I-985 - Vote NO

Seattle Times: No
Post Intelligencer: No

This measure would open high-occupancy vehicle lanes to all traffic during specified hours, require traffic light synchronization, increase roadside assistance funding, and dedicate certain taxes, fines, tolls and other revenues to traffic-flow purposes.

It's sponsored by Tim Eyman. Need I say more?

Vote No if you want to reduce traffic congestion, make roads safer, and want the 520 bridge rebuilt before it collapses. Vote Yes if you think Eyman is really cool.

If you're still reading, then read this from the Times:

Members of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, including professionals who worked on many highway projects in Washington, issued a report saying Eyman's proposals would "increase congestion and possibly impact safety."

Anyone who wants to see a new Highway 520 floating bridge should oppose I-985, says King County Executive Ron Sims. The measure would limit the use of toll revenue to the route on which the toll is collected, with any excess going to the traffic-congestion fund.

"If you only limit tolls to 520, you cannot rebuild 520," said Sims, who favors tolling both the 520 and I-90 bridges. Sims predicts no one would buy bonds necessary to build a new 520 bridge if motorists could avoid tolls simply by using I-90, substantially cutting the revenue 520 tolls could generate.

Some additional info on I-985 from the Washington State DOT and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Thanks to Tony Woody, P.E. and Aimee Woody for providing the info on the links above. See Tony’s credentials in the Proposition 1 section below.

A recent Seattle Times article indicated that a letter from the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration indicated that I-985 could cost the state millions of dollars in federal funds, stall highway projects, aggravate traffic congestion, increase air pollution and force the closure of some freeway-access ramps.