In reading the transportation initiative (711), I find its language to be somewhat cryptic.

The initiative repeals the authority for establishing HOV lanes, which seems straightforward enough. But, then it goes on to further define HOV lanes with the following words: "...means all lanes where traffic volume has increased or is expected to increase...".

What does this mean, "all lanes where traffic volume has increased or is expected to increase", and why was it necessary to add the words to the initiative?

Also, initiative 711 directs 90% of all "transportation funds" to be used for construction of roads. But, the transportation fund includes locally approved taxes, which support ridesharing alternatives. It seems bizarre for the rest of the voters of the state to determine how local tax dollars will be used. At the very least, the taxes should be null and void, if they're not going to be used for voter-approved purposes.

Initiative 711 does not seem well written, and local and regional transit agencies have a loophole by simply not depositing tax monies in the "state transportation fund". I guess that's good news for those of us who support Sound Transit.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 01, 2000

Answers

That is kind of funky now that you mention it. I mean, why change the definition of an HOV lane if you're repealing their existance? And for that matter, why then define HOV lanes as pretty much any other lane? Doesn't this leave the government open to giving HOV lanes another name and keeping them? Heck, just call them non-single occupancy vehicle lanes, and since they NO LONGER fit the definition of what an HOV lane is, they're perfectly legal.

I'm not sure if a loophole exists though in not depositing money in the state account. The initiative does include local accounts dedicated to transportation. But that's even more evidence that it completely blows a hole in local control. If a local community wanted to increase funding for some transportation project other than road construction, but that would make "other" funding more than 10%, then they couldn't do it. And that is EVEN IF the people voted to do so. Talk about taking power away from the people.

Here's another murky issue: is the 90% rule a statewide maximum, or is it broken down to the local level? For example, if total transportation funding at all levels from the state on down added up to $1 billion, does that mean that the maximum amount of non-road construction related funding could only be $100 million statewide? If so, how would this be enforced? Say Sound Transit decided to keep going forward with their plans (there's nothing in the initiative that says they can't), and figured out a $100 million annual budget. Well that hits the entire non-road construction spending limit right there. Would the other transit agencies across the state be up a creek? And who gets to figure out who gets to spend what money? If a local government is only spending 5% of its funding on transit and wants to increase it to 6%, but can't because the overall state funding is at 10%, can it go to the Attorney General to force another local government to lower its transit funding?

This highlights the all too simplistic viewpoint of the initiative drafters that all government is this one big bad massive entity that works in unity. So they fashion this one size fits all spending cap that just does't fit the reality of various sized entities with various sized needs. This is so laughably unrealistic that I'm sure the lawyers are already drooling at the mouth to dive into all the unresolved questions that this initiative would create.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

"This is so laughably unrealistic that I'm sure the lawyers are already drooling at the mouth to dive into all the unresolved questions that this initiative would create. "

I'm willing to give them that chance.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), March 01, 2000.

to Patrick: You write: "The initiative does include local accounts dedicated to transportation."

Again, I have trouble following the text of the initiative. Why do you conclude the initiative includes local accounts dedicated to transportation?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 01, 2000.

Section 3, subsection 1(a):

"For the purposes of this section, transportation funds are all government funds spent for transportation purposes, including, but not necessarily limited to, the transportation fund, the highway fund, public transit and ferry operating accounts and reserves, public transit and ferry capital accounts and reserves, local government transportation accounts, public transportation authorities, transportation benefit districts, and the high occupancy vehicle account established in RCW 81.100.070."

Excluding the HOV account, the last five examples include local agencies. Another thing I just realized, this initiative also includes money already collected in reserve accounts. So not only would this overrule future local control, it would ALSO force money that people already told local governments to dedicate towards transit to be spent elsewhere.

What a wonderfully authoritarian initiative this is.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 01, 2000.

to Patrick: The words you quote from the initiative are in the context of modifying RCW 82.44, which, I believe, deals with the the vehicle excise tax.

If you read RCW 82.44, there are words to the following: "Moneys deposited into the account under RCW 82.44.150(2) (b)and (c) shall be appropriated to the transportation improvement board and allocated by the transportation improvement board to public transportation projects submitted by the public transportation systems..."

So, as long as Sound Transit can collect its monies and not deposit it into the "account", then initiative 711 does not apply.

I think I would be more gung-ho for the initiative if it provided a specific list of projects. But, as it stands, instead of having Sound Transit throw away our money, we're going to let the DOT throw it away. At least Sound Transit is regional and more likely to throw the money away in our backyard. If I were living in Spokane or Vancouver, I'd vote for 711 in a heartbeat. Tax the Puget Sound and build the roads in Spokane or Vancouver.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 02, 2000.

Wow, I didn't even bother to check which chapter this was going into. You might definitely be onto something here. It might be very easy to interpret that 90% rule to only apply to that chapter, which of course deals only with motor vehicle excise taxes.

One thing to remember though is that chapter 82.44 is now blank. I- 695 cleared out every single section, but did not repeal the chapter itself. This doesn't change anything in your theory though. All it would mean is that the requirement that 90% of nothing be used only for road construction. I don't think that Sound Transit would necessarily be affected. It receives its taxing authority from a different chapter entirely.

Too bad they didn't decide to add this section to chapter 47, Public Highways and Transportation. It might have made some sense then. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), March 02, 2000.