Highway 99 Master Plan

Tim Murphy wrote on August 22 2008:

Gary makes a good point that collaboration is needed to solve problems on Highway 99. Recent successes in transportation planning and funding on the Highway 50 corridor in Eastern Sacramento County have shown that collaborative approached can reap rewards. It’s good that Elk Grove, Galt and Lodi are talking about this.

However, there is nothing in the Bee article that demonstrates this delay was caused by politics.  The delay is not due to any increase or decrease of political support.  The delay is because of project complexity.  The issues involve flood plains, endangered species, residential encroachment, noise attenuation, existing infrastructure in the right of way, etc.  The Federal Transit Administration’s risk analysis rightfully concludes that there is a mess of obstacles that need to be properly addressed. 

Gary’s political shot at Dan Lungren is out of line. The light rail extension is entirely in Doris Matsui’s district, but that doesn’t mean she is due any blame.  Mrs. Matsui is a great champion of this extension, but even her intervention cannot possible speed up the wheels of bureaucracy.  There are many issues that require regulatory compliance, and as anyone trying to build a public infrastructure project in California knows, that equals time, and lots of it. 

Gary, I know you’re a good Democrat, and you play the political game very well, but I’ll borrow a line from your political forefathers—If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

People are wearying of political finger-pointing.  I think your constituents would appreciate knowing what you have personally done to address this issue and the delays.  I certainly would.  If you’re going to do the political game of pointing a finger at an elected official who doesn’t represent the area in question, it’s fair to ask you What are YOU doing about it?

Gary Davis wrote on August 22 2008:

Tim,

Thanks for your pointed comments. I always enjoy our back and forth.

The point of my post is to talk about what I, along with the Mayors of Galt and Lodi, am doing about it. We have initiated an effort to master plan highway 99. The likely result will be similar to the Highway 50 Corridor Mobility Project.  Which, I know you are familiar with.

My comment about Dan Lungren not making local projects a priority is completely merited. And, it is not partisan. I am standing up for Elk Grove. Vice Mayor Pat Hume and I flew back to meet with Mr. Lungren in Washington, DC. He explained the hoops we must jump through to submit requests for federal support. The City of Elk Grove then unanimously adopted a set of requested projects that met his stated criteria.

A few weeks later we received a letter from Mr. Lungren’s office that he would not be advancing ANY of Elk Grove’s requests. This is inexcusable.

My job as Mayor of Elk Grove is to stand up for the city - even if it means calling out our member of Congress. I certainly hope Mr. Lungren rethinks his tact in the future and decides to represent Elk Grove.

Tim Murphy wrote on August 22 2008:

Thanks Gary—I also enjoy the back and forth.

I agree the main part of your post is about fixing Highway 99.  From my work on the 50 mobility partnership, I know that it requires a comprehensive solution that includes transit.  99 will also require the same thing.  Widening alone isn’t the answer.

But in this post, you also lay the light rail delay at Lungren’s feet when it is clearly not.

We both know how arduous the federal funding process is and how competitive it is.  Lungren makes no bones about his distaste for how out of control the federal earmark process is. He is adamant that transportation earmarks must meet a federal nexus.  The abuse of earmarking is BAD GOVERNING, and members on both sides of the aisle are guilty. 

We obviously differ on Lungren’s philosophy regarding earmarks.  Lungren has stated that when he was first in Congress, earmarks were rarely used.  When he returned to Congress, there were more than 10,000 earmark requests the previous year.  That’s a lot of pork.

I think he’s correct that there needs to be more fiscal management and prioritization of projects that receive federal transportation funds.  We elect members of Congress to go back and debate, evaluate and appropriate tax dollars.  I demand that those tax dollars be used as efficiently as possible, and you should too.  The abuse of the earmark system has resulted in a lot of wasteful spending.  I’m not opposed to paying my taxes every April 15th, but we all know it’s not one of life’s happiest moments when you make out that check to Uncle Sam.  I damn well expect my elected representatives not to take my hard-earned taxes and throw it down some hole (a different debate for a different time). 

Earmarks take the legislating out of the legislature.  Lungren is taking a stand to draw attention that the earmark system is badly broken.  Some may say he is not delivering for the district, but others will say he’s leading by example.  It’s a matter of fixing what’s broken or busting the mechanism beyond all hope of repair. I maintain Lungren IS representing the interests of Elk Grove in the long run by doing this.

I would also like to say I do applaud your actions and the City’s actions to convene a collaborative transportation planning effort with Galt and Lodi.  Sacramento City and County and San Joaquin should also be invited to the table.  Doing so can give you the opportunity to plan for mobility and transit enhancements that might more easily give Congressman Lungren, Congresswoman Matsui and Congressman McNerney (or perhaps Andal come November?) the opportunity to join in bi-partisan fashion and make some projects related to Hwy 99 mobility improvements a Federal PRIORITY.

I’ll retract my earlier comment about political finger pointing, because your original post did not go give the context of your disagreement with Lungren.  Your second post indicates your philosophical difference with Lungren on the appropriate use of earmarks.  If I’ve misconstrued your position, please advise.

Jason Daniel wrote on August 22 2008:

Well, im a good traditionalist. LOL!

Solid talk! loving it.

and im kind of wondering what can really be done to improve the 99 situation. The only thing that will really help are ways to curb traffic impact or…

Are we talking build another lane? That’s all i care about. Widening it.

Dan wrote on August 23 2008:

As an aside, traffic on 99 actually seems better.

Since 1993 I have been plying between EG and downtown Sac during commute hours. In the last year or so the time to travel downtown, in my opinion, has decreased substantially.

The extra lane has helped. I think the other reasons are because of a soft economy (fewer construction workers and trucks on the road) and increased use of mass transit because of gas prices.

Nonetheless, 99 is our main artery and improvements should be a priority as traffic will eventually increase.

Even though earmarks are much derided (the ‘bridge to no where’ comes to mind) the ultimate job of any congressman is to bring tax dollars back to the home district.

Tim wrote on August 23 2008:

Dan -

I wish I could agree without reservation that it is the job of any congressman to bring home the bacon to the district.  But what we have with the abuse of the earmark system is a national budget that is badly out of whack, with members of Congress putting forward huge pork projects (your bridge to nowhere) that wouldn’t stand a chance with the smallest bit of honest scrutiny.  Today’s earmark system is a fast track for members of Congress to bring home money to the district without having to legislate for it. They are able to point to their bringing home money to the district when they campaign.  Let’s face it—it’s the unspoken “get me re-elected plan” that both sides of the aisle are all to happy to play.

Tim wrote on August 23 2008:

Forgot to mention—I’ve also been taking 99 to work more often.  If you leave at the right time, you’re averaging 55-65 mph the whole way.  It’s been great.  I’m hoping the bubble doesn’t pop too soon on this one.