Monday, February 21, 2011

Jerome Calls Out Houlihan

Over at SD Rostra Jerome is back to blogging. Most of his blogging is either boring, patting himself on the back, or inane, but Jerome decided to spice it up and call out his arch-nemesis Maggie Houlihan.

Jerome pulls out a quote from a NCTimes op-ed that ran prior to transnet's passage.

“…It’s important to note that the billions of TransNet dollars identified for highway and transit construction will be matched dollar for dollar with federal and state funding. Above the merge, Interstate 5 will be widened to 14 lanes…”

Houlihan was an author of the op-ed.

Jerome spikes, "My goodness how times and some opinions may have changed…" 

Maggie endorsed TransNet which clearly included a plan for widening the I5. That plan was ratified by the voters (pushed by a government sponsored propaganda blitzkrieg to get it to pass). Even so, not everyone supported TransNet. Not everyone had to go along to get along.

The County Sup's Position
"If the plan is meant to target congestion, it's focusing too much on public transportation," said county Supervisor Dianne Jacob. "(Congestion's) not in our transit system, it's not in our trolleys. It's on our freeways … . The plan as it stands now is flawed."
Three of the five county supervisors, Jacob, Bill Horn and Pam Slater-Price, oppose the tax-extension plan and have said that 50 percent of the money should be directed at freeways, 33 percent should go to local roads and the rest should go to public transportation.

Regardless of the plan implemented within a measure like TransNet, it was a stupid and unethical move to vote in a 40 year transportation plan, debt monster and taxation program. 40 years. There's no reason to have done a 40 year program except to be able to indebt the future for benefits we don't want to pay for now and to keep the public from becoming savvy SANDAG debt & lack of ability to deliver TransNet promises.

Lesson for voters. 1) No more super long tax/bond measures. Make SANDAG come back every 7 years with an update and evidence of efficient results that the current voters are happy with. 2) no more SANDAG tax/bond measures without including at least one directly elected representative to the SANDAG board. SANDAG is a multi-billion dollar unknown and unaccountable entity.

Question for Maggie: If you don't like the plan you helped pass, are you going to work to give the voters a chance to change the TransNet plan that they approved? Let's give the voters several options, no?  My guess is the voters are going to again  pick  a wider I5 if they think the population is going to continue to grow and our arterial roads are turned into cul-de-sacs. We can't send traffic back to the I5 if the I5 is a parking lot.

Question for Jerome: What distribution of funds would you propose (freeway/transit/local streets)? When are you going to make SANDAG show how it is even possible to complete all the projects promised in TransNet II? Because some of the TransNet money for local streets is suppose to be SUPPLEMENTAL money, maybe we can give the voters an option of taking some of the "local" streets money and turning that into congestion relief and some transit funding?

KMC

4 comments:

  1. The Union Trib has a poll of readers asking if you prefer the widening of I5 as presented or looking for other options.
    74% of responses want to explore other options.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Longterm planning is necessitated by the federal clean air act. Look to the Regional Transportation Plan currently being finalized as an example. It has a planning window to 2050 and includes a "revenue constrained" and an "unconstrained" element. Like it or not, regional planning horizons SHOULD be that far off. Otherwise every election cycle would cause a course reversal, wasted monies and ridiculously short-sighted planning. we would quickly have a mish mash of inconsistent decisions that would cause more harm than good. The next RTP is currently being worked on-if you want to have a say in the region's future, get involved now.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peaches,

    So you are saying we should stick with the 40 year plan endorsed by the voters in 2004? The one with extra lanes for I5?

    ReplyDelete
  4. If we are moving forward as a community to narrow Coast Hwy, then north/south traffic (local, regional and interregional) have to go somewhere. Do we want it on Vulcan? The RTP is not just highways, it's also rail, transit and it is linked to the regional blueprint for density and land use. I encourage anyone interested in how these decisions are actually made to educate themselves.

    If we are going to make plans for how our communities grow- or don't grow like Solana Bch- , we should stick with the foundations behind those plans. In this instance, that includes some widening of I-5. Personally, I much prefer the 8+4 as opposed to 10+4, but both are consistent with what the voters asked for. Twice actually as there were two transnet ballot measures which passed. The original and the extension.

    If we as a region don't want a wider freeway, which is also a choice, then the decision needs to be vetted in public and the social and economic consequences of that decision need to be considered as well.

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.