I am unclear about I-695, given that license tabs currently fund a vast number of vital services like repairing and improving our roads, E-911, and education - how are these services going to be funded after I-695?

It doesn't make much sense to me to be reduce the license tabs on my car if I can't drive it anywhere.

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 25, 1999

Answers

Are you being serious??

When you buy gas, you help pay for roads. When you pay property tax, you pay for schools and other things. When you buy things at the store, you pay sales tax, which pays for many other things. when you pay your phone bill you help pay for 911. etc, etc.

This state has a huge surplus in my opinion and to have a surplus we are overtaxed. And yes it is good to have a surplus for a rainy day but come on, over a billion is too much.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

I share James' concern. I-695 would cut out over a third of the revenue that the DOT has budgeted for next year, and would probably force the cancellation of many badly needed expansion and renovation projects.

Hammerhead's attitude is "so what, there's an overall budget surplus, we can cover this, we're overtaxed anyway." Hrm. So, the answer to an overall budget surplus is to cut the main revenue source from a department that's probably underfunded to begin with? And endure a year of chaos while the state bureaucracy struggles to shift the money around to pay for transportation projects? Seems pretty short-sighted to me.

I might be in favor of I-695 if I lived in another state, so that I could laugh at Washingtonians when they whine next year about decaying and overburdened highways, and when they yell and scream when WA is forced to resort to an income tax to pay for necessary infrastructure improvements.

-- Jeremy York (beanish@blarg.net), August 25, 1999.

Okay, the state has a surplus and therefore you are going to repeal a funding source that is much larger than the surplus?

So, you'd rather have a state income tax? Higher gas taxes? I don't know if you've noticed or not, but there is a lot of congestion around here. There are a lot of people moving here. There is a lot going on.

Now, the government doesn't just wake up in the morning and willy- nilly toss money around. There is a rather protracted process they go through to allocate funds. If I-695 were to disappear, several vital projects in the works would be halted until other funding could happen. I-695 also says that all new funding will go to the voters, meaning they will need to:

1. Identify a new potential funding source 2. Go to the voters to get it passed 3. If it is passed wait for the funding to start 4. Begin doing the project they should have done 2 years ago, but couldn't because of I-695.

Ultimately, if you buy a car you should expect to pay to drive it. If you don't want to pay the MVET, buy a used car.

It costs me much more to insure my car for the unlikely event that I'll be in a wreck than it does to drive on the roads I use every day.

Jim

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 25, 1999.

When politicians are threatened by loss of power and tax money, their first reaction is to cut seemingly vital programs like transportation projects and community protection services. This is to create a sense of urgency to continue lavish spending and increasing taxes to support their own agendas, never mind what the people want. It's no wonder I-695 has been presented. The biggest expense of any organization is employee payroll. If you want budget cuts that do not cut necessary services, explore government employee compensation packages, specifically retirement. Government retirement programs average the last three years of an employee's salary, then that average is used as an annual retirement salary. Government agencies maintain small staffs to maximize overtime pay to employees. Once three years of an overtime-enhanced salary is established and the employee retires, the government must pay the inflated retirement salary. How many former employees are enjoying this "benefit"? The argument that somehow the state is going to "lose" money is completely absurd. In business a loss is referred to as less earnings for a time period in comparison to the same time period one year earlier. For example if Boeing states earnings for a quarter represent a "loss", it means the earnings were less than the same quarter one year earlier. Boeing still had sales and still had revenue coming in, it just happened to be less. Boeing would not necessarily raise prices to cover this loss. They would look at ways to maximize efficiencies and maintain customer loyalty by not raising prices. Government should take this same approach. Maybe I-695 could also allow for voters to have the final say on what agencies, programs or services should be cut too. Thank you.

-- James Feczko (jimfive@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Mr. James Benson

The MVET does not fund education in any manner. Please quit trying to scare people.

Every time you purchase 10 gal of gasoline you pay $4.14 for the roads. Examine your property tax bill. You also pay for roads with it. Washington has one of the highest gas taxes in the nation. Other states pay for their roads with gas tax. Washington has paid for the roads with gas tax up until this year.

Watch dog groups such as the Evergreen Freedom Foundation have been monitoring the DOT waste for years. They have a laundry list of ways DOT could improve. The problem is not lack of money. The problem is how to spend it in a productive way.

-- RD (Monte) Benham (rmonteb@aol.com), August 25, 1999.

You and I know that the roads will be maintained and built. The services that are IMPORTANT will be funded. The surplus is the peoples surplus, not the governments. If I-695 is passed, then the people have spoken and the government should use it to cover costs till they can justify to the people that a tax hike is needed.

I know about congested freeways, I drive from Tacoma to Seattle all week. I have lived here for thiry years and the roads have been crap the whole time. The state has collected and collected and they have wasted it.

As for, "the government doesn't just wake up in the morning and willy-nilly toss money around", bull!!!!!! Safeco Field!!!!Is one example of taxpayer waste. King Co. voters said NO!! And then the government said YES you do want this.

Millienum party is another waste the government is forcing us to pay for.

And there is alot more.

Even if you do buy used, you pay to much for MVET. Since the state doesn't use the actual sales price to calculate the tax. A person could buy a '94 Camry that has 200,000 miles on it, all beat up and has a fair market of $1000 but the state will still charge you about $400. It just doesn't add up right.

As for paying more on insurance, you are a bad driver probably or a sucker.

And yes I would pay more for gas and/or vote for a special tax to make are roads better

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 25, 1999.

Please Mr. York...

Do not try to tell me that the govt does not "wake up one morning and willy-nilly toss money around". They do and against the voters wishes.

Okanogan County just got $300,000.00 TOSSED at them for a tansit system that was voted down with a 67% no vote. This is in a county with a population density of 6 people per square mile. Why did they not use that someplace where it would benefit someone?

-- rons (ron1@televar.com), August 25, 1999.

My wife and I rounded almost 5oo signatures in support of I-695 and were glad to contribute to this initiative. It's about time "we the people" put a stop to the government's Overspending of Our Money. I firmly agree that we are paying outragious prices for our license tabs. One of my bikes cost more now than it did when it was new and I love the $20 option tax they hit me with. Who's option, mine or theirs. I believe the main issue here, along with reasonable license tab fees is that it is the peoples right to vote on what we want and don't want. Look at the bussing issue. It was voted down but continued until it was proven that it accomplished absolutely nothing. I don't know about anybody else, but I'm getting sick and tired of politicians spending my money any way they want and I have no say as to how it is spent. The government is supposed to be for the people not the government for the government. And I just love the millineum party idea. Are we invited? Thank You.....Jack

-- Jack Spiering (Jas-Sas@webtv.net), August 25, 1999.

So...

I go back to my original question, who repairs the roads?

I for one would like a road to drive my car on. I would like that road to have improvements. I would like these things to be funded.

This funding comes from license tabs.

I have two cars, one is a 79 Volvo and the other is a 99 Saab Wagon. I am happy to pay the tabs for them even though one is $49 and the other is $1000. I chose to buy the Saab. I understand that I will pay fees for it. I also understand that the roads are not toll roads.

I also understand that if you abruptly interrupt a revenue stream from anything, it will have negative impacts. In this case the negative impacts will primarily be on our transportation system.

It is true that the Washington legislature will have to come up with an alternative funding source to compensate for this short sighted, simplistic and fundamentally stupid measure and it is true that they will have to go to the voters to ask for it.

I should hope that everyone who votes for I-695 will be out to also vote for the new funding mechanism to replace the monies that will be necessary to undo the damage. If you choose to believe that the Washington State surplus is a constant, rather than the result of some unprecedented growth that is fine. I just wish you didn't have to drag the rest of us down with you.

You know, we do elect people to the Washington State Legislature to do a job. We do this so that we don't have to vote on every single measure that comes up. We elect people to keep track of the nuances and the minutia and the incredibly complex issues that surround the operations of a major state like Washington.

Thus far, we only have one gripe against WSDOT that was raised by one guy from Clallam County about one isolated event that more than likely was due to the reception of grant money for transit. Are we really this dissatisfied with WSDOT that we are willing to cripple our transportation future and the economic viability of our region?

In the next 20 years, the Puget Sound region is going to double in population. Think about how transportation is operating right now. It doesn't take a lot of calculations to figure out that we're running a pretty tight race.

Now think of I-405. Tweaks and major construction have been going on there pretty much constantly just to keep with the existing growth. It doesn't take long to see that any interruption in transporation planning and implementation will be very harmful to the region.

Jim

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 25, 1999.

What is it about business that encourages efficiency. It is, of course, greed and the profit motive. Whoever can think of a better mousetrap makes more money, they thrive, others copy, entrepenuers fill the voids, etc. etc. Government and its highways have no profit motive or competition. They are horribly inefficient, and revenue cuts and limitations on what government ought to be involved in are the only ways to even approach fiscal responsiveness. Anyone who thinks self-interested politicians or democracy can accomplish efficiency is living in a fantasy world.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 26, 1999.

Jim: Just ask yourself how much better our roads would be if the state had used the 11% increase in the budget this year for the roads then in social programs that most working people don't benifit from. You and Patrick keep crying about the lost funds the government will have to deal with, but don't say anything about the continue increases in the budget every year. If the state can't afford a 2% loss in revenues, then they sure as hell can't afford an 11% increase.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.

Okay, so we have one person who hates democracy and another who believes that bankrupt agencies will spend money better.

Thanks for the input.

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 26, 1999.

JIM,

"I for one would like a road to drive my car on. I would like that road to have improvements. I would like these things to be funded. This funding comes from license tabs."

!!!IT WILL GET FUNDED!!

"We do elect people to the Washington State Legislature to do a job. We do this so that we don't have to vote on every single measure that comes up. We elect people to keep track of the nuances and the minutia and the incredibly complex issues that surround the operations of a major state like Washington."

Yes, we did elect them. And they didn't do what they were elected to do. So we have to strip them of some of their power and do it ourselves.

"Thus far, we only have one gripe against WSDOT that was raised by one guy from Clallam County about one isolated event that more than likely was due to the reception of grant money for transit. Are we really this dissatisfied with WSDOT that we are willing to cripple our transportation future and the economic viability of our region?"

Lets see, we had a bunch of overpasses that were never completed in Seattle that sat there for years and then were torn down, were they underfunded or just bad planning and a waste of money? We voted for mass transit before. Do you really think we will let our "transportation future and the economic viability of our region cripple?". NO!!!

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Hammerhead writes:

"Yes, we did elect them. And they didn't do what they were elected to do. So we have to strip them of some of their power and do it ourselves."

Or you could do what people in this country have always done if their politicians don't do what they were elected to do: VOTE THEM OUT OF OFFICE! If they're still in office, obviously the electorate doesn't think they're doing a bad job. You might, but if these people are still in office, obviously the majority doesn't agree with you.

"Lets see, we had a bunch of overpasses that were never completed in Seattle that sat there for years and then were torn down, were they underfunded or just bad planning and a waste of money?"

I'm going to assume you're talking about the old I-90 bridges to nowhere near the Kingdome, right? I think that the *probable* (meaning I'm not sure) explanation is that the feds were going crazy building new interstates when those were put into place. Instead of having to build totally new overpasses, they wanted to put those into place in case the interchange was ever expanded, which they probably envisioned it would be in the near future.

So what they were trying to do was save some money in case more construction was needed. Give them a little bit of credit. Perhaps at that point a new interchange was considered a sure thing, but something intervened to make it no longer a reality. Just like the bridges to nowhere on 520 near Montlake.

Although I'm sure if they would have ended up having to build a new intersection soon afterward, you'd probably be the first in line to criticize them for not having the foresight to build partial ramps to save cost in the future.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

BB,

We have and will vote them out and we tell them what we want them to do and when that fails, we write Initatives like this one.

-- hammer (hammerhead1@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Hammerhead writes:

"We have and will vote them out and we tell them what we want them to do and when that fails, we write Initatives like this one."

But if you have and will vote them out, then you shouldn't fail. Your logic makes no sense. If you fail, then obviously the majority doesn't support your views, because those people who you disagree with have been elected to office.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

bb,

Your the one that doesn't make since. If the people we voted in did their job right then we wouldn't need initiatives like this one. I guess we will see whose side majority is on in November.

-- hammer (hammerhead@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

This BB thinks that as long as politicians are elected by a majority, every thing they do on every topic is somehow indisputably "the will of the people" and should not be changed or questioned. It used to be that the rulers justified their power by claiming to be authorized by God. Now I guess "authority" comes from the voting majority. Presumably BB thinks that there is no limit to this authority? Usually we have a choice between just two candidates, who will vote on multitudes of issues, and their position will be diluted by their fellow legislator's votes and special interest influence, not to mention that the majority of voters who elected them in the first place probably did so in a state of a certain amount of ignorance. Sounds like a great way to run the world! No thanks. As a citizen who has to pay these outrageous taxes with MY hard-earned money, I know when its time to draw the line. To hell with the politicians, the majority, and the system. It is infringing on my rights as an INDIVIDUAL.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 27, 1999.

So what you all are telling me is that I-695 is just a precursor to your armed rebellion? I think maybe you need some perspective in this matter. You are upset about paying for the roadways you use every day. Your auto insurance costs much more and costs nothing for the insurance companies to maintain. Your plates cost much less than your car for that matter and they pay for miles and miles of roadway. So when met with this immutable truth, you turn your argument not to plate fees, but to just hating democracy in general.

This helps me quite a bit, actually. You see I thought this was an argument about license tabs. I did not realize that I-695 was actually some separatist movement to undermine the United States of America.

Thank you for the clarification.

Jim

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 27, 1999.

Notwithstanding all the bombastic hyperbole, Greg writes:

"As a citizen who has to pay these outrageous taxes with MY hard- earned money, I know when its time to draw the line. To hell with the politicians, the majority, and the system. It is infringing on my rights as an INDIVIDUAL."

So I'm assuming that you've brought a lawsuit against the government, right? And the court held that your rights as an individual were infringed, right? Because that's the standard that our society uses to determine whether your rights have been infringed.

I'd love to see the court case. You've got one, right?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

To evaluate I-695 it is necessary to look at the roads situation as it exists in Washington. The state roads are truly wonderful, especially on the east side of the state. Almost any other state with as much desolate area as Washington would be envious of our roads. The only real traffic problems are in Seattle, which should deal with the traffic as a city and county issue. The Washington roads need money to be well kept up, and this costs money, which has to come from somewhere, whether it's taxes on tabs, sales tax, or property tax. The fair way to tax is to have those with more money pay more because they can afford to. A flat tax sounds fair but it falls disproportionately on poorer people. The state tax on motor vehicle tabs is proportionate to the car's value, so people with more expensive cars pay more. Another fair way to tax would be on a vehicle's weight, so SUV's and trucks that cause more wear on the road pay more in taxes. The measure in I-695 to restrict any new taxes by the state except through the vote of the people is just a backhanded way to cripple the state government. I-695 is touted as a measure to equalize taxes, it is really a way for the rich to reduce their taxes at everyone's expense.

-- Nick Glatzer (nglatze@tcs.tulane.edu), August 27, 1999.

Nick-

Just wondering. While you're in school down at Tulane, do you register your car in Washington State and pay the MVET?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 28, 1999.

"The Washington roads need money to be well kept up, and this costs money," (Well, DUH) "which has to come from somewhere,"

Well Nick, I am delighted that Tulane is teaching you the blooming obvious. A few more uears of this and you can match up against...... Well maybe Dan Quayle.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 28, 1999.

Jim How will reducing the annual increases to the states budget bankrupt the government. They raised it by 11%. Did you get an 11% raise this year. I didn't nor last year. Why can't these people live within our means. Or are you someone that believes that the people that actually earns the money will not spend it correctly (Bill Clinton) and only the government knows whats best for us. And no, I am not wanting to over throw the government, just wanting to hold them accountable.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), August 28, 1999.

Ed:

Well, lets see what 11% means. Is that of the total state budget, or total government spending in the state, or what? If the state did nothing more than it did last year, with the same staff, supplies, expenses, etc., you still need to fund the inflation in the cost of doing that. Things cost more than last year. People get paid more than last year. Benefits costs for the state go up, just like any business. But that CPI increase only funds what the state did last year. Did anyone move here since last year? Anyone have a baby? Anyone build a home or business that needs some sort of government service? Did someone ask the legislature to institute a new program to solve a problem that didn't exist or wasn't addressed last year? All of that means additional activity required of the state, that needs to be funded. So, the new revenue needed to provide services for the new people and businesses and services cost more than last year, but funds are generated by the new people and businesses that were not here last year. How much it will cost depends on how much growth is occuring in the state, how healthy the ecomony is, and how much the people ask their government to do. Taxes go up, but they don't go up at the rate of the budget increase for the individual tax payer; and we do get something for what is paid in taxes.

If you just cut funding, and tell the governments to "cut waste"; how does that translate in real situations? What you call waste, someone else calls an urgent necessity. The government spends money on some things I wouldn't support personally, like professional sports , or preservation of some of the wetlands; but they also spend money on things I appreciate, like roads, and public safety, and parks. We elect people to balance these interests, and give everyone all of what they need, most of what they want, and some of what they would like to see in public spending. If you don't like their choices, get involved in the process of setting priorities and help elect candidates. Picking out "targets of opportunity" among government programs you don't agree with, is not persuasive. No one is going to agree with everything the government does, but that is no reason not to support it. Did you get your share of government services this year, or over the past 5 years? Would you even be able to find a job, to earn the money for the taxes, if government was not supporting a healthy state economy by some of the programs you don't like?

Simple solutions almost never resolve complex problems. I-695 is not just simple, it is simple-minded. It doesn't even do what it is trying to do very well, and what it is trying to do is wrong-headed and contrary to basic representative government.

So, on to the attack all you rabid 695 supporters!

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), August 28, 1999.

dbvz- Thank you for lowering yourself by calling the supporters rabid. I guess were the same ones the demos say want to kill old people and give guns to children. Just tried to point out a few things in a sensible way, not to flame anyone. Oops, got to go, have to pickup moms dog food for dinner and teach Jr. how to clean that new AK.

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), August 29, 1999.

Craig Carson, I'm glad you noticed how obvious I was being, that's good, because it is obvious that this initiative will blow a hole right through the state budget, which is not good. Do you think all the tax money is just taken then thrown away? No, it goes for useful things like roads, sewers, power plants, and education. The waste you should be upset about is in consumer goods, where companies like pepsi and GM spend hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, focus groups, and patent lawyers, which is then paid for by higher prices for their merchandise. A lot of people think government is wasteful, but the real waste is all in business, that's why I don't mind paying my MVET but I do mind paying $1.89 for a Big Mac that costs 27 cents. My governmental dollars are well spent, my money that goes to corporate america is wasted on golden parachutes and stock options. I want Washington to have well-kept roads, helpful social services, and a good education system. If you want to see how bad an underfunded education system can be, come to New Orleans where I am and see the chaos, poverty and hopelessness caused by a severe lack of governmental action. I am glad you knew where Tulane was, not many Washingtonians do I've noticed, and if they compare Washington with other states, I'm sure the people sponsoring this initiative will think twice about breaking the state budget for "the common good" (not that this initiative will help the poorer half at all). -Nick Glatzer

-- Nick Glatzer (nglatze@tcs.tulane.edu), August 29, 1999.

That's OK Nick-

Believe it or not, I was once a young liberal anti-business radical too. We all go through that stage in college. Most all of us grow out of it. Eldridge (Soul on Ice) Cleaver ended up a relatively conservative Republican. Prominent members of the Yippies (Youth International Party) wound up being stockbrokers. You'll grow up too Nick. Reassure your parents for me, OK? Tell them that Craig said that you'll grow up too.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 29, 1999.

James Benson and BB, I would like a straight answer--maybe in % of income or dollar amount--how much tax is too much? Is it up to the politicians or the legal system to decide? Do I have any right to the money I earn, or is it up to my fellow man to decide what I may keep? Does each person get to be the King when they decide this question, or is there any basis in principle here? You talk about the roads, and this and that as though they were important, but maybe one month when the tabs come due, the fixed-income retiree is facing the choice of paying the tabs or paying for medicine. How do you know what's important? Who's money is it, anyway?

And for the guy who hates McDonalds: learn a critical difference between business and government. DON'T BUY THE BURGER. Can't do that with government, or they'll throw you in jail.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 29, 1999.

Nick, what causes people to be wealthy? Good government?

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 29, 1999.

Mr. Glatzer-

"A lot of people think government is wasteful, but the real waste is all in business, that's why I don't mind paying my MVET but I do mind paying $1.89 for a Big Mac that costs 27 cents."

Do you not recognize an essential difference in these comparisons? All citizens have a right and an obligation to make their opinions known and vote their consciences on taxes, because these are collected under threat of the police power of the state. No one compels you to buy that Big Mac. You can buy 50# of dry rice for about $7, and live on rice and crawdad butts (plentiful the last time I was in Louisiana) quite cheaply for a couple of months. That's your choice, not McDonald strong-arming you, if you ELECT to buy a Big Mac. Now when I vote for a levy or other taxes (and no doubt to the great surprise of some of you, I generally DO vote for tax increases when the need is genuine), I have voted to impose my will BY FORCE over the minority voting against that increase. If, through my efforts, I initiate a process that deprives other people of resources for a cause I believe to be valid, I believe it creates a moral obligation on my part to ensure that the resources taken do not exceed the legitimate need, and that they are effectively and efficiently used. Now if I ELECT to buy a Big MAC, I choose to accept all the consequences, price, grease, cholesterol, triglycerides, special sauce-breath, sesame seeds in my teeth, whatever.

Can you not see an ethical difference?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 29, 1999.

Nick in your post about New Orleans, education and McDonalds it is obvious you are fast developing a communist ideology.

The amount of money spend on education or ANYTHING for that matter doesn't correlate to it's effectiveness or it's quality. I use that basic fact when I shop for anything. I can buy things at the store with the most recognizable name and pay $100.00 for the exact same item that I would pay $20.00 for at a different store and not get the shopping bag that says PUTZ sixth Avenue.

I can get HIGHER quality items for less money because I know what I am doing.

Throwing more moeny into the toilet doesn't improve the quality of the toilet.

And being outraged because free enterprise allows people to earn a living is a really screwed up philosophy.

Maybe you should move to a country where they apply your philosophy and earn your $50.00 a month no matter what profession you happen to be in.

Learn that the only way to survive is by breaking the law and dealing in the 'black market'

You see free enterprise, in many countries is against the law and it is called the 'black market'. And it is the ONLY means that people have of obtaining many of life's necessities.

That's what government can do for you and you deserve to experience it first hand instead of spouting drivel that has been dumped into your mind by some Communistic professor who preaches against the system that has kept him comfortable his entire life.

I-695 returns some "power to the people", a phrase that communists love to shout, but has no meaning in their ideology.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 29, 1999.

Sigh,

Well this deteriorated fairly quickly, didn't it?

Ultimately what I was concerned about was causing a dangerous interruption in transportation funding in a state that can ill afford such an interruption.

Obviously there is waste in government. There is probably waste in your household as well. This is not the point. The point is that you are advocating a dangerous interruption in transportation funding while we are growing rapidly.

Now we are calling people communists and saying that democracy is bad. If you are unwilling to discuss transportation funding then I see no point in continuing this thread.

I, for one, would like to have a focused conversation.

1. We need transportation planning and improvements. 2. We are rapidly growing and this need is growing. 3. Large scale projects take a great deal of time to plan and bring to fruition. 4. I-695 will cause currently planned projects to be put on hold or cancelled due to lack of funding. 5. The government operates on a funding biennium and will have a very difficult time rearranging funds during that biennium. 6. Voting for all taxes will be tedious and counter-productive.

I would like to discuss these 6 points and not how much people hate the officials they elected or McDonalds or communists or transporation conspiracies or martians or glue sniffing or paper bag puppets.

Thank you,

Jim

-- Jim Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 29, 1999.

A 5% cut in government is "dangerous"? Good Lord. Who's the one engaging in hyperbole here? Look, when these highway projects are planned out, most of them are Cadillacs when a Chevy will do. You get a ton of fancy engineering, sidewalks, drainage, blah, blah. The TIB and other such grants are guarenteed to be used up--there's no need to spend carefully when it's not your money. The little bit of this system that I've had the pleasure to participate in is like a big teat for these contractors and engineering firms. I firmly believe that when funding dries up for this, the system will either be streamlined by the politicians, or fed from a different source (cuts in a different part of state government). Don't worry, my friend, your roads will be built. There's plenty o' money out there still, even with "dangerous" I-695 cuts.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 29, 1999.

There is an assumption that more money and more roads somehow saves us from an unsavory traffic jammed future. Is this a proven solution? Is there a model city somewhere that has the formula which everyone seems to be copying? Schools, for example, show no correlation between money spent and education quality. Could this also be true of this approach to growth and traffic?

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 29, 1999.

Greg-

Actually, we aren't spending money to attempt to decrease congestion. The urban growth management act attempts to increase population density while restricting general purpose traffic lanes in a vain attempt to force everyone into transit. The new Narrows Bridge, for example: The old bridge cost $14 million in 1950. Shouldn't come as any surprise that it's inadequate for 2000. But what the bridge plan dreamed up by DOT will do is to convert the existing 4 lane stucture (2 each way) to two general purpose and one HOV lanes. The new bridge (about $350 million if on budget) will have two general purpose and one HOV lane going the OTHER way. By the time the HOV lanes and approaches are added for the new bridge, the total cost will be over $700 million. The net gain, one HOV lane each way. That's bizarre, but it is in keeping with the current urban planning mantra of no new general purpose lanes. Please see this website: http://www.bts.gov/smart/cat/bak/retk.html

If you look at the King County capital improvement budget projection for the next six years EXCLUSIVE OF the $ 3.9 million for rail, you'll find: Roads- 298 million for 6 years capital improvement only Transit 782 million for 6 years capital improvement only

http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/04capita.pdf

And if you look at the detail, much of the roads is for HOV lanes and busways. People need to get into these planning documents and see for themselves. We've been underfunding roads for a decade in order to over-fund transit. But even when we've had the money, we haven't put it on roads because that's not the plan. The plan is to increase population density in the urban areas. Since transit does not meet most peoples needs to near the extent the auto does, transit use does not go up enough to offset the increase in population density, hence more congestion. Read the planning documents. They are on-line. This isn't a secret plan, it's right out in the open.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 29, 1999.

Gary writes:

"If you look at the King County capital improvement budget projection for the next six years EXCLUSIVE OF the $ 3.9 million for rail, you'll find: Roads- 298 million for 6 years capital improvement only Transit 782 million for 6 years capital improvement only"

Well, look at their damned traffic concurrancy computer program for the reason why there's no money for roads (at least from the developers). It automatically adjusts all traffic numbers downward if a particular development would cause the amount of traffic on a particular road to go over a limit that would cause the developer to have to kick in road funding.

So what happens is, every single development gets approved, whether it would cause too much traffic or not. And the developers don't have to pay any fees to help build the necessary increased road capacity.

Pretty sweet deal for those dudes, huh?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

I know that you would like to think that the government is one monolithic entity, but it is not it is made up of agencies. Each agency has its own budget. You are not cutting 5% of "the government" you are cutting 40% of WSDOT.

As for the arguments that WSDOT has a mantra of adding no new general purpose lanes, they are right now thinking of ways to build I-605 which sure as hell isn't going to be HOV only. As for other places -- I'd like you to tell me where you're going to put more general purpose lanes on I-5, 520, I-90 or 405.

THERE ISN'T ANY ROOM!

Maybe the solutions aren't as simple as you think.

I know that you people think that "the guvurnment" is a big entity that spends 90% of its time trying to figure out how to tax you and that the people in Olympia who are out to spend tax dollars have a big checkbook and a big pen and they just go nuts -- but it really is much more complex than that.

And I know that you are confused that we elect people and then they go off and do crazy things like try to govern.

But things don't just happen out of mid-air. Someone didn't just wake up and say, "Hey, heh-heh, let's not build any more general purpose lanes." What did happen is that the areas are built out and there aren't surface streets to handle local traffic.

So, can we improve the areas freeways without building new GP lanes? The answer is yes. How? By creating alternatives. These can include things like more surface streets to reduce the number of local trips using the freeways and by helping make it not necessary to drive long distances for everything.

Would it be nice to build nothing but millions of GP lanes everywhere? Well, then we'd be Phoenix. We'd have lots of flat, cheap land and no one would complain. But we're not - we're Washington - we have mountains and lakes and expensive land. We have topographic retraints.

These restraints also include salmon streams, wetlands and tribal lands. All of which raise the cost of creating a freeway or a street or anything.

However, I don't know why I'm saying this because when I meet your charges that the transportation people are bad with reasonable arguments you say that the government sucks anyway. When I meet those charges you say that transportation people are bad.

Your arguments are circular.

Please think these things through.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

Jim-

I would request that you, and everyone else out there actually go to this USDOT site and actually read this article on the USDOT website:

http://www.bts.gov/smart/cat/bak/retk.html

I was around when highway 99, the Alaskan Way viaduct, Empire Way (as it was called back then) and military road were the main arteries in this area. People at that time said that there was no room for I-5. There was. It wasn't cheap, and it wasn't quick, but it was built. Now you say the same about additional GP lanes. I'm sorry but your wrong.

You talk of alternatives. I've got no problems with that, but the only alternatives that make sense are those that are more cost- effective than the GP lanes. You don't do an alternative just to do something different, you do an alternative to get something that's better. It's time to face some very real facts. Transit has had no real growth in market share, despite massive subsidies. As an alternative to the automobile, it's been a practical failure. Light- rail is one of the LEAST effective forms of transit. And the land use policies that we have are making things worse rather than better. Now understand, I can live with all these things. The reason they were brought up is because opponents of I-695 are justifying their opposition on the basis of an argument that the passage of I-695 will make congestion worse. I'm simply pointing out that the MVET loss really won't make much difference in the congestion situation anyway, since the causes of the congestion mess are external to the uses of these funds.

And deriding opponents as yokels who are anti-"guvurnment" in lieu of actually reading the above article and openly debating it is not the way to convince anyone of the intellectual or moral superiority of your arguments.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Jim-

I don't know if Henriksen's right or not, but I read that reference and I can't think of any other reason that WDOT would propose a $700 million bridge across the Narrows that would result in a NET GAIN OF TWO HOV LANES! Explain that to me, and I'll listen to why you believe his arguments are circular. Also; Is there something in the State Constitution that restricts the legislature from re-allocating funds to WDOT from the 98% of the government that isn't affected by the passage of I-695, or is your whole argument that this can't be done because it would actually require our state legislature to pass one (1) bill and have the governor sign it??

-- Craig Carson (cragicar@crosswinds.net), August 30, 1999.

BB-

"Well, look at their damned traffic concurrancy computer program for the reason why there's no money for roads (at least from the developers). It automatically adjusts all traffic numbers downward if a particular development would cause the amount of traffic on a particular road to go over a limit that would cause the developer to have to kick in road funding."

I have no particular problem with charging an infrastructure cost when you allow development, as long as the money is spent for the utility and transportation needs necessary to cope with the new development, but I'd allocate the transportation funding for what people really use, roads, rather than what the planners wish they'd use, transit. But giving transit it's pro rata share (95% roads, 5% transit) would be fine. I learned decades ago at the UW that you can tell people to keep off the grass as dogmatically as you want, but it's easier to just put sidewalks where they wear out the grass.

*

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Jim-

"Someone didn't just wake up and say, "Hey, heh-heh, let's not build any more general purpose lanes."

Then again maybe they did. Fron that USDOT website. Lead author is a local Seattle boy.

RECOMMENDATION 13: Bus-only and HOV lanes should be established first by conversion from existing general purpose roadways. New lane construction should be a second choice, if it is chosen at all. No lane that is HOV at peak periods only should be constructed, such lanes should be established only by conversion. RECOMMENDATION 14: Urban areas should establish contingency plans for the conversion of general purpose lanes to exclusive HOV or transit use in the event of an energy shortage, a disaster, or nonattainment of clean air standards. RECOMMENDATION 15:Highway design manuals, road fund programming guidelines, transportation laws and plans, and other guidance should require study of the conversion to HOV of general purpose lanes as the prime alternative when any construction of new general purpose or HOV lanes is being considered. RECOMMENDATION 16: Conversion to HOV from general purpose lanes should always be preferred to "take-a-rail."

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 30, 1999.

Oh where to begin....

Yes, it is true, if we destroy Seattle by shoving a major highway through another neighborhood, there is room for a roadway. Now, I will remind you that I-5 and most of the interstate system was built not to move you and your wife around town so you can go to COSTCO to buy grapes. It was built because we were scared of communists like the guy at Tulane. It was built under the argument that we needed it for national defense.

It was shoved through with very little public process. It displaced tens of thousands of households nationwide. I believe this is exactly what you guys say you don't like about government - that it doesn't listen. Well, now it is impossible to build new freeways like that because there is public process and heavy litigation in this country.

We could make the whole region a huge freeway if we wanted. People don't seem to want that.

So there is no room for a freeway. It is that simple. There is stuff in the way. That stuff is you, your neighbors, voters, litigants.

As for HOV lanes, well, let's do the math.

1 lane with 1 person per vehicle moves 2000 people. 1 lane with 2 or more moves at least twice as much.

1 lane on the Tacoma Narrows bridge costs over 100 Million to build. Bridges are very very expensive. Would you have liked three more lanes on either side? If so, where would all of these lanes touched down? And when they touched down where would they go? It seems that WSDOT was trying to save you money. This is especially good use for the Tacoma Narrows because, oddly enough, it has a very high percentage of HOV traffic. Hey, maybe they studied it? Maybe they didn't just make snap judgements about it?

You then need highways on either side capable of carrying those cars and surface streets, etc.

You see, transportation systems are systems - they are complex. Alterations you make in Tacoma have effects in Everett. Changes in Seattle effect North Bend.

Changes in the Puget Sound area have impacts on Spokane.

But people don't vote this way. This is another reason why I-695 is destructive. Let's say there is lots of growth in Snohomish County, which there will be. Now WSDOT, because they are evil, wants to increase capacity in Snohomish County. So they go to the state legislature who wants to fund it. A year later they go to the people of the State of WAshington and say, "Can we please have some money so people in Everett can go to the grocery store?" People in the Tri- Cities say, "Why the hell would I want to pay for a road in Everett?" And it gets voted down everywhere but in Everett and the measure fails.

Then, weeks later, the people from the Tri-Cities want to go to the Tulip Festival, but it take 3 hours to get through Everett and they say, "That damn WSDOT!"

AS for this:

>And deriding opponents as yokels who are anti-"guvurnment" in lieu >of actually reading the above article and openly debating it is not >the way to convince anyone of the intellectual or moral superiority >of your arguments.

Yes, I realize I shouldn't have brought myself down to the level of others.

Jim

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

There is a clear movement to clog cities by not spending money on roads, but spending it on mass transit. Is there any denial of this? People who advocate this believe it will cut down urban sprawl, use of autos (and resulting pollution), community breakup, white flight, strip malls, etc.; this whole thing is kind of a greenie environmental deal. It's going on all around the country. I've heard it called New Urbanism. The folks who advocate this say that government is subsidizing irresponsible growth by building roads on demand. They want compact communities served by mass transit--not a bunch of suburban sprawl with lots of cars. THEY WANT CONGESTION.

Should the guvment be ~serving~ its citizens by providing roads for people (as though putting sidewalks where the grass is worn), or should the guvment be ~managing~ growth and using its coercive methods to alter people's lives in such a way to make things better for everyone?

Of course, if the government provided pizza, the choice for everyone would either be ~pepperoni~ or ~canadian bacon with pineapple~. I guess if we trust in our politicians and political process, even this complex choice could be worked out as long as the citizens don't start shooting from the hip with poorly thought out initiatives lowering the cost of the pizza.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

Okay,

How do you guys suggest we solve congestion?

Please remember that we have no space to build new lanes. So if you suggest it, please remember that you are destroying people's homes.

I want constructive suggestions.

Jim

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

Jim writes:

"Okay, How do you guys suggest we solve congestion?

Please remember that we have no space to build new lanes. So if you suggest it, please remember that you are destroying people's homes.

I want constructive suggestions."

Jim's got a point here. Seattle is a city that is largely built out.

What is the government going to do, tear down thousands of houses by eminent domain? That'll make a large percentage of the population REAL happy.

Or in downtown Seattle, are you going to take out the convention center, Key Tower, the jail, etc.? All these buildings are in close proximity to I-5.

So what's the solution?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

"Please remember that we have no space to build new lanes. So if you suggest it, please remember that you are destroying people's homes. "

Actually, yes. That is the plan. If you study the Urban Managrement Growth Act and note the benchmark being followed, the DESIRED GOAL is redevelopment from low density to high density in the urban areas. As long as we're ripping up existing low density homes for high density construction, we might just as well do it for new freeways. We can build new apartments above the freeways, the same as they are planning to do above the transit facilities.

Source document: http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/agr/agr98/

The Benchmark Program Indicator #32 New housing units built through redevelopment. 7 In 1997, the suburban and rural cities overall redevelopment rate was 15%. Seattles rate is not included. 7 Over 25% of new units were built through redevelopment in Unincorporated King County. The overall redevelopment rate, which includes the suburban and rural cities, (but not Seattle), and Unincorporated King County, was 19%. 7 Redevelopment is defined as the development of new residential units or new employment opportunities on land that already had significant improvements, as opposed to development on vacant land. The 1996 Benchmark Report measures only residential units in redevelopment, not employment opportunities. 7 This Indicator is important because up to half of King Countys remaining land capacity is expected to come from redevelopment. In less urbanized portions of the County, where more vacant land is currently available, it is likely that vacant land will be used before new development occurs on already developed land.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

I personally like the work that they did on I-5 up the Southcenter hill. They added up to two climbing lanes in places, which gives us 7-8 lanes at a time, but it STILL takes forever to get through that area. You could put 12 lanes in one direction and it won't fully solve the congestion problem there. It has been well established that simply adding more general lanes just adds more congestion.

As for the Narrows Bridge, I drive that quite often. The problem really isn't that there aren't enough lanes (most of the time you can do the speed limit immediately after getting off the bridge). The problem is that there are 2 VERY narrow lanes in either direction, there is NOTHING stopping an oncoming car from crossing into your lane, you can't change lanes, there is no shoulder for disabled vehicles, and there is a very steep grade. ALL of these problems, with the exception of the grade on the existing bridge, will be solved with the second bridge. If you are only looking at the addition of the HOV lanes, then you aren't looking at the real problems behind the congestion.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 30, 1999.

>As long as we're ripping up existing low density homes for high >density construction, we might just as well do it for new freeways. >We can build new apartments above the freeways, the same as they are >planning to do above the transit facilities.

I really do appreciate that you are doing so much research. And I must admit that your argument has a certain logic to it. However, densification of neighborhoods doesn't mean wholesale tearing down of existing development, but rather by supporting in-fill development or redevelopment due to market pressures.

Take for example Ballard. Right now there are many many condos going in where previously there were single family houses. This isn't due to anything that the government is doing, but it is due to the fact that the value of the land and the demand for the land is high enough to support multi-family dwellings. Note that the City of Seattle or PSRC or WSDOT is not just coming through and knocking down houses.

So density can be easily achieved without having to destroy anyone's property. Why? Because the free market supports it naturally. Trying to do density in, say, Omaha, will yeild a very different result because the market does not support it.

Jim

-- James Benson (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

James-

"Because the free market supports it naturally. " If this were true, there would be no need for the UGMA and there would be no significant differences in property valuations immediately inside and outside the boundary line. There is a VERY SIGNIFICANT and artificially driven difference in these adjacent valuations, as any realtor can tell you.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

There was a recent report that inner-city residential real estate values, for the first time in x number of years, rose faster than suburban residential real estate values. I guess people are getting sick of commuting? People move out because of quality of life issues--crime, crowded, noisy. I think a number of these kind of quality of life issues are directly related to other functions of government. Also, Patrick is right about building more roads generates more traffic. If you build it, they will come. Isn't that a waste of taxdollars in itself?

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

"It has been well established that simply adding more general lanes just adds more congestion."

No, this is an oft repeated mantra by the pro-transit crowd. Show me one good reference with facts and figures please. Generally speaking, the number of cars divided by miles of usable roads gives a pretty good index of overall congestion in an area. Why would not increasing the denominator, decrease the value of the congestion? Again, a reference with facts and figures please, not just "everyone says so."

Are you actually telling me that you believe a $700 million dollar investment for a new narrows bridge should have no more than a net addition of two HOV lanes? This is all the growth that has occurred in the area since the initial bridge opened in 1950 (actually, since the original bridge collapsed in 1940, since they didn't resize the original specs)? You truly believe that is adequate and sufficient and that no additional general purpose lanes ought to be provided. I remind you that the Key Peninsula and Southern Kitsap peninsula is a rural area, that there are few major employers in Tacoma that would facilitate carpooling (most companuies are less than 40 employees), and that the bus service across the bridge is usually once an hour, with about 6 people a bus. It really strikes you as frivolous to add a general purpose lane in this situation???

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Yes, you can interpret it that way. But in the past zoning has been controlling in the other direction. Single family areas, like Ballard, were zoned that way and you couldn't build a townhome there to save your life. Now people can build townhomes there. These are private developers building these places and, as any realtor can tell you, they are selling very well. We certainly have no shortage of large single family newly built homes in the Puget Sound.

The fact is that there is demand. Good old fashioned demand.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

> "It has been well established that simply adding more general lanes > just adds more congestion." > > No, this is an oft repeated mantra by the pro-transit crowd. Show me > one good reference with facts and figures please. Generally > speaking, the number of cars divided by miles of usable roads gives a > pretty good index of overall congestion in an area. Why would not > increasing the denominator, decrease the value of the congestion? > Again, a reference with facts and figures please, not just "everyone > says so."

Okay, take a look at I-90. It exceeded expected 2010 traffic levels one year after it was built.

This isn't a "transit-crowd" tool, either. Economists use it every day. It is called "induced demand". When you provide a good or a service, in this case roadway capacity, people will find a way to use it.

I-405 gets a whole lot of traffic not from regional commuters or travelers getting from one city to another, but largely from people hopping off in one part of Kirkland or Renton to get to another part - - like from 70th in Kirkland to 85th. This is because it is a convenient jumping point in an area with very few north / south arterials. This isn't necessarily demand for I-405, but secondary demand because parallel arterials are not available.

Another example is that if the drive really sucks you won't go. If it doesn't -- you will! And you might make several more trips just because it is so easy. These trips are also induced demand.

So there is no conspiracy here, just good all-american freedom to make decisions.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

"Okay,

How do you guys suggest we solve congestion?

Please remember that we have no space to build new lanes. So if you suggest it, please remember that you are destroying people's homes.

I want constructive suggestions. "

My constructive suggestion--use free market principles. People don't need to be across the board taxed (as in tabs) to pay for roads. The roads which are used most (the most congested) are the most valuable to the consumer. The charge for road usage must be tallied to the direct user (I'm not talking toll booths here, this is an electronic age). The profits will either rise until a widening pays for itself (you know, the greedy always want more), or traffic is deterred by the cost. The possibilities are endless. Would motorcycles be charged less because smaller lanes could accomodate them? Would people carpool in order to split up the road charges? Would people move into town to save on road charges? Would road providers minimize crosstraffic and engineer for volume (to make as much money as possible)? Would people pay close attention to which roads provided the cheapest route, thereby spreading traffic to its most efficient routing? Would work hours alter, so that workers or truckers could avoid peak times (and peak costs), thereby spreading the traffic load out over the whole clock? Would minimum speed limits and traffic laws be altered to maximize road use (and corresponding profit)? Would more quick and efficient breakdown and accident service be on hand (again to maximize profit). There are private highways in California which already are providing some of these features. Wouldn't it be more just as well, making people who utilize roads pay for them, instead of rural Joe Sixpack in Podunk, eastern Washington, who doesn't give a damn about big city problems, and would be happy to drive on gravel anyway?

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

"There was a recent report that inner-city residential real estate values, for the first time in x number of years, rose faster than suburban residential real estate values. " Certainly. This is a direct result of the UGMA. If you require five acres per residence in suburban areas, it will naturally depress the property values. That's too small for a farm, way too big for a yard. It cannot be developed for multiple houses. That does indeed lower the property values. Now if that was increasing transit use disproportionate to the increase in congestion, that might be fine. It isn't. See:

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/growth/gordon.htm

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

If you require five acres per residence in suburban areas, it will naturally depress the property values. That's too small for a farm, way too big for a yard. It cannot be developed for multiple houses. That does indeed lower the property values.

OOh! That's how they plan to increase population density close in. How does it feel to be managed? What about what Jim said, that inner-city zoning didn't allow for multi-units before, presumably actually forcing growth outward. Sounds like they don't know their head from their tail.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

> How do you guys suggest we solve congestion? > > Please remember that we have no space to build new lanes. So if > you suggest it, please remember > that you are destroying people's homes. > > I want constructive suggestions. " > > My constructive suggestion--use free market principles. People don't > need to be across the board taxed (as in tabs) to pay for roads. The > roads which are used most (the most congested) are the most valuable > to the consumer. The charge for road usage must be tallied to the > direct user (I'm not talking toll booths here, this is an electronic > age). The profits will either rise until a widening pays for itself

Excellent stuff. I love it! Seriously, I have shelves of books and magazines on this stuff. Electronic tags are being used all over the world for such things. As strange as it may seem, the largest construction of new toll roads are in China. Literally tens of thousands of kilometers of them. All with electronic tags. Very efficient.

Now, how do you charge? Would you charge by the mile? Would you charge by the link? Would you charge by the infrastructure? Would you charge by the percentage of construction and maintenance that a persons trip actually utilizes?

You could end up with some very cheap commute trips and some very expensive trips through eastern Washington.

Now, if 100% of the funding for a link of transportation infrastructure was entirely 100% user fee subsidized - what happens to people who are not on Washington's toll-tag system? Do people from Oregon pay? If people say that a car rental tax keeps tourists away from Washington, what will an all-toll Washington do?

The other reality is that toll systems are expensive to maintain. You would be processing hundreds of thousands of transactions per day. This would likely be much more expensive to administer than a simple MVET. Yes, it would be more direct - but still more costly.

I also love your other points. I have advocated tolls on 520 for those very reasons, it would promote scattering of trips, carpooling, etc.

The only problem with the all-toll system is that the Supreme Court wouldn't care for the restrictions on freedom of movement. If you couldn't pay, you couldn't leave your house. Which might make looking for a job more difficult.

However, having said all that, you are it would be nice to use more free market principles in the construction and operations of the road network as opposed to massively subsidizing it like we do now. We just need to find a way to make it not trap people in their homes.

One possibility is called Congestion Pricing, which charges people (usually single occupant vehicles) for using the freeways at points of peak congestion. This means you either pay with a buck or another person in your car. While this may seem totally fair to you and me, the voters and the state legislature seem to have a big problem with it. It seems a lot more fair than 24 hour tollways and a totally free market approach - however when it was proposed it was called Socialism by some in the WA State Legislature.

Another possibility is called "Hot Lanes". This basically makes HOV lanes open for single occupant traffic if they pay. So it's an elective toll facility. This lets people buy the excess capacity, while not totally undermining the HOV system's benefits. This has had a leukwarm response.

I'm all for free-market solutions to these problems. The challenge is to come up with a solution that everyone can agree on.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

> "There was a recent report that inner-city residential real estate > values, for the first time in x number of years, rose faster than > suburban residential real estate values. " Certainly. This is a > direct result of the UGMA. If you require five acres per residence > in suburban areas, it will naturally depress the property values.

No, that is here. In Detroit, Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston, Atlatna it is the same. People are returning to the city. And those cities definitely do not have growth management.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

<> But we've done this with transit, with subsidies of 90% or more. The customers stayed away in droves.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Patrick-

"The problem really isn't that there aren't enough lanes (most of the time you can do the speed limit immediately after getting off the bridge)." Read up on theory of constraints. There are several good books on Amazon.com. One of the basics of theory of constraints is that once you get through the bottleneck, there is no problem.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 30, 1999.

The cost of toll systems--that's the cost of doing business. However it became figured out (entrepeneurs are good at this stuff) it would be worth doing for whatever entity was profiting

Charged to get out of your house?--well, people are charged to eat (another important need people have), we're forced to pay insurance and tabs to drive on the road, perhaps accessing the public right of way by walking is a freedom, but using the infrastructure with your car is a chargable service

What method to use--let the market figure that out, probably wouldn't be best to guide this; lack of competition is a bit of a factor here in full privatization, most people open to this thinking probably favor government mimicking market conditions, I would prefer figuring out how to fully privatize without giving away a monopoly. If people feel the regular sting of the cost of using roads, there's no telling how market forces will compensate eventually-- can you imagine very small lightweight cars able to stuff into small lanes and go fast, how about air cars, how about at home workplaces, how about workplaces with homes in them, how about transit services that have agreements across all road systems--making transit a preferable option

Rural road costs--people have already paid for the rural road infrastructure that currently exists. Maintenance should be the only cost on low volume roads. Also, rural roads often amount to Cadillacs when Chevy's would work.

Some other points, insurance companies have vested interest in maintaining safe roads, as would a road company vulnerable to lawsuit. Auto companies, tire companies, oil companies, all have vested interest in keeping cars in business, they might have reason to invest in roads. If I remember right, Goodyear was one of the companies making some of the first cross-country roads in the early part of the century.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

><capacity, people will find a way to use it. >> But we've done this >with transit, with subsidies of 90% or more. The customers stayed >away in droves.

Have they? I find the buses in Seattle to be quite crowded.

And no we haven't spent that much on transit actually. Per rider mile it is cheaper than the interstate system. But despite this, we've been cutting service fairly dramatically. But people will gravitate towards the system that allows them the most mobility. Currently, our bus system doesn't do this.

But, if you really want to spend more on roads and less on transit, the best thing you can do is vote no on I-695. I-695 takes away 40% of WSDOTs funds, while Sound Transit, Metro and other transit agencies will stay perfectly funded.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

"Per rider mile it is cheaper than the interstate system. "

Well gee Jim, transit's about 43 cents a passenger mile (once you get past capitalization expenses). Once you get by capitalization eexpenses, the interstate is a lot cheaper than that. All you are paying for is periodic repaving.

Are you telling me that there was an interstate built that cost more than light rail is going to cost at $100 million per mile??? Where?? When??

References, not generalities. Post some sources here.

*

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 30, 1999.

Buses in Seattle may be crowded, but they're more or less a waste of money in more rural areas, Spokane included. People prefer traffic jams to the indignity and inconveniance of mass transit.

Jim, why do you continue to insist that the WSDOT budget will take the complete hit if I-695 passes. How strong is the transportation construction lobby? Why won't state legislators restructure the budget to equitably distribute cuts or cut fat(or more likely cut programs with the weakest political influence)?

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

Craig,

Well, that $700 Million bridge seems to rival it pretty well, huh?

We were talking about buses. Not light rail.

Now, if we were to build the earlier suggested new freeway through the center of Seattle you're damn right you'd need to spend more than $100 million per mile. A lot of the expense in putting in a rail system is buying new right of way. When I-5 was built it was done so using a much less equitable arrangement to acquire land than is used today. Today we have to pay fair market value.

Now, per passenger, rider or traveler mile, there is tremendous efficiency in rail transit. Think about it. If you have several thousand people using the rail system, then they are not in cars. Then they are not adding to the congestion.

I know it is foreign and offensive to some people - but it does work.

And it was voted for in a referrendum just like I-695! :) Imagine that.

Jim Who drives a car just like you!

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

Greg asks:

"Jim, why do you continue to insist that the WSDOT budget will take the complete hit if I-695 passes. How strong is the transportation construction lobby? Why won't state legislators restructure the budget to equitably distribute cuts or cut fat(or more likely cut programs with the weakest political influence)?"

Because funding takes place at the state level on a biennium basis. The state budget is in and has been signed. We're only 3 quarters into it. If funding is drastically cut in the middle of this cycle, WSDOT will not be able to recover until at the very least the beginning of the next cycle.

Yes, transportation may have political pull, and it may be able to get funding above other programs - but certainly not right away. There will have to be some time to adjust, figure out what was lost, and then devise strategies to recoup those funds. During that time WSDOT has no money to use for matching grants which means that cities, counties and other agencies will not be able to move forward on their projects either. It also means that we will lose federal funding for several projects in the pipeline and will have to either reapply or find total local funding.

It's just like if I suddenly took 40% of your income away. You'd probably still be able to eat, but little else, and if you had a good credit rating it would be shot pretty quickly.

These are real issues and repercussions of I-695. The goal of it is laudible, but the execution is not.

There are other ways to acheive this goal without crippling a vital agency in a time of need.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

What about Tim Eyeman's assertion that an emergency session could be called? I can't believe that an army of bureacrats isn't at work right now devising strategies to cope, and so the time problem you cite needs to be explored. What about this surplus? Is there some reason it couldn't be tapped to make up for short term shortfalls? I'm not particularly familier with State budget making, but I find it hard to believe there aren't even more alternatives to cope with the problems you cite. If the system is that inflexible, it ought to be changed anyway.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

Frankly, I'm much more sympathetic to the budget of the individual who pays MVET than the budget of the State agency that feels the loss of revenue. Jim says the goals of I-695 are laudible, but its excecution is suspect. Perhaps there's a lesson for government here--address people's concerns before they get motivated enough to pass an initiative, it'll make it easier on everyone.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 30, 1999.

"Now, per passenger, rider or traveler mile, there is tremendous efficiency in rail transit. Think about it. If you have several thousand people using the rail system, then they are not in cars. Then they are not adding to the congestion.

I know it is foreign and offensive to some people - but it does work."

Actually no, for a number of reasons that have already been spelled out here, it does not work. The capital investment in light rail is huge, and the operating expenses are usually to the detriment of the rest of the transit system. That's certainly what happened with MAX in Portland. http://www.cascadepolicy.org/transit/testify.htm

Even the Feds are getting ready to give up on light rail: http://www.fta.dot.gov/

((Federal Transit Administrator Gordon Linton announced the selection of ten communities to participate in the federal Bus Rapid Transit demonstration program. Bus Rapid Transit illustrates how combining planning and technological devices will allow buses to operate with the speed, reliability and efficiency of light rail vehicles at only a fraction of the cost.))

People have got to just stop repeating dogma and do a little outcomes research. We have got to stop stuffing money down ratholes and, when we don't get the desired outcome, blame it on stuffing an inadequate amount of money down the rathole. Research these things, people. I've left the address to the USDOT DOTBOT search service on here numerous times. One person's opinion is not just as good as anothers, even if they each have one vote. An informed opinion is BETTER than an uninformed opinion, no matter how strongly held. Take the time to read the UGMA. Take the time to research light rail. Take the time to research AMTRAK and commuter rail. Get into the transportation models, the math is nothing much more than simple geometry. You've all got internet access and a browser, or you couldn't be reading this. Use them for crying out loud. Whatever happened to "question authority!" As Pogo said (for those of you ancient enough to remember Pogo), "We have met the enemy and he is us."

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

JIM-

"Now, per passenger, rider or traveler mile, there is tremendous efficiency in rail transit. "

Currently metro buses cost $.46 per passenger mile to operate. They travel wherever there's a road. If the bus in front of them breaks down, they go around it. If there's a need to change routes, they put up a notice and change routes. My source for this is the National Transportation Database http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0001/ $File/P0001.PDF

If the Link light-rail lives up to ridership predictions (and only the San Diego line has in the last 15 years) they will be able to lower operating expenses to $.44 per passenger mile (for the 1.2% of Seattle within 1/4 mile of a light rail station). It is as adaptable as a freight train. If one has a breakdown, they all have a breakdown. Source is the application to USDOT: http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/policy/ns/sealink.html

Neither of these figures reflect capital costs ($100 million a mile for light rail, $435,000 a bus for transit (I can give you the references if anyone doubts these numbers). Nor do they truly reflect maintenance costs, or the costs of forcing all the buses out of the bus tunnel.

Now a 2 cent per passenger mile reduction in cost after a $2 billion (if it comes in on budget) expenditure may fit YOUR definition of a "tremendous efficiency," but my guess is that your in the minority on that. It's about a 4% reduction in operating costs (exclusive of maintenance and with no amortization of capital). Any chance you can give references on your hyperbole in the future. I will if you will.

Cordially

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Jay-

"Have they? I find the buses in Seattle to be quite crowded. "

The USDOT site : http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0001/ $File/P0001.PDF gives metro figures of 449 million revenue passenger miles for buses versus 30.8 million miles travelled. That averages 14.5 passengers per bus, and includes specials that go to Husky, Seahawk, etc., games fully loaded. If you are going to live in a city that is trying hard to increase it's population density, I would suggest you become more tolerant to the concept of 13 and 1/2 other people on your bus, although I will admit a number of people get squeamish around half-passengers ;).

Once again, official figures are available people. If we are going to manage with facts rather than wishful thinking, we ought to use these resources. If nobody cares, we ought to stop collecting them, because I assure you that collecting them is NOT CHEAP! Data people, not dogma, not guesses, not impressions. Your opinion is only better than mine if you've got the data to support it. Dig into these plans. Do outcomes research. Educate yourselves. Be INFORMED voters on this issue. Don't take my word for this. Hit these sites yourself, or find others that you believe are more credible.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Hi guys:

Let's start here:

>Actually no, for a number of reasons that have already been spelled >out here, it does not work. The capital investment in light rail is >huge, and the operating expenses are usually to the detriment of the >rest of the transit system. That's certainly what happened with MAX >in Portland. http://www.cascadepolicy.org/transit/testify.htm

And the people of Portland hate it so much that they overwhelmingly supported building westside light rail? Perhaps the Banfield would work much better if the people that were on the LRT were driving instead? I think I see where you are going with this:

We should build only general purpose lanes with money that we just took away from WSDOT and not build the light rail system that the people voted for in an open election which is exactly what I-695 would call for.

The truth is that we need a balanced transportation system. This includes all modes: single occupant vehicles, HOVs, vanpools, buses, LRT, ferries, biking, walking, etc. I think most people here will agree that if everyone goes out and tries to drive a car alone there will be no room for those cars. Now, I drive a car - I drive my wife to her office and then I go to mine. Half carpool, half drive alone. I drive about 30 miles to work every day.

The bus doesn't work for me.

The bus works fantastic for people who live in my neighborhood (Ballard) and work downtown. When I have meetings downtown that last all day I take the bus and it is jam packed with commuters. The 14 passengers per revenue mile includes the entire system which sends riderless buses out to Carnation. Why? Because VOTERS in Carnation asked for buses to be sent out there. This is more of your voter controlled world - not endemic to transit.

Meanwhile, Metro's funding has not increased and they have had to cut service to their popular in-city routes to subsidize these east side and hinterland routes. This makes the bus less convenient for people in the city and they must choose to drive - further driving down ridership.

Now, on the east side there are about 25 park and ride lots. The very large ones are full to over capacity every day. These are people with cars who vote with their feet to take the bus into town every morning. Again, these buses are packed.

Light Rail works in dense urban corridors with large amounts of congestion. Well, that's exactly where Sound Transit (approved by the voters, mind you) is putting it. The Banfield tried a more proactive approach and send it out to Gresham. It was not the right move - but the voters approved that too.

SkyTrain in Vancouver is running at capacity. You can't fit people on the transit in San Francisco at rush hour. We are a grown up city and we need to have a high capacity transportation system. Just like we shit a lot and need a big new sewage treatment plant at West Point. Or maybe we should have built a whole bunch of little tiny sewage treatment plants? And had a whole bunch of little windmills for power?

Surely you understand that when you have a lot of something and have a limited amount of space it works better to maximize the use of space. People will choose to drive, just as people choose to smoke crack. Even if you give people an alternative, they will still do what they wish.

Lots of people wish to ride mass transit. Hense the vote.

But, the MVET doesn't pay for LRT. So you're not doing anything about this anyway. You are crippling the only agency that will build what you are looking for: general purpose lanes.

Jim

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 30, 1999.

Jim writes:

"The 14 passengers per revenue mile includes the entire system which sends riderless buses out to Carnation."

Something I hadn't thought of that may be interesting. How many passengers per revenue mile are there during the peak commute times on Metro? We all know that's it's 14 per mile overall, but that probably includes the latenight and graveyard buses that Metro runs to industrial areas that have 24 hour shifts. And those little dinky vans that go to places like Carnation or Duvall.

And why the heck are we using passengers per revenue mile in a system as geographically huge as Metro anyway? When a bus runs from Federal Way up to Seattle carrying 100 passengers, that's a distance of what, 15-20 miles? That means that a bus can be packed pretty full and only get less than 10 passengers per revenue mile, right?

So the 226 from Bellevue to Seattle that is consistently packed in the morning probably isn't going to get that good of a passengers per revenue mile ratio. It has to travel too far (5-10 miles maybe) for this to be the case. But the South Bellevue park and ride is so full every morning that people have to park illegally in every fire lane in the place.

Are we using the right number when talk about Passengers per revenue mile? Better yet, how does Metro compare to other systems?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 30, 1999.

"And why the heck are we using passengers per revenue mile in a system as geographically huge as Metro anyway? When a bus runs from Federal Way up to Seattle carrying 100 passengers, that's a distance of what, 15-20 miles? That means that a bus can be packed pretty full and only get less than 10 passengers per revenue mile, right"

No guys. Either read what I wrote, or do the math yourself and cancel units like they taught you in chemistry and physics. I said REVENUE PASSENGERS PER MILE, not passengers per revenue mile. A revenue passenger excludes the transit police riding the bus, Metro employees who are allowed to drive free, etc.

Go back to the cited references and do the math yourself if you don't trust me, but don't guess at what you want the reality to be to suit your preconceptions. BB- You're partially right. The long express buses are the most cost efficient. The next most cost efficient are the buses that are in the highest density of population, the very runs that will be supplanted by light rail. This will damage the overall efficiency of Metro, as it has in other cities by converting the lines where the passenger revenue per mile is highest (because the farebox collection is highest) into light rail which is little more efficient than the AVERAGE for the system as a hole (44 cents/passenger mile versus 46). The result- the metro as a whole winds up even LESS cost effective. Here is an excellent reference that demonstrates this effect: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/taubman/report/articles/transit.htm

I would also suggest your perusal of the following reference: It addresses why these myths about light rail persist. http://the-tech.mit.edu/~richmond/professional/myth.pdf

If your browser foesn't support .pdf files, let me know and I'll direct you to the site to get Acrobat Reader and/or the appropriate

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 30, 1999.

Jim-

"And the people of Portland hate it so much that they overwhelmingly supported building westside light rail?"

They supported westside light rail because it was 80% federal funded. The feds don't do that anymore. The people of Portland learned their lesson about operations costs and turned down North-South light rail when it came up for a vote last November.

http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-pornsloss

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

Jim-

"Meanwhile, Metro's funding has not increased and they have had to cut service to their popular in-city routes to subsidize these east side and hinterland routes. This makes the bus less convenient for people in the city and they must choose to drive - further driving down ridership."

Wrong again: 97 funding was $275 million (http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0001 /$File/P0001.PDF) 98 funding was $302.9 million 99 funding was 329 million

(http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/)

Thes figures don't include capital investment which also increased. Would it be possible for you to cite your sources when you make these sweeping statements of alleged fact??

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

South-North was voted down because it had a lot of very expensive river crossings and served another state, Washington. Also, the people in Washington voted their end down -- therefore there wasn't a complete system to vote for.

However, in areas where it would work and there was a consistent planning and funding process - like Westside LRT or like Sound Transit.

But if you'd really like to do something to stop the scourge of Light Rail, I would suggest you fight _against_ I-695 because afterwards transit will be all that has money.

You see, you are trying very hard to discuss everything but the issue here and that is I-695. You are complaining about something that people have voted for. You said the people need the chance to vote -- they voted for transit! They like it!

Get over it!

Now, would you like roadways to drive your car on, or do you want to force yourself to ride Sound Transit?

Jim Offering Choices

-- J (bensonj@aracnet.com), August 31, 1999.

Jim-

"Perhaps the Banfield would work much better if the people that were on the LRT were driving instead?" Actually, the light rail hasn't seemed to make a huge difference to the Banfield one way or another. And no wonder, even a single lane on the Banfield was carrying 2.3 times the entire light rail ridership during rush hours.

http://www.cascadepolicy.org/transit/cunneen.htm

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

Jim ----- BB -----

While I'll admit that I may not be the very most objective observer, it would appear to me that Henrikson's kicking you two guys butts, debatewise that is.

the Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.ney), August 31, 1999.

Jim Offering Choices-

I've put my facts and figures out here. You've put your opinion. Show me the facts and figures. You've made arguments. I've rebutted them with documentation. If you've got documentation, show it. If not, admit that you're not going to be convinced by fact and I'll quit wasting my time on you. I'd still recommend you look at the websites I listed, if only to understand the opposing view so you can attempt a more effective rebuttal next time.

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

Greg writes:

"Jim ----- BB ----- While I'll admit that I may not be the very most objective observer, it would appear to me that Henrikson's kicking you two guys butts, debatewise that is."

I'm perfectly willing to admit that Gary's subsidizing numbers are probably dead on. I simply don't have the time to research all of it (sorry Gary, but it's a heckuva lot of information). Besides, I think I need to spend some time figuring out the difference between Shuttle Express and Sound Transit. ;-)

I still think you're not gonna be able to expand I-5 through downtown for less than a couple hundred million. Nobody's refuted that yet. So while there's this idea that Sound Transit's (there, I got it right :P) light rail plan is going to be the most horrifically expensive thing this area has ever seen, I can't help but think that expanding I-5 through the entire length of the city will end up being even more expensive.

Especially considering all the high-rises that are sitting right next to the freeway. How easy do you think it'll be to condemn those buildings in order to make the freeway wider? I'm sure that the City of Seattle will really go for that plan now that they own Key Tower.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

"I still think you're not gonna be able to expand I-5 through downtown for less than a couple hundred million."

You're certainly right. The point is that a couple hundred million is chump change compared to the $2 billion (in 1996 dollars) (and rising) for light rail, which will carry far fewer people at a far slower speed. It is not without it's opponents either. See the Save Our Valley website.

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

About expanding I-5 through downtown. It shouldn't be expanded through downtown. An alternative should be provided. It should have gone around downtown to begin with.

Still no one seems to realize that the main reason for congestion in Seattle is poor planning or deliberate planning to create congestion. The sports facilities are the main problem. The new stadium sits directly on the alternative route north and just a few blocks from the already congested I-5 making it virtually impossible for normal people to do normal things while the 'fans' are fighting fo parking spaces. The sytem of exits and entrance oto the downtown area is ridiculous too but at least the majority of Seattleites believe there is only one entrance/exit that serves downtown..Mercer..

Giving the traffic engineers more money is not going to correct any traffic problems because they want traffic problems.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

For those who STILL believe that rail is the answer, please see the recent GAO report on AMTRAK operations:

http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/rc98151.pdf

Amtrak is in a very precarious financial position and remains heavily dependent on federal funding to pay its operating and capital expenses. While Amtraks goal is to eliminate the need for federal operating subsidies by 2002, its Board of Directors approved a revised strategic business plan in March 1998 that projected substantially higher net losses in fiscal years 1998 and 1999 than were included in the previous plan. To reduce these net losses, Amtraks revised plan would use federal capital appropriations to pay for maintenance expenses that traditionally have been treated as operating expenses. As a result, Amtrak would spend $800 million, or 15 percent, less for capital improvements over the next 5 years than previously planned. As currently structured, Amtrak will continue to require federal capital and operating support in 2002 and well into the future. The reforms included in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 will have little, if any, immediate effect on Amtraks financial performance, according to Amtrak and Federal Railroad Administration officials. The officials added that the longer-term benefits of these reforms are unclear.

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

BB:

You're right. It isn't cheap, but it is do-able. This from a GAO report:

http://ntl.bts.gov/ntl/data/rc98064.pdf

 The Interstate 15 (I-15) project in Salt Lake City, Utah, is the largest design-build highway project ever undertaken in the United States. The Utah Department of Transportation will reconstruct 17 miles of Interstate highway in and around Salt Lake City, Utah, replacing all existing pavement, widening the road from 6 to 12 lanes, reconstructing several major Interstate highway interchanges, and replacing 137 bridges and other structures. Construction began in April 1997, and the project is scheduled to be completed in July 2001. A substantial portion of the projects $1.6 billion expected cost is covered under one fixed-price contract awarded to a single contractor to both design and construct the project. The projects costs could still grow, however, because the state has agreed with the contractor to assume certain financial risks, such as the possibility that hazardous materials may be discovered in addition to those identified through investigations conducted before the contract was awarded. While the design-build process is relatively new to highway construction and there is little historical information for predicting the magnitude of possible changes in the projects costs, officials in states where design-build contracts have been completed stated that post- award change orders have added from around 2.5 percent to around 8.5 percent to these contracts costs. Changes of this magnitude, if they were to occur, would add roughly $35 million to $110 million to the I-15 projects costs.

I'm sure that addding six lanes to I-5 would be a whole lot more expensive, but a single lane pair carries more passenger miles than light rail, which is currently costing $100 million a mile.

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

Re: the Salt Lake City freeway expansion

Gary, I remember reading an article in the New York Times this summer about that very freeway. If I remember correctly, the article discussed in detail how the new freeway would soon be at capacity, years before it was expected to be.

Have you heard this? I can't remember the exact time period I read this, but the gist of the article was that Salt Lake City was trying to buck the belief that you could build your way out of congestion, and they were on the road to failure.

My apologies for not remembering more specifics.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 31, 1999.

BB- Read the posting:

(the project is scheduled to be completed in July 2001.)

It ain't been built yet. This reminds me of something a science professor of mine once said. There is nothing more tragic then watching a beautiful theory viciously murdered by hard cold facts.

Come up with FACTS. Don't enter an argument with I think I remember when the other person is posting FACTS. Better yet, go to the GAO report and educate yourself. If you can't do pdf files I can tell you where to download (free) Adobe Acrobat and the appropriate plug- ins for your browser.

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

Gary writes:

"(the project is scheduled to be completed in July 2001.)

It ain't been built yet. This reminds me of something a science professor of mine once said. There is nothing more tragic then watching a beautiful theory viciously murdered by hard cold facts."

That's funny, seeing how I didn't say it had been built yet. In any case, it's under construction. In the article in the NY Times, there was a big picture of the new lanes being put in next to the current lanes.

The gist of the article was that there is already a construction explosion going on in the areas surrounding the freeway expansion. So while it is being built to solve congestion, it is likely that it will be congested much sooner than is expected after it is completed.

See a pattern here? Freeways are built with the promise that they'll reach their capacity at some far-off date...only to get there much, much sooner.

The NY Times was a compare and contrast between Milwaukee and SLC. Milwaukee has a downtown freeway spur that was going to be part of a larger system that was never completed. Instead of completing the system and expanding the freeway, Milwaukee has decided to tear the spur down and let people drive on side streets. Apparently most of the Wisconsin politicans support this (It's getting federal funds so they all had to get involved). Expectations are that there will be massive economic growth because of the newly available property that is vacated by the freeway. Plus the fact that is separates neighborhoods, is an eyesore, etc. etc. etc.

"Better yet, go to the GAO report and educate yourself."

I did, and there's no mention of congestion. In fact, the GAO report doesn't deal with growth and congestion at all! All it discusses are budget numbers, basically.

Go to the NY Times website and search the archives. You'll see the article that I'm talking about is there. I just don't feel like spending the $2.50 to get it.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 01, 1999.

BB- I've driven this route - recently.

"The gist of the article was that there is already a construction explosion going on in the areas surrounding the freeway expansion. "

1. It wasn't THAT bad to begin with. They are addressing the problem BEFORE it gets critical. The only major hold-ups on this when I lived there 1991-2 were associated with snow or fog off the Great Salt Lake. 2. There's construction ALL OVER the place because they are getting ready for the winter olympics. They are even putting a light rail in on the freeway median. OF COURSE there's a construction explosion going on.

"I did, and there's no mention of congestion. In fact, the GAO report doesn't deal with growth and congestion at all! All it discusses are budget numbers, basically" Given that I used this site as a reference to a post you had made as to the cost of freeway discussion, this statement would suggest that I referred you to a site GERMANE TO THE ISSUE THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. I am at a loss to see why you have an objection to that.

Respectfully

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 01, 1999.