When the Democrats on the House transportation committee refused to vote on three proposals to fund U.S. 2 improvements that are intended to save lives, Democrats said ""We are going to do something on Highway 2 this session in our budget."
Today we find out what they put in the budget for U.S. 2: one mile of passing lane.
In a transportation budget of $7 billion dollars, a mere $5 million -- 0.07 percent of that budget -- is going to fix what Rep. Dan Kristiansen correctly calls "the state's deadliest highway" ... on a small stretch of that highway that has never experienced a fatality.
That's "something," alright. I am not quite sure what it is, but it's "something."
Democrats tell us that we should vote for Democrats if we want to see U.S. fixed. My question is simple: on what basis should we believe they would, when they are in power, and don't?
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 26, 2008 01:03 PM | Email ThisI can't be sure, but I think people have died on HWY#2 I know some of the fire fighters who work from Monroe to Gold Bar and that raod is way to small to handle the traffic it sees. During the snow season, it's a nightmare.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 26, 2008 01:58 PMSo really, the Democrats have done NOTHING to help save lives on U.S. 2.
Posted by: pudge on February 26, 2008 02:37 PMBut, between Sultan and Monroe, the road is fairly straight. I don't know why you want to speed traffic up for one mile.
For example, just before Zeke's there is a "Gentlemen, Start Your Engines" heard as you go west down the hill. That, folks (to quote my man, Obama) is one dangerous passing lane only to meet at yet another narrow bridge, where, incidentally, was the site of yet another fatality I was stuck in a couple of months ago.
Posted by: swatter on February 26, 2008 02:46 PMI am sure she was misquoted and her 2008 website will read "I've never met a tax hike or fee hike I didn't love, and watch me grow government another 33% and add another 6600 new employees".
Posted by: GS on February 26, 2008 10:37 PM
I am talking about the time in the 90s when the Rs ruled Olympia. The WDOT approached the legislature and asked for gas tax increases. The Rs declined. That is my evidence. And yours?
Posted by: swatter on February 27, 2008 07:13 AM33% budget growth in 3 years and climbing. Bills that propose over $260 billion in new taxes (and fees) over the next 10 years. If they were to succeed, this would represent another 63% increase over our current budget.
I don't believe that Republicans could bring themselves to tax and spend at that rate.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 27, 2008 07:17 AMKristiansen is well-liked, works hard, gets a lot done. He has an excellent record. The only real arguments Olson has against him are "he is not liberal enough" (which doesn't play well in the 39th) and "he is a Republican" (which didn't work in 2006, and likely won't work this time).
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 03:43 PMSame with the ferry system.
I have a hunch that most people are going to vote for people who don't participate in partisan haymaking on transportation, especially those invoking the families of the dead for partisan political purposes.
Most people see through that kind of stuff, and reject that kind of politics when they vote.
Posted by: redflag on February 27, 2008 08:17 PMYOUR nonsense is what people see through: defending against perfectly reasonable complaints about inaction on an important issue by dismissing it as "partisanship."
How would YOU say we proceed, then? Should we NOT point out the FACTS that people are dying and that the Democrats are blocking attempts to fix the road?
Posted by: pudge on February 27, 2008 08:41 PMtalk about being disenfranchised...and with Queen and all her minions like Lisa Brown and Alex "one two many" Woods....nope, we just don't deserve a thing for our taxes....
Posted by: lee on February 27, 2008 08:46 PMYou can thank the greenies for all of those deaths .
Posted by: Publicbulldog on February 28, 2008 06:14 AMGranted, we could privatize the roads. That's not a bad idea, but I doubt we could get enough support for it. So we push for the next best thing: have government respond to the greatest actual needs.
Posted by: pudge on February 28, 2008 12:27 PMIf the County zoned, and permitted, development beyond the capability of the transportation system to serve it, why should the state (i.e. me) be on the hook for that decision?
How about the locals pay for what they're using?
PS - yes, I agree, privatize the roads - then only those roads that generate an economic return would be built and maintained. Might be tough on rural areas though.
Not in this context: I am referring to X number of people wanting to take their cars from point A to point B, and the government responding to that; contrast that with the government saying "we don't want X number of people taking their cars from point A to point B, so we will attempt to force them to do something else."
If the County zoned, and permitted, development beyond the capability of the transportation system to serve it, why should the state (i.e. me) be on the hook for that decision?
Because the state takes the tax dollars specifically for that purpose. If you want the counties to do it, fine: the state can refund our tax money, and the counties can take it over.
PS - yes, I agree, privatize the roads - then only those roads that generate an economic return would be built and maintained. Might be tough on rural areas though.
No, because the topic here is highways.
Posted by: pudge on February 28, 2008 12:56 PMBut, we don't have unlimited dollars, so - building roads becomes a discriminatory action. Ambitious zoning, without regards to the cost to provide services, is driving a significant portion of our increased tax burden.
So then we're stuck with political dealmaking.
Some may do better than others - isn't that the reality?
I would be delighted if the State devolved transportation tax collection, and the associated responsibilities, to the Counties (and Cities), then, the connection between land use and transportation would be more direct and obvious.
Think too of the dollars that leave the west side of the Cascades for projects on the east side.
Finally, you said "roads"; "highways", "streets", "lanes", "alleys", whatever - privatize the whole system. Why discriminate.
Posted by: BA on February 28, 2008 02:33 PMShe reneged on that promise.
And worse, she did so while spending nearly $100 million on transportation to her own home.