Hey Matt, thought of you when I saw this. Thought I'd pass on some good news to you.

http://www.tribnet.com/cgi-bin/makeframes.plx?/news/breaking/narrows_supreme.asp

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), November 09, 2000

Answers

I've asked a few friends and acquaintences who live over in the Gig Harbor area about what they thought of a toll bridge. So far, the two types of answers I've heard have been:

indifference, since their destinations are usually in the downtown area and they choose the ferry for the convenience of time rather than driving around

or

indifference, since they don't really WANT another bridge. This group doesn't really care about the traffic congestion. (That is, they don't like the toll, but when asked about paying for a new bridge they would rather not have the new bridge).

Since I haven't followed this project that close, does anyone remember the arguments when it was proposed and on the ballot?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), November 09, 2000.

State weighs remedies after court vetoes Narrows tolls 
CONTRACT: Gig Harbor group argued deal violated 1961 law 



Kris Sherman ; Staff writer Joseph Turner contributed to this report; 
The News Tribune 







A state Supreme Court ruling against the second Narrows Bridge 
project is just a "speed bump," not a permanent roadblock, 
transportation officials and some legislators said.



The court ruled Thursday that a contract between the Department of 
Transportation and United Infrastructure Washington, the private 
company hired to build the new bridge, is not legal under a 1961 
state law that says the Narrows Bridge "shall be ... a toll-free 
facility."



The unanimous decision came in a lawsuit filed by the Gig Harbor-
based Peninsula Neighborhood Association to stop the toll-bridge 
project. A Thurston County Superior Court judge earlier tossed out 
the suit, but the PNA appealed to the high court.



"We've already paid for that bridge, and we've been promised all 
along that we would not have to pay tolls on it again," association 
president John S. Mayers said. "The state's been breaking its 
promises."



"We're just jubilant," said Dennis Williams, who lives in West Anchor 
Mobile Home Park overlooking the bridge. "They're just going to have 
to go back to the drawing board now.



"I am happy to see justice done. We just felt that this was being 
ramrodded down our throats by an outside company."



At the heart of the issue is whether the state can split Highway 16 
onto two bridges - one eastbound, one westbound - over the Tacoma 
Narrows and charge tolls to motorists traveling from Gig Harbor to 
Tacoma. Under the plan, the toll would be collected only from 
motorists driving on the new bridge.



Transportation officials believe they can; toll-bridge opponents 
claim that's an underhanded way of trying to get around the law.




--  (mark842@hotmail.com), November 10, 2000.

to Informed Citizen: Thank you for your kind thoughts. The court's decision will probably delay the project by a year, saving my family around $1000. So, it is good news, indeed.

But, with the Democrats controlling the government, and the total repudiation of I-745, it is unlikely we will we see any comprehensive solutions to our inadequate transportation infrastructure. And, we can expect the DOT to move forward on the Narrows project, since it won't cost the Democrats and their constituents any money.

Now, the Democrats will have no one to blame but themselves, if they don't adequately address the transportation issue.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 13, 2000.

to Jim Cusick: You ask: "Since I haven't followed this project that close, does anyone remember the arguments when it was proposed and on the ballot?"

I don't remember, myself. I think the argument was that the people in Gig Harbor had suffered enough, and they really needed a new bridge. Could you folks in Tacoma and Olympia take the time to show your support and solidarity? Something like that.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), November 13, 2000.