While the change in our system of government which Part 2 of I-695 would put into effect has always seemed to me like a good idea, the potential negative effects of Part 1 -- namely, increased traffic congestion -- continue to be troubling. I have a constructive solution to this issue to suggest to both sides of this forum and to Tim Eyman himself (who has expressed the wish to pursue a new initiative once I-695 has been voted on). There has been much talk in the local media recently about how ridiculously easy it is to pass the driver's test in Washington State, and how this is partly responsible for the many bad drivers currently wreaking havoc on our roads. We all know the type: they're the ones who drive with both hands on the Egg McMuffin, block intersections downtown, turn without signaling, et cetera. It has been suggested that, given the proliferation of such bad drivers and the recent exponential increase in traffic congestion in the Puget Sound area, that the time has come for a much stricter driver's test for Washington State. Would Tim Eyman, or anyone participating in this forum, be interested in creating an initiative to accomplish this? It may sound to some like an oppressive idea, but I believe that responsible drivers, as well as families with children who want safer roads, would have nothing to fear if the driver's test here was as strict as the testing standards are in Europe. It also makes sense to consider that such an initiative could serve as a compliment to I-695: 1) it would help bring down the traffic congestion that the passage of I-695 could possibly lead to, and 2) Part 2 of I-695 would ensure that no taxes would be increased to make up for revenue lost in the reduction of the number of people getting legitimate driver's licenses. I welcome any commentary and especially suggestions; anyone who would like to work towards such an initiative, please feel free to e-mail me personally. Thanks!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 16, 1999

Answers

I agree, for the most part, with your proposal. At least once a day, i am flabberghasted by someones extremely poor driving skills and invariably utter the words "How the Hell did that guy pass his drivers test" More stringent requirements will weed out some of them. However, there are a lot more drivers out there who's problem isn't just lack of skill, but hostility and a lack of concern for others. A lot of those people will be on their best behavior with the driving examiner in the car with them (like actually using their turn signals, etc.), only to return to steering with their knee while holding a Big Mac with both hands once they pass the test. It seems that a great way make up for any lost revenue that passing I- 695 may cause is to increase penelties(fines) for bad drivers and put it into a special fund for road maintenence and improvement. give a tax break to law abiding, considerate drivers and put the onus of keeping up our roads on the the people out there who let their road rage make our commutes such a nightmare every day.

-- Cate Gaidheal (crgaidheal@aol.com), August 16, 1999.

Jeff,

Why are you bothering to ask Tim's approval of your idea?

If you think it's so hot, get on down to Olympia and start an initiative yourself.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 16, 1999.

There is no need for an initiative to get the atrocious drivers off the road. Traffic tickets were designed to do that. I'm sure everybody who drives knows a place where several hundred people could get citations for MANY infractions EVERY day. How about 9th Avenue and Westlake between the hours of 3:00 and 6:00? There are at least ten cars blocking the intersection at every light change. Then there are the hundreds of cars who drive up 9th at that intersection (GOING THE WRONG WAY) every day. Kill two birds with one ticket....raise plenty of revenue and get the bozos off the street.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 17, 1999.

maddjak, Don't you think it would be a better idea to PREVENT bad drivers from getting on the road in the first place? Sure, we'd lose potential revenue from not being able to ticket the people who, for example, block the intersection at 6th and Seneca (near my own neighborhood & I've seen it happen at least once a week there for the past 4 and a half years!), but don't you think it's more important to have safer (i.e., dummy-free) roads then such a choatic (and dangerous!) source of revenue as traffic violations? Prevention is better than cure, as the saying goes.... As for our unkind friend Mr. Westin: thanks for the, er, constructive criticism. Just for the record, I wasn't requesting "approval" from Eyman so much as commentary, be it pro or con...if Tim has no opinion, that's fine. I'm mainly interested to see what opinions (hopefully constructive and intelligent!) are out there. It takes more than one person's opinion to justify a citizen's initiative; if I hear enough pro opinion out there, I may very well go through the trouble it takes to get such an initiative in motion! One last thing, Westin: please heed the Webmaster and make the trolling in this forum a thing of the past. Be constructive. Please.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 17, 1999.

All that is necessary is to enforce the laws on the books now. Check the traffic court decisions reported in the back of local newspapers. Fines are very high for speeding, neg. driving, etc. DWI penalties are even tougher. All this is as it should be. Spokane could reap a lot of revenue going after red-light runners and inconsiderate drivers who think it is up to them whether or not they have to obey yield signs.

-- A.C. Johnson (ajohnson@thefuture.net), August 17, 1999.

Jeff, one solution to the bad drivers would not be acceptable. It works in Disneyland and all th other amusement parks I have been to. It's a very simple test.

If you are not taller than this line you can not go on this ride. I similar height restriction at the DMV would be sufficient..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 17, 1999.

Several years ago, as a political candidate, I was invited for an interview by an "environmental" organization that endorsed their favorites (Democrats). I took along my past three annual METRO bus passes which were well worn, and asked the panel how many of them rode the bus to work instead of commuting by private car. NONE! I then lectured them about the rise in CO2 levels that they were causing. I didn't get their endorsement.

If everyone rode the bus instead of jamming up the freeways with SOVs, we wouldn't need the MVET sudsidies to public transit. Nor would we need a huge DOT budget. Sigh!

-- Art Rathjen (liberty@coastaccess.com), August 17, 1999.

Art-

Your statement about transit reminds me of the old saw about the guy that lost money on every sale, but figured he'd make it up in volume. Please look at these two websites: http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/bsum.htm http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm

As you can see, Pierce Transit pays somewhere between 16% (if you just consider operating expenses) to 12% (if you include capital investment) of it's own way. Most of the rest comes either from those auto drivers (through their gas taxes and MVET) or through the property taxes that are paid for by (you guessed it) mostly auto drivers. Now if we privatized transit, it'd no doubt do better, but even so, you're limited by physics and geometry and queing theory when it comes to making transit economically self sufficient. You need a certain population density for transit to be economically viable, and most of the US just doesn't have that population density. If EVERYBODY used transit, as you suggest, we'd have two problems. The first is that many of the new users would be from low density areas where it transit is even LESS cost effective than it is in the areas now served. The second is that if the gas consumption DID go down significantly, transit would lose that much more of its revenue, since these taxes pay far more of the costs than fares do. For much of the US, transit can ONLY exist as a parasite to the automobile, subsidized by gas taxes and running on the roads (and HOV lanes) bought with the revenue generated by the gas taxes. The auto could easily exist without transit, but transit in other than fairly high density areas would not survive the demise of the auto.

As for light rail http://www.historylink.org/features/valley.htm

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 17, 1999.

Gee, Jeff,

I am EVER so sorry I seem to have hurt your feelings, but I meant what I said.

I would advise you to thicken your skin just a bit if you intend to play politics with the big people. In the interim, please be advised that I do not post to meet your approval; that you are not the Net Nanny, and you may feel free to avoid responding to me whenever you like; which, given the usual outcome of your efforts is most probably a good idea.

As for the substance of my observation, you asked the following question: "Would Tim Eyman, or anyone participating in this forum, be interested in creating an initiative to accomplish this?"

I responded. I stand by that response. If you think its such a great idea, I'm sure that Ralph Munro has the paper-work just sitting there waiting for you to fill it in, and hand over the money.

That you may (or may not) have felt my question to be constructive is, after all, something less then worthless information... it stands.

You can stand on the sidelines and whine... or you can get in the game and get dirty. The choice is yours.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 18, 1999.

Westin

The game shouldn't be dirty! Politics is noble...., telling the ignorant how to run their lives is the best thing to come along since "the white man's burden." It's noble, you hear, NOBLE! You have no RIGHT to talk to Jeff like that. You might injure his (sob!) SELF- ESTEEM!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 18, 1999.

Craig,

You are so right... It SHOULDN'T be... and when I was an erstwhile young undergrad (well, maybe not so young... that darned time away in the Army, sort of providing the practical application of American Political Science... I got my Bats at Huskyville at the ripe old age of 25)in Poli Sci I used to think the same thing.

That lasted until my first Grad seminar. The rest is that polished level of cynicism that you see displayed before you today!

Westin

"Many are cold, but few are frozen" - Voltaire

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 18, 1999.

Westin, do you have anything to say that even remotely relates to the issues in this thread (I-695 and the driver's test--remember?), or is bragging about what a macho badass cynic you are all that you're capable of anymore? The truth is, you haven't "hurt my feelings" one bit. I find your flaming troll-itis rather amusing, actually. But what troubles me is that what you apparently retained from poli-sci has more to do with Pat Buchanan than with Thomas Jefferson. Beat me up in the schoolyard all you want, but at least justify the machismo by telling me exactly what's wrong about what I've proposed at the top of this thread. Or, barring your ability to do so like a good college grad, take an extra dose of Ritalin.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 18, 1999.

Jeff

What's wrong is that it isn't complementary to I-695, a measure about taxation. Yours is a measure that you purport to say is about congestion. It seems more like whiney drivel about irritating drivers which, while understandable, doesn't really have much to do with I-695. You use Europe as a model. I've lived in Europe. In Germany it may take as much as $2000-3000 of professional instruction to get a license. But that's NOT what makes the traffic work better. They actually enforce their laws. The polizei can FINE YOU ON THE SPOT for a violation. They don't mess around a lot with courts and plea bargaining, etc. Now having said all that, their congestion is getting every bit as bad as ours. And don't assume what goes on in Germany is broadly representative of the rest of Europe. I survived driving in Naples Italy in rush hour once, but I'm not sure how. I was in a minority going the RIGHT way on a one way street.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 18, 1999.

Craig, so you're responding to my "whiney drivel" by whining about traffic conditions in Europe. Do you have any CONSTRUCTIVE solutions to offer either for the situation there or the congestion situation here? I've stated that I'm willing to accept I-695 if the potential for increased traffic congestion which it could (note my grammar: not WILL, but COULD -- good enough to be concerned about) cause in the Puget Sound region is somehow mitigated, or at least rationally addressed. This is how my suggestion is in fact at least intended to relate to I-695. I'll resist flaming you back if you cut the "whiney drivel" talk okay? To show you that I am looking for a win-win situation, you're right on target about how in Europe they enforce their traffic laws. I've had the experience of walking up to a police officer in downtown Seattle and pointing out a car blocking a crosswalk and asking the officer if there was any sort of law against this (I already knew the answer--yes, $38)-- the officer said yes, $38 and then stood there and did absolutely NOTHING. And that's just one of many such incidents I have witnessed or been told about. So yes, (I'm agreeing with you here) we need to do something to make public servants work for the money. But flaming each other isn't going to do the trick. I'll support I-695 if I could see measures taken to ensure that traffic congestion doesn't worsen as a side effect. Whether you agree with me or not, that's fine, just PLEASE offer something CONSTRUCTIVE to this thread. (Gary Hendriksen, where are you?)

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 18, 1999.

Now, Jeffey... no need to get snippy.

While I appreciate your efforts to exert some... shall we say... "thread ownership?", in the words of the Bard, "Homey (or is it "Homie?" I'd hate to get the two confused) don't play that."

Let me reiterate:

You don't like what I post, feel free to ignore it. You aren't up to answering a simple question? (And, if you think your idea is so hot, why don't you go to Olympia and file the initiative (or words to that effect) IS a fairly simple question) then don't.

But you don't make the rules here... you DON'T control what I post, as much as your "control" attitude clearly indicates a desire that such were the case; and, I repeat: if you don't like what I write... then IGNORE it.

Westin

"Let us then lay the facts aside, as they do not enter into the question." J.J. Rousseau -"Discourse on the Origins of the Mixed Drink, and the Hooker's Contract" 18something.

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 18, 1999.

Jeff-

You ask, I appear.

1. You want some constructive answers to congestion? Stop wasting $4 billion on non-solutions. See these sites: http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/myth.pdf http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubman/report/articles/transit.htm 2. Privatize the transit systems (such as buses) that ARE reasonably cost effective. Other states have saved at least 30% by doing this, without a decline in service. Ditto garbage pickup, utility services, etc. 3. Get rid of "prevailing wage" and PLAs that decrease competition and increase prices for capital projects. Then build roads. 4. Stop using tax dollars for social engineering. I believe that minority and female owned businesses ought to get ALL government contracts as long as they can do the job and they happen to be the lowest bidders. 5. Stop using tax dollars to bribe industries. Example, Intel in Lacey. Received big tax credits etc., and then went away when the Asian economies tanked. Even better example, Seattle, a major player in the New Utopian movement to control growth, discourage parking in Seattle to increase transit market share, uses their bonding authority to finance a PARKING GARAGE for Nordstroms. Stop the corporate welfare. Ditto Seahawks. Ditto Mariners. Don't tell me we need the jobs (or retail business) and then gripe about the congestion that follows. 6. Most traffic (even commuters) do NOT want to go to downtown Seattle. Don't funnel them there. Not on I-5, not on the ferries, not on Sounder, not on Light Rail. There is a significant amount of traffic that simply wants to go from Canada down the coast. 7. Spend less effort telling people they shouldn't be driving, and more effort building roads. I lived 2 blocks off 320th when the I-5 intersection was completed in Federal Way. I could drivt to Boeing Field without seeing more than a few dozen cars. And I-5 was virtually the same dimensions then as now. e've really only added HOV lanes. 8. While were on HOV lanes, Open up the HOV lanes to general purpose traffic at any hours that they are not carrying at least 75% of the passenger miles of the nearest parallel general purpose lane. That's about 22 hrs a day. Got plenty more, but I'll bet the e-mail system truncates this

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 18, 1999.

Thank you Gary. I'd forgotten that there are rational adults out there who prefer intelligent debate to acting like rejects from the World Wrestling Federation (I won't mention names!) who are also supporters of I-695. Things we agree on: stopping corporate welfare. Absolutely! And also more intelligent handling of HOV lanes, i.e., only making them HOV lanes when it's appropriate. But I don't believe that building more roads will decrease traffic congestion. It's possible that more major arterials, bridges, etc. will discourage people from carpooling, using transit, etc. The fact remains that there are currently, in our region, too many single occupancy vehicles out there. And something "concrete", if you'll pardon the pun, has got to be done. And that something doesn't necessarily have to involve a massive bureaucratic project using mega tax dollars. I- 695, in my view, has its potential merits viv-a-vis government's relation to the citizenry. But as it stands (see section 1 of I-695), it is more likely to aggravate our traffic problems than alleviate them. Gary, I'm interested in your opinion of what I've proposed at the top of the post. Constructive criticism is more than welcome. (Just please don't threaten to beat me up in the playground after school!) Thanks again!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 19, 1999.

Jeff-

I have no gripe with stricter licensing standards, but doubt that it would put a dent in congestion. Mandatory auto liability insurance has not, apparently, put much of a dent in uninsured drivers, and stricter enforcement is running into claims from the civil libertarians about beating up on the poor.

As for the issue of more roads, I just basically think that you are wrong. Attached are two addresses for the King County website. The first shows that total road capital improvement moneys for the next 20 years are projected to be $770 million, and this includes HOV lanes, and improvements that buses benefit from. Light rail alone is funded at over $2 billion (and rising) for PHASE 1. The second shows that Transit took about a quarter billion a year in OPERATING expenditures (considerably more if you count capital expenditures) in 1996, with farebox revenues only covering $51 million. Given that transit handles 3% of the people, and cars (including HOVs) handle the other 97%, I'd say that we are subsidizing the heck out of the former at the expense of the latter. It's fine for transit advocates and those with a philosophical/religious dislike for the automobile to say that we can't build our way out of congestion, but clearly no serious attempt has been made to have equity in capital investment. http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/tp/tnr/financia.htm

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/faxfig97.htm

Given that 97% of people use cars, why shouldn't the capital investment in roads (which are used by cars and non-rail transit) be at least 97% of the total capital investment?

Gary

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 19, 1999.

I hesitate to get into this debate, but I had some ideas to suggest that could be in a state law or initiative to deal with some of the driver problems (as opposed to the road problems): 1. Issue a vehicle license plate, and a separate driver license plate. The big problem is that people without a license or insurance can continue to drive undetected. If you don't have a license or it is suspended, or don't have insurance, the driver plate is turned in. 2. Institute a practice of requiring a written test at each renewal, and an over-the-road test every 10 years (5 years for those over 70). If licences were good for 5 years, the routine would be regular, predicatable, and should find those who have lost some of the control or vision or perception needed to operate a vehicle that could legally be traveling 75 mph in the next lane from you. 3. Driving without a valid driver license (not just without it in posession or the proposed driver plate showing) should result in the confiscation of the vehicle. That would be a huge incentive for a vehicle owner to be sure that any driver they authorize to use it is licensed and insured. This would not apply to a stolen vehicle, obviously.

I agree we have road and transit issues to address, but that was not the issue that started this. As for Westin, it takes a lot of free time and money to do what you do. Some of us don't have it and must pass on any ideas to those that do. Address the idea, and don't attack the individual.

-- dbvz (dbvz@freei.net), August 19, 1999.

Thank you, dbvz! What you've expressed is more in line with how forums such as this should work: several people sharing constructive ideas on an issue, aiming, however haphazardly towards a consensus, and maybe even a workable plan of action. What you said about creating incentives for auto owners to be careful about who they let behind the wheel of their cars was especially pertinent, although it relates more to the current controversy over impound laws than to I-695. (I happen to believe any constructive idea can contribute to a debate, even if it's only tangentally related. Part of the larger picture which I-695 relates to is the fact that we here in the PNW have GOT to do something pronto about traffic congestion. So let's talk!) Having testing done at regular intervals would also help; it seems to me that part of the written tests involved should aim at making the prospective driver demonstrate that they have a sense of civility which leads to understanding of why one should, for example, always put on the turn signals before turning and not just when there's a cop behind you (i.e.: other people exist! and need to know whether you're going straight or making a turn!). Etc. Etc. thanks again dbvz for the positive input & thank you Gary H. for the website info. I'm not claiming to know everything about these issues so any info (in lieu of insults!) is always causa de alegria para mi! Hasta luego!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 19, 1999.

Jeff

Given that 97% of people use cars, why shouldn't the capital investment in roads (which are used by cars and non-rail transit) be at least 97% of the total capital investment?

Still waiting for a response.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 19, 1999.

With all due respect, Gary (and this is meant as constructive criticism and not a flame!) I personally am firmly on the side which feels that it is bad news that 97% of people use cars. I'm for public transit. I can see the merit in completely privatized transit, but, to be honest, there are class inplications involved in eliminating public transit which is affordable to lower-income people. Someone (either in this forum or in the Times letter column, I don't recall at the moment) made a salient point about how many people who make up the work force in downtown Seattle -- not the movers & shakers, but the $20,000 a year cubicle prisoners -- depend upon affordable public transportation to get to their jobs from the still-affordable outskirts (Lake City, Burien, etc.). How drastically would the work force be changed downtown if subsidized transit were to be eliminated? Would it have positive effects on our local economy -- or negative ones? I'm not demanding that you directly answer these questions, Gary, so much as offering them as an issue to be considered in this debate. And please don't feel that I'm blowing off your question (97%) -- maybe if you re-phrased it I could answer it better from my point of view. For the record, I'm a bus rider & pedestrian. I have nothing against auto owners per se, but have to insist in my opinion that there are too many SOV's on the road in Puget Sound, and that the passage of I-695, without some mitigative action to alleviate traffic sprawl, will only make this situation worse.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 20, 1999.

P.S. (just to beat the Maddjak Army to the punch on my little spelling error!) that was meant as "class implications" w/an M. Sorry, I got too much of adrenaline "rush" from listening to my cassette tapes of, yes, "Rush" Limbaugh this morning and was typing too fast! Later...

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 20, 1999.

Why tout the general statistic that 97% of people use cars, when most of those people have no other option than using their cars? It seems that we should look at how many people use transit when it is actually an option for them. When you count the number of people who can only drive and say they "choose" to drive rather than take transit, it's like asking how much orange juice you can get from a bushel of apples.

If you're commuting from, say, Omak to Twisp, you'll probably have no other option than to drive, but in areas with higher density, mass transit can work well. We cannot build ourselves out of gridlock, but every additional person riding transit means one less car contributing to that gridlock.

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 20, 1999.

Tony-

"We cannot build ourselves out of gridlock" Please review those sites:

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/tp/tnr/financia.htm

http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/faxfig97.htm

We sure can't build ourselves out of gridlock when we spend two and one-half times the money for capital expenditures for transit (used by 3% of the populace) that we do for roads (used by most of the transit AND the other 97% of the populace). And I agree totally with you that most of those people don't have a choice. Outside of a very few urban areas, the population density is such that transit is not economically viable. Here in Pierce county the farebox recovery is 16% of operating expenses, or about 12% of total expenses if you consider capital investment too. And most counties in Washington have even less population density than Pierce (the inhabited portions, not Mount Rainier) and King. What has happened is that we have systematically underfunded roads for years, feeding transit, in the hope that transit will ultimately solve the congestion problem, while at the same time adopting an urban growth management act that increases population density, hoping that this will force people to use transit. It hasn't. Time to fund highway capital investment and SEE if we can build our way out of gridlock. What we've been doing certainly hasn't worked.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 20, 1999.

Jeff-

Recommend you read this: http://the- tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/myth.pdf

I will concede that part of what you say makes sense, although I invite you to make the trip from the Rainier Valley (or better yet, the U-Dub) to burien some time. We need a safety net of transit for those unable to drive because of age, disability, loss of license, etc. Generally speaking, bus service in high density areas can be reasonably cost-effective, although government operated ones tend to have far higher operating costs than private transit companies.

However we currently are building two systems (Sounder and Link) that (if they come in on budget) will cost about $4 billion dollars. Light rail, typically serves the more economically advantaged and typically detracts from the other transit options. At $100 million a mile ($42 million a mile through the Rainier Valley, where the rich people won't have to worry about the noise or appearance) Link is a capital investment of $19000 a foot. Don't you think that's a little pricey for something that will only serv 1.2% of the metropolitan area?

And what would you consider an equitable split for capital investment between roads and transit? 97-3? 60-40? 50-50? Pick some numbers.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 20, 1999.

Jeff- Sorry, wrong address. Try this one.

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubman/report/articles/transit.htm

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 20, 1999.

Gary:

I agree that we need to invest more in our transportation infrastructure.

Now, I'm wondering...if 695 passes and we lose over $1 billion every budget cycle, how are we going to put more into highway construction? I know most of the 695 supporters say "But it's only 2% of the budget." However, even if we can suck up these cuts, how are we supposed to increase spending on our infrastructure? We'd have to have a vote, right?

So, why vote to cut the state budget knowing that we need to vote later to restore the funding so we can get out of the traffic mess? It seems we should start working on gridlock right away.

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 20, 1999.

Tony-

1. Look up about eight postings and you can see my suggestions to Tim as to where we could make cost savings that could be applied to transportation requirements. 2. The real issus, however, is that we need to decide to do something about it. Our growth management plans now call for us to squeeze more and more people into the urban centers. This is hardly conducive to alleviating congestion. 3. We've got to stop WASTING money on boondoggles like light rail that haven't worked. http://www.cascadepolicy.org/transit/cunneen.htm Does not $100 million a mile, $19000 a foot, strike you as rather pricey for something that only averages 14 miles per hour? http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/apxa/transt98.html 4. And we have got to start funding capital improvements in roads at AT LEAST the same rate we do transit, not the current 40% of that rate. http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/tp/tnr/financia.htm http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/faxfig97.htm 5. So right now, yes, I want to take the money away from these arrogant, inefficient, self-serving politicians, force them to use reasonable business practices, and let them come back to me (and the other voters) with a reasonable and cost-effective proposal before they get another dime of revenue. I don't know how else we can fix the problem. Continuing to feed taxes to people who think that $100 million a mile is a good price for a choo choo train is merely enabling stupidity, not being a go

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 21, 1999.

(cont)

I don't know how else we can fix the problem. Continuing to feed taxes to people who think that $100 million a mile is a good price for a choo choo train is merely enabling stupidity, not being a good citiz

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 21, 1999.

Jeff-

"And please don't feel that I'm blowing off your question (97%) -- maybe if you re-phrased it I could answer it better from my point of view. " "And what would you consider an equitable split for capital investment between roads and transit? 97-3? 60-40? 50-50? Pick some numbers. "

Still waiting for that answer Jeff.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 21, 1999.

Jeff- Still waiting

Another reason your proposal will NOT decrease congestion is that it is inadequate to overcome official attempts to INCREASE congestion. No, this isn't another shooters on the grassy knoll theory, this is clearly spelled out in national policy in the Urban Growth Management Act and in multiple planning papers on the USDOT website. The following is worth perusing.

http://www.bts.gov/smart/cat/bak/retk.html Since the majority of individuals will not use transit by choice, the plan is to convert existing general purpose lanes to HOV lanes, convert HOV lanes to bus only lanes, and gradually squeeze the cars off the road. This is precisely consistent with the underfunding of capital investment (and over-funding of transit) that we've been doing for ten years. Unfortunately, it is only half working. Congestion hasn't gone up enough to overcome the negatives for transit for most people. That's why this paper recommends increasingly coercive steps. This will not work either, and will simply drive more people to the suburbs DESPITE the UGMA, but this is a religion for the people who are in the New Urbanism movement. They are unable to comprehend that it isn't working and are resorting to what they alway do when common sense collides with their faith, government coercion. Funny how when your only tool is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. Still waiting for your assessment of what a reasonable capital investment split is between roads and transit, and to keep things honest, let's consider dedicated busways to be transit expenses.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 22, 1999.

Tony-

"Does not $100 million a mile, $19000 a foot, strike you as rather pricey for something that only averages 14 miles per hour?"

Still waiting.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 22, 1999.

Gary wrote:

"Tony- "Does not $100 million a mile, $19000 a foot, strike you as rather pricey for something that only averages 14 miles per hour?"

Still waiting."

Isn't this exactly the kind of project that you are calling for under 695? While is does seem too pricey for my tastes, it also was *approved by a public vote*, which is what you want to have happen to every tax increase, right?

I'm a little confused how this is an example of the government "enabling stupidity." I was under the impression that the main assumption behind 695 was that the people are smart enough to choose what taxes they want and don't want.

So we have an example of the people choosing a tax that they want and these voters are suddenly "stupid" and poor little pawns of an enabling government? But with the M's stadium issue, everybody points to the public vote and says that is the reason why Safeco shouldn't have been built. Which is it? Does government enable stupid voters or do the voters make smart choices about what they want? You can't have it both ways.

Should the assumption then be that if 695 passes, the government's gonna become even more of an enabler, with even more taxes passed that you think are dumb? Seems to me that you're saying recent events point to this path.

Don't blame the government for this project. Everybody knew what they were voting on, and it passed, which is exactly the standard that you all want under 695.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 22, 1999.

Gary, I do nothing but work over the weekend & without access to the web, sorry for this late response...not being an expert on the intricacies of DOT budget mechanics, I can only respond with what may seem like a non-answer: from my point of view, as I've said before the fact that 97% of Puget Sound residents use autos instead of public transit is cause for alarm. Nonetheless, I do believe the ratio of capital investment should be decided by the public and not someone in Olympia, even someone who understands the minutae & devilish details. My own subjective idea of what a good ratio would be is somewhere around 30% transit to 70% roads. Again, my subjective opinion, and probably a non-answer to the question you had in mind. But perhaps we can agree, that we do need some shift away from an endless sea of SOV's? Let me reiterate here why I'm making these points in a forum dealing with I-695: I-695, for all its alleged merits, is all too likely to have consequences which will aggravate, not alleviate, our traffic problems. We need a better solution to the unfairness of the MVET. My own subjective idea of what that could be: retain a sliding scale for tab charges, but make it more equitable and more considerate of the actual financial situation of those seeking tabs.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), August 23, 1999.

Gary:

"Does not $100 million a mile, $19000 a foot, strike you as rather pricey for something that only averages 14 miles per hour?"

Are you expecting me to respond with a knee-jerk "yes"? Do you know how many times I've been on I-5 going SLOWER than 14 miles per hour? My answer is: No.

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 23, 1999.

Tony-

That's interesting- This is the most expensive light rail line I can find, but that's OK with you. What level would you find pricey? Additionally, you may have been on I-5 going less than 14 mph ON OCCASION, but according to the USDOT Website 14 mph is what light rail AVERAGES. I-5 also cost a heck of a lot less than $100 million a mile (even in 1999 dollars) and cost of operations, maintenance, and upkeep are nowhere near what it will be for light rail. Add to that the capacity of I-5 versus the capacity of light rail, and one would think that you'd be more concerned.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 25, 1999.

Gary:

So, I guess that makes everyone who voted for the RTA an idiot, right? And you actually want the people to vote directly on such projects MORE OFTEN?

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Jeff- An honest answer that provokes further questions......

For the Seattle metropolitan area I would agree with you. For the King County area, I think that's over weighted toward transit. If you look at the capital budgets, however, roads are getting nothing like a 70% share, and much of what ostensibly is labelled roads is actually HOV busways. And it has been this way for some time. Why? are you just biased against HOVs, or is your rationale air pollution, traffic congestion, use of fossil fuels, global warming, or what? I think that I can make a persuasive case that the Seattle traffic problems are there by design. They are the natural result of application of the urban growth management act. They are inherent in the metrics that the act monitors. The intent is to increase the urban population density, that is clearly spelled out in the act. No matter what happens with the MVET, congestion in Seattle will not decrease as long as the UGMA is being executed to increase congestion, so from my point of view, whether or not I-695 passes will have NO effect on congestion. I don't think the MVET is necessarily all that unfair (although since it comes off the income tax if you itemize, you could probably argue that it is the very most regressive of all taxes with the poor paying 100% of the tax, and those who are rich and itemize deductions paying 65% after IRS rebate); the main reason it's in trouble is it's so obvious. It isn't taken a little at a time like sales tax, there is no witholding. Just one in-your-face lump sum once a year. One of the problems of a market economy is that it uses disparity of income and the resulting disparity of opportunity as a motivator. The difficult thing is that we haven't yet found a system that does a better job of providing economic prosperity even to those on the bottom rung of the ladder. Now it can be argued that our society is too concerned about money, but the same can

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 25, 1999.

Tony-

<> Excuse me but this looks like a non-response to some legitimate questions, coupled with trying to read into my questions an implied slur that I did not make, followed by a quick change of subject. How about just a straight-forward answer?

In reply to the above, I believe that anyone who was told that light rail would have a significant effect on congestion in King County was being deceived. The passenger miles traveled by light rail throughout the nation (and in every indiviual locale) is trivial compared to the passenger miles traveled in motor vehicles.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 25, 1999.

Gary wrote:

"In reply to the above, I believe that anyone who was told that light rail would have a significant effect on congestion in King County was being deceived. The passenger miles traveled by light rail throughout the nation (and in every indiviual locale) is trivial compared to the passenger miles traveled in motor vehicles."

Gary, what's your point? Even if it's the worst plan in the world, it still *passed by public vote*. What you 695 supporters are saying is that you want people to be able to vote on tax increases. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE PEOPLE DID WITH SOUND TRANSIT.

Whether you think it's dumb or not, obviously the public wanted it. If they didn't, they wouldn't have passed it.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Gary:

First, I admit that I don't have a preconceived dollar value for what "too expensive" is for a light rail system in Seattle. If we were voting on a light rail system again, maybe I would do more research on light rail than before. So I will change my answer to your previous question from a "no" to an "I don't know" until I study more light rail systems and come up with a dollar value for "too expensive." I also apologize for saying you imply the voters are idiots, since you simply meant they were ill-informed about a particular issue.

But this entire discussion about light rail, fun though it may be, is still "Monday-morning quarterbacking" of an issue that the voters already approved of. Now, it seems that you know a bit more about the intricacies of mass transit than many people. Great! However, the RTA still passed, including light rail. Maybe this was "wrong", but you believe the voters were simply deceived. I'm not so sure, but let's just say they were. If that's so, then you'll have to accept that most people wil lack the expertise to vote the "right" way. Now, I'm all for a more informed electorate myself, and I welcome constructive criticism and debate. I'm just wondering how voting for I-695 would prevent the voters from being, as you said, "deceived" again on transportation issues. My answer is that it's not--if, in fact, they were "deceived" in the first place!

In my opinion, I-695 is a deception of its own--posing as a tax cut for the "little guy", when it's the rich who will benefit the most. But this is an issue that I'd rather discuss in another thread, as this thread is getting a little lengthy.

Side note: comparing the number of miles traveled by rail vs. the number of miles traveled by car hides the fact that rail does not go everywhere a car can go. I could just as easily say that the number of miles traveled by car is vastly more than the number traveled in rowboats! Before I dismiss light rail as a "boondoggle", I'd like to know how many people choose rail vs. car when they actually have a choice. If it's still 3% vs. 97%, maybe then I'll reconsider light rail. I'd also like to know more about the benefits of light rail vs. cars, such as the lack of emissions.

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Tony-

"Before I dismiss light rail as a "boondoggle", I'd like to know how many people choose rail vs. car when they actually have a choice." And what determines "a choice." My problem with light rail is more mathematical than philosophical. Linear systems are held hostage to geometry, the laws of physics, and queing theory. The USDOT has pretty well established through exhaustive studies that people will not travel more than about 1/4 mile to a transit stop, and that in good weather, if they aren't carrying anything particularly cumbersome. For every transit stop, that gives you a "catchment area" of potential customers of pi times (1/4 mile) squared. With a twenty mile line with twenty stops you have a total catchment area of about 4 square miles, or 1.2% of the Metro Seattle 330 square miles. Light Rail, nationwide, averages 14 mph. If you add more stations you increase the catchment area, but decrease the speed. It's a geometrical trade-off on poorer service (time to destination) versus larger catchment area coverage. So the issue of choice is a very real one. You limit your catchment area or decrease your speed. This is the reason that linear transit systems like this that once were quite common (even in the Puget Sound Region) went out of business after WWII. Now you get to a real economic issue if you are spending $100 million per mile, as to what percentage of the Seattle Metro population you can AFFORD to put within 1/4 mile of a light rail station (not just the line itself). The answer is NOT VERY MANY, so you're right, dang few will get that choice, even in Seattle. For locales with a lower population density than downtown Seattle, the percentage will be even less. Which again begs the question of why we are spending $2 billion (60 times the annual King County roads capital investment) for a system that can't possibly affect congestion, something the MAX people in Portland have already admitted.

*

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 26, 1999.

What about park-and-ride lots? How does that figure into the catchment area of a transit station? (Of course, not every station has room for a park-and-ride lot).

-- Tony (laserman22@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Tony-

Park and rides, kiss and rides, and other issues..... These too have been STUDIED TO DEATH by the USDOT and I would refer you to their DOTBOT search engine for details. Now with a line terminating at one end at the UW and the other end at SEA-TAC airport, two of the most difficult areas in Washington to find parking at, this is almost a moot issue, but let's pretend the line went to the Park and Ride North of Northgate, up around 145th. It turns out that people regard an intermodal change as the equivalent of about 12-14 minutes travel time in their trip planning (See http://www.bts.gov/tmip/papers/mode/transfer/ch5.htm, transfer penalty in urban choice modeling) , so a park and ride in the decision to use or not use transit winds up being worth a 12-14 minute delay (plus half the interval between departing trains). Feeder buses are even worse since, typically, they are optimized to take people TO THE TRAIN rather than to their destination, resulting in most transit systems becoming LESS efficient at moving people after light rail is installed. That doesn't mean that nobody will use park and rides, some will. Most won't. For those that do, it turns out that there is very little gain in pollution (cold start issue) or fuel consumption. Recommend you look at http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubman/report/articles/transit.htm Really, unless you co-locate the housing with the transit (which Metro is trying to do) you are fighting a losing battle with geometry. I hate fighting the laws of physics, they enforce themselves, and even Johnny Cochran can't get you off the hook when you try to break one.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 26, 1999.

Tony- No response.

Does that mean you agree, you give up, or your disgusted and want to go somewhere else. I was kind of enjoying talkin REAL issues that can be objectively measured or researched, rather than some of the demagoguery that has occurred in many of the threads. I'd rather learn facts and debate philosophy than get into a "you're a bleeding heart idiot" versus "you're a selfish rich despoiler of the environment" name ca

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 27, 1999.

Jeff-

RE:I can see the merit in completely privatized transit, but, to be honest, there are class inplications involved in eliminating public transit which is affordable to lower-income people.

Took me a while to find this, but it was worth the wait. http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/rc98064.pdf

In January 1998, the Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) decided to suspend construction, for at least 6 months, on two of the four remaining extensions of the Los Angeles Red Line subway while it addresses severe financial difficulties. This decision responded to MTAs financial problems, which are limiting MTAs ability to complete the Red Line and other projects as planned. A number of factors have contributed to its fiscal crisis, including an October 1996 consent decree that forced MTA to shift its funding priority from completing the Red Line to expanding its bus servicea program that MTA estimates will cost about $1 billion through 2013.

The consent decree was related to the fact that by diverting funds to build a rail system, the quality of the bus system went down. It was also established that users of light rail, heavy rail, and commuter rail tend to have incomes ABOVE those of the population as a whole, and certainly above the other users of transit. The court made LA MTA stop divering funds away from their lower income customers to service the "carriage trade" that used heavy rail.

Opinion?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 31, 1999.