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?