shorter commute times
  
• Improved air quality
  
• Better fuel efficiency, and
  
• Decreased driver frustration
  

It is estimated that poor traffic signal accounts for 5 percent of all supply-side traffic delay on major roadways. The U.S. DOT is working with the State and local transportation agencies to improve the management, operation and maintenance of traffic signal systems. The FHWA sponsored The National Traffic Signal Report Card which has confirmed the need for greater attention and investment in traffic signal operations. Improving traffic signal operations pays great dividends and is one of the most cost effective means of reducing congestion. One effective strategy to improving traffic signal operations is regionalizing traffic signal operations; meaning multiple agencies collaborate to leverage their signal timing expertise and resources to provide more consistent and efficient operations both within and across jurisdictional boundaries.

5 Traveler Information

Around The Country

The Traveler Information Map displays the 511 Deployment Status around the country.
Good Practice Examples
Houston and Chicago
Virginia 511
Southeast Florida

"What's causing this traffic back-up and how much further does the slow traffic last?"

"When is the next bus supposed to come?"

"What's the quickest way to downtown and how much will it cost?"

"When do I need to leave to get to the airport in time?"

Sound familiar? You have certainly heard these questions and perhaps uttered them yourself as congestion has grown on our country's transportation systems. And while there are a number of ways for transportation agencies to deal with the causes of congestion, providing information to the public – motorists, transit users, potential travelers, etc. – can allow them to make better choices and have more control in their travel plans. Real time traveler information gives travelers the opportunity to know what to expect about their routes and make informed travel decisions. Based on traveler information, a traveler can 1) stay the course, 2) alter the time of trip, 3) take an alternate route, or 4) take an alternate mode. Regardless of the decision, the control is back in the traveler's hands.

A changeable message sign displaying real time travel time in Wisconsin.

There are a variety of ways that the public can get traveler information. Most people get traffic information from TV and radio reports that are often fed by private firms that specialize in packaging traffic content. Another growing source for travel information is the 3-digit telephone number, 511, where people can get automated information 24 hours of the day. Highway agencies have traditionally used methods such as dynamic message signs and highway advisory radios to alert motorists to traffic problems. Transit agencies are beginning to provide expected arrival times for buses and trains. And the Internet is becoming the most pervasive method for making real-time information and camera images available to the public.

U.S. DOT is working with the State and local transportation agencies and private firms to expand traveler information capabilities throughout the country. More 511 services are coming online with the goal of having nationwide coverage in 2010. More of the country's most congested cities are beginning to inform motorists of travel times and bus arrivals in real-time. Lessons learned from these experiences are shared with other agencies so that they can use similar methods of informing travelers. Standard ways of representing this information electronically allows private companies to use real-time traveler information and package it for their customers and the public. As people use personalized communication devices and in-vehicle equipment for more information, they can expect real-time traveler information to be available on-demand. When unexpected conditions arise, messages can be sent automatically so travelers can make informed travel decisions. For traveler information, we're striving for all roads, all modes, all the time!

6 Work Zone Safety & Mobility

Work Zone Safety & Mobility

Good Practice Examples
Ohio - Defining and Implementing a Policy
California
North Carolina - Outreach to Truckers
Work zones seem to be everywhere. And, they always seem to mean traffic delays. The perception is not far from the reality. For example, an estimated 3,110 work zones were present on the National Highway System during the peak summer roadwork season of 2001. This meant that motorists encountered an active work zone one out of every 100 miles and a lane closure every 200 miles. It is not surprising that work zones on freeway account for nearly 24 percent of non-recurring del

ay. In addition, work zone safety is a major concern in the United States, with 1,065 fatalities and more than 40,000 injuries resulting from work zone crashes in 2004 alone.

Travel time reliability is also a key factor associated with work zones, with travelers reporting being frustrated with the delays and unexpected road conditions caused by work zones. This is particularly an issue for road users when a project is in progress but no work appears to be going on for days at a time, yet congestion and delays continue to occur.

An image of a work zone with back up traffic.
Traffic volumes and congestion are increasing, but little corresponding growth in road miles is happening. Many of the Nation's highways are approaching middle age, requiring additional construction and repair, and thus more work zones. Increasingly, construction is taking place while traffic continues to flow on the facility undergoing repair, which applies great pressure on contractors to compress schedules, finish projects early, and perform work art night while maintaining safety and quality.
These trends pointed to a strong need for updating the Federal regulations governing safety and mobility in work zones. The USDOT responded by publishing a new Work Zone Safety and Mobility Rule in September 2004. The updated Rule provides a decision-making framework for considering the broader safety and mobility impacts of work zones across all stages of a project. It also facilitates the implementation of appropriate strategies to help manage those impacts. Compliance with the updated rule is required by October 12, 2007.

Sen Haugen doesn't want cars in our future

Published: Friday, March 7, 2008

TRANSPORTATION Everett Herald

Haugen fails to address congestion

Tim Eyman's initiative to reduce congestion, I-985, is designed to carry out recommendations by state Auditor Brian Sonntag in his audit of the state Transportation Department (a result of Eyman's I-900, requiring performance audits of all state departments.)

The Legislature has ignored the recommendations from day one. Instead, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen and other lawmakers hauled Sonntag into Haugen's office, lecturing him over the scope of his audits, although the law reads no officeholder or employee may impede or restrict the state auditor in conducting audits.

A recent commentary, "Simple non-rail solutions will provide traffic relief," by former Gov. Booth Gardner emphasizes the importance of road travel over mass transit. In contrast, Haugen wrote the commentary "Key part of our past, trains, in our transportation future." She wants us out of our cars.

Eyman's I-985 will open carpool lanes, require traffic lights to be synchronized and it does not impose new funds or tolls, but gets the money from existing funds.

DOT states that in the last six years, there have been no centerline roads constructed in the entire state. Haugen, Senate Transportation Committee chair since the 1990s, has done nothing to correct this. Instead, she finds $5 million to build a temporary train station in Stanwood with no commuter service and only two trains per day. She locates $18 million to build a wider bridge on the Gen. Mark Clark Bridge connecting Stanwood to Camano Island, although the Corps of Engineers had declared the bridge structurally sound, but finds no money to widen the road on either end of the bridge.

Bob Williams, a past Republican candidate for governor and president of the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, has made numerous suggestions on finding money for solving road problems, but the Democratic legislators ingore him.

After all these years, Haugen says she is going to make congestion her No. 1 priority. Can we believe her?