Vote ‘No’ on Measure 20-54
Some politicians say, “The money is there,” for the West Eugene Parkway, but show us the money!
Although TransPlan includes $17 million for the first phase of the Parkway, it doesn’t include the $71 million needed for the other three phases, as is clear from the text of Measure 20-54.
Because funds for roads are severely limited, we must set priorities. After 10 years of planning and public involvement, the conclusion of TransPlan is that making our existing roads safer is more important than building new roads.
TransPlan directs funding to higher priority projects, such as needed safety improvements at the Beltline/I-5 and Beltline/Delta interchanges. TransPlan doesn’t fund lower priority projects, such as the other three phases of the Parkway. Because these phases ranked 15th, 20th and dead last out of 28 major projects, they failed to make the funding cut.
So why do some politicians say we can have our cake and eat it, too? Are they willing to forgo needed safety improvements to build the Parkway? If voters approve the Parkway, will they then ask for higher taxes to pay for it?
I don’t know, but if the money was there for the Parkway, it would be in TransPlan. The money is not there! Join me in voting “No” on Measure 20-54, and hold on to your wallet!
Robert Zako
Eugene
Statistics show marijuana
is not a highway risk
I want to call to your attention an error in Tara Debenham’s column (“There’s no hope with dope,” ODE, 10/15). She wrote, “I’ve heard the drug hinders short term memory and makes coordination difficult, increasing car accidents.”
Marijuana intoxication’s effect on the rate of auto accidents has been studied by professional highway safety statisticians for the last 15 years. At least five studies have been published in different countries that reached the same conclusion: The adjusted statistical risk index for drivers on marijuana is roughly the same as drivers who are sober. Drivers on pot seem to cause accidents at the same adjusted rate as sober drivers. Marijuana doesn’t increase the risk of accidents.
A study in America a few years ago showed while marijuana intoxication does cause a small impairment in reflexes and tracking, it also causes users to perceive the impairment and drive conservatively.
Drivers on marijuana were less likely than sober drivers to engage in aggressive, risky driving, such as passing other cars, excessive lane changing and tailgating.
The effects cancel each other out, leaving the average driver on pot as statistically safe on the road as the average driver not stoned on anything.
This explains why auto safety statisticians in four countries found marijuana is not an identifiable highway safety risk in their statistics.
The error needs to be corrected, because highway safety involves life and death. We need to pay attention to facts, even when they seem to go against our social and political instincts.
Patricia Schwarz
Pasadena, Calif.
Students should question
‘shady energy fee’
During the presidential campaign of 2000, many of us were introduced to the term “fuzzy math.” Time for another lesson. This one is “shady” math.
Last summer, the Oregon University System instituted an energy surcharge in order to compensate for rising energy costs. Over the next two years students will shell out $30 per term towards what the Associated Students of the University of Oregon have termed the “Shady Energy Fee.”
While OUS has estimated the escalation in energy costs at about $7 million to $12 million, statewide the fee is expected to rake in $24 million. The coming 6.6 percent tuition increase will surely be too great for some students to keep up with.
Most aggravating about the new fee is that it was imposed during the summer, keeping the student voice out of debate. Fortunately, fall has arrived, and it is time for students to act.
Adam Petkun
freshman
ASUO Intern
