'HOT Lanes Online Petition'-Request for Feedback

Re: Hybrids

If you put anything about hybrids on your anti HOT petition, no one will sign it. So you might reconsider.

That seem ok. In regard to hybrids, there is literally no way the HOT developers will allow them. There would be a tidal wave of hybrids and it would kill their profits. No brainer.

Ok... While I have both of you engaged, how about simply omitting point #5? It is a concern of all (changes to what might be originally negotiated), but not entirely essential to the petition.

Thoughts?

Can both of the "camps" live with the wording of Cavvie's original 13:56 post along with my minor editorial of point #8. I can repost it in its entirety once we have a general agreement.

It behooves us to work together to get this ball rolling before we are steamrolled. If nothing else, we might get some "paper" to pick up on the story and turn it into something with teeth.

spidermonkey

spidermonkey,
Ave is correct - Bob is SO anti-hybrid that he is unwillng to join forces to stop HOT. In fact, several months ago he began a topic in this area about recruiting allies to fight HOT. Just as long as the allies excluded the hybrid community. His stance appears to be that it is better to go it alone than get assistance from those he hates. And very, very few posters on this board are willing to compromise - just like our political system.

If you want to be inclusive, add something about the hybrids. Inclusive, generally speaking, brings a larger diversity and greater population to agree with you. And being exclusive sets you up for a far smaller number of supporter as well as having to receive broadsides from those you excluded. I think your goal is to have the petition signed by more than just the slug community, and perhaps much of the Commonwealth. What will give you the greatest overall support and the least resistence? If you ask just a small segment, like the slug community, you might get a different answer than if you look at the broader population. For the hybrid exclusion exemption, it was passed by a vote of 94-0 this year, so there seems to be some support for it, even if not on this board.

It is YOUR petition, so it is YOUR choice.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cavvie
Let's move out and let the cards fall where they may.

---

-------------

In the interest of fair & full disclosure, here is what I plan on going with (see below). Points of change from Cavvie's original 2007/08/06, 13:56 reword:

#10. Cavvies' 2007/08/07, 16:47 reword
#8. My 2007/08/06, 14:40 (minor editorial) reword
#5. My final combined 2007/08/06, 15:14 reword (which does include Jody's point) with a new minor editorial reword changing "are" to "contractually remain"

Thanks to Fluor/VDOT for all of the motivation.
Thanks to Bob for the start, the thorough editorial rewrite from Cavvie, some input from Sheepish and Jody, and yes, even the some of the "bash & clash" from Bob and NoSUV helped out too, I think---Hey, let's work together to stop this thing cold before it can even get any steam!

Here is what I plan on going with.

I am going to leave posted for 24 hours before initiating the petition online.

AveMaria: Any kind of help that you are proposing will be useful to the cause. We'll have to think about the best way to go about this. Definitely someway getting the word out to slugs & drivers in the NOVA area will be the first step. Getting the word out to other friends & family down state will be necessary to get some momentum going statewide.

Are there any lawyers with their "ears" on that might have some knowledge about the legality of turning public roadways into privately owned and operated ventures???? Seems like this would be something that would stop this thing dead in its tracks.

Anyways...look for something tomorrow night. I'll post when a petition becomes available.

-------------

We the undersigned strongly oppose the I-95/395 High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane project for the following reasons:

1. We object to the secretive nature of the Public-Private Partnership negotiations between the State of Virginia and private consortiums. All citizens across the entire State of Virginia deserve to be informed of all the terms of any agreement entered into between the State of Virginia and any private consortium under the Public Private Partnership Act. The citizens of the State of Virginia deserve to have any and all questions related to this conversion answered fully and honestly by both their elected officials and VDOT officials prior to any contractual vehicle being executed between the State of Virginia and any private consortium in a public forum. The information should also contain details for understanding the implications to all citizens, financial or other, should this Private-Public partnership not meet the requirements of either party. Without terms of agreement, details, and the opportunity to vote on potential financial repercussions of a failed partnership, we question whether VDOT is acting in the best interest for all citizens of Virginia.

2. It should be against Federal and State law to convert an existing High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lane, paid for with Federal and/or State tax revenue, to a private corporation/partnership for HOT with no reimbursement to the taxpayer for the initial cost of building these lanes.

3. We object to having a private consortium being transferred the authority to control a portion of the most critical interstate system in the U.S. with no input or opportunity to vote by the citizens of the State of Virginia into the law which authorizes such a transfer.

4. There is inadequate capacity on 395 to support the addition of thousands of single occupant toll vehicles and re-striping will not add capacity due to bottlenecks.

5. We believe that within a short time after the lanes become operational, a move will be made by the private consortium to convert the HOV-3 to HOV-4 and/or begin charging tolls to vehicles originally exempt from paying tolls. We insist that vehicles carrying 3 or more people (including public transportation) contractually remain exempt from paying tolls in the HOT lanes at all times, for the life of the HOT system.

6. We are concerned that this system will harm HOV by crowding the corridor, and in so doing will have long term negative consequences on commute times, air pollution, and parking.

7. Technology proposed by the private consortium that is anticipated for enforcing the HOT lanes is not currently viable and will require other more reliable and much more expensive and time consuming methods (i.e., manned toll booths for visual inspection, state police) that will result in significantly degraded commute times.

8. The imposition of such a system on the most highly traveled corridor on the East Coast and on the only viable commute option for Washington DC area workers is an unfair tax especially on residents living in the area.

9. Other options should be explored and the results provided to the citizens of the State of Virginia on alternatives including having the private consortium purchase right-of-way and add a regular lane to I95 for the purpose of HOT or conversion of one of the regular lanes of I-95 to HOT on a reimbursable basis by the private consortium.

10. Virginia must preserve the most successful HOV system in the country. Transportation efforts must have a neutral or improving effect on the region's air quality. Single occupancy vehicles which are not environmentally friendly should not be able to buy their way into special transportation access. We need to promote more carpools, not single occupant cars.

11. We will explicitly campaign and vote against any local official, or State of Virginia official who supports any public-private transportation agreement that does not adhere to these guidelines and in particular, this inherently unfair transportation option.