Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
They don't like to be put in a position where people start to question the financial scheme of the tunnel plan, so what do they do? They scream "EYMAN!" as loud as they can.
As several have pointed out, there is no binary when it comes to tolling. Not all tolls are good and not all tolls are bad. And on top of everything, this initiative wouldn't effect SR99 in any terrible way anyway.
If they're truly worried about things that could sway public sentiment on tolling, perhaps they should look at their handling of SR520 and the Tacoma Narrows Bridge recently?
Their hand-wringing over sunlight on their poorly executed tolling plan is pretty dishonest.
McGinn may have more problems than most local pols, but stupidity isn't one of them.
For me, it has failed logic. A law that ensures that the tunnel tolling only pays for the tunnel doesn't exactly "blow up" the plan.
I agree with McGinn, tolling should have a broader application for the revenues.
It is just mind-boggling that there could be anyone believe that there is something inherently libertarian about one type of road over another. The state is still doling out massive amounts of taxpayer dollars to corporations and unions, for the same purposes. Is the ability to pick out the color of your Civic just that much more free? How is sitting in a train on a schedule that much different than a morning commute in the minivan in traffic?
It isn't as if they are replacing through lanes with bike lanes or Light Rail.
Road diets would be at risk.