First of all, fix timing of signals

The Legislature is talking about a multi-billion dollar program for transportation, claiming, in part, there is too much gridlock. From driving on our roads where I live, a good part of the problem of gridlock is simply the timing of signals. I am frustrated daily by the poor timing of signals and have actually called to alert DOT locally to the problems. It appears that no one checks the signals from DOT on any regular basis.

One main issue that can easily be corrected and at no cost to safety is to set some of the signals to a flashing amber or red for a left turn. This would force drivers to slow down or stop and then proceed. As it stands now, I can show you signal after signal where folks cannot make a left turn even though there is good sight distance, in some cases as much as ½ mile! What happens then is they are forced to wait while the oncoming traffic is far away. As that traffic finally approaches the signal it turns green for the one waiting and red for all the oncoming traffic. If they had been allowed to turn, then all the traffic would have continued flowing smoothly.

The timing of signals for cross traffic is another problem. Signals, many times, are held too long and impede the main flow of traffic thus creating more gridlock.

If the Legislature is serious about traffic gridlock — and serious about pollution — then by simply timing signals correctly, up to 20 percent, of the problem can be alleviated.

The second benefit is the citizenry will be spared paying continually rising taxes to support an expensive transportation program, much of which can be corrected with little or no cost since DOT employees are already on staff.

The other question we should consider is, if there is gridlock, it means there are more vehicles. If there are more vehicles it translates into more revenue collected in gas taxes, registration fees and vehicle fees. Where is this money going if not for transportation?

Sherwood Sage

Mukilteo