Yes on I-695 hurts Transit Agencies?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Since Transit Agencies stand to lose so much funding, does this mean they will cut jobs? Perhaps they will only cut Routes with low ridership, resulting in fewer transit vehicles driving around empty, polluting our air. (yeah, right) I believe there will be a loss of Transit jobs because I AM certain they will not control expenditures used for building, say, a Ferry Terminal, New Outstations, New Park and Ride Lots needed temporarily during Ferry Building Construction, and contracting with a Day Care Provider, so that commuters can drop off the Little ones right at that same temporary Park and Ride. They will spend my Tax dollars on Mythical "Sinclair Landing Association" ventures. If I-695 forces accountability by big spenders like Kitsap Transit, then I will not hesitate to vote YES. I am afraid of the consequences of voting NO. How much more money will they take from us if we don't put a stop to over taxing/spending!

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), October 13, 1999

Answers

Marsha
I'm hoping they do cut routes that have low ridership. Everyday I see buses with only 1 or 2 people on them, though today I did see one with 5. These all can't have just dropped everyone off at the last stop as there are no business and very few house around when I see them.
Even the vanpools here aren't all full. The only program I see that has full ridership is the Dial-A-Ride, which the senior citizens use
They build these big transfer stations here but still the level of people at them is quite low.
Ed - surfing for parts for a cherry '82 Mustang GT with T-Tops I've got my eye on..

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 14, 1999.

Marsha, why don't you call a public transit agency for yourself. they are required under law to tell you an unbiased truthful answer. this forum is not the place to go for an unbiased answer. If the public agency misinformes you, that is just all that more of a reason to vote yes, and maybe call their bluf and gain more voters.

-- informed washington resident (informed@iswell.com), October 14, 1999.

How is this for an objective report: From the USDOT website.
PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The use of public transportation for the journey to work has declined consistently over the past several decades. According to Census data, the transit share declined from 12.6 percent in 1960 to 5.3 percent in 1990. Even more significant is the fact that the absolute number of commuters using transit also declined from over 7.8 million workers in 1960 to nearly 6.1 million workers in 1990. This occurred despite a 39 percent increase in population and a 78 percent increase in the total number of workers over the same time period. From a strict policy perspective, it is reasonable to question whether continued investment and support of public transportation is an appropriate and effective use of public funds. This policy question is acknowledged and considered by many in the literature. Development patterns that exist in America today are not conducive to wide-spread transit use. For this reason, it is important to have a clear and thorough understanding of specific market segments that are most inclined to use transit. http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/CAUS.html

I think it is time to acknowledge the fact that, except for specific high density high use corridors, transit is not going to solve the congestion problem. More specifically, in the state of Washington, transit operations are much more highly subsidized by general taxation (80-90% subsidy) compared to the rest of the country (50- 60%). We have gone way too far down the transit path, and the law of diminishing returns has long since made the return on investment tiny. It is time, and past time, to decrease the marginal routes and increase the fares for these transit systems.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

BS, the transit system needs bolstering like no other service in this city. I'd love to get rid of my car, but I can't depend on the bus to get me where I need. This line about ridership going down can deffinately be attributed to the wholesale attack on people's vanity by the auto/petro industry. I ride a bus to work everyday. It was a small bus that would fill up to standing room only well before hitting downtown. A few weeks ago, a larger, reticulated bus replaced the smaller one and within 2 weeks, it to has reached almost standing room only capacity. Private auto ownership can account for a large number of social and environmental problems and therefor should be considered a luxury and not a right of the American citizen. Until more stringent requirements are put into place restricting the issuance of driver's licenses to _responsible_ drivers (not just moderately good ones), I will fight any measure that gives more power to the already bloated ego of the average private-car owner. $30 a pop is a crock, we know what y

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

Beau-
You miss the point. Transit isn't working. We have tossed billions at it and it has lost market share in virtually all markets, and lost ridership in absolute terms in many, despite rising population.
Now I have nothing whatever against you using transit, if YOU PAY FOR IT. Since over 80% of transit operating expenses come out of the general revenue, however, that gives the OTHER voters a say, and 96- 97% of them do not use transit. That being the case, I think I have a perfect right to say that we should stop paying for more transit, and even take some serious cuts here. If you want to fund it with user fees, increase it as much as you want.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

"I ride a bus to work everyday. It was a small bus that would fill up to standing room only well before hitting downtown. A few weeks ago, a larger, reticulated bus replaced the smaller one and within 2 weeks, it to has reached almost standing room only capacity." And this is one of the main problems with the economics of transit. There is high capital and labor costs to meet the rush hour periods, and these assets pretty much sit idle the other 6 hours of the day. At those times you see a $400 thousand bus carrying the driver and 3- 4 passengers. The utilization in non peak periods is so low the resources are just being wasted.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

"There is high capital and labor costs to meet the rush hour periods, and these assets pretty much sit idle the other 6 hours of the day. At those times you see a $400 thousand bus carrying the driver and 3- 4 passengers. The utilization in non peak periods is so low the resources are just being wasted." Agreed, now what do we do about those idle buses? I can't side with encouraging more drivers to hit the road in their own cars and we can't realistically expect more people to ride the bus during the day when they are already at work (or the clinic or the store or wherever it is they already are.). Also, not to sound like an extremist, but we can't condone the proliferation of more environmentally unsound automobiles (SUVs, motorhomes, large cars, etc) anymore. I know they are nice and comforable and thrilling to drive; I'd love to cruise around in a Expedition all the time. However, the fact is that these vehicles are BAD for the air that we BREATHE and the WATER that we DRINK. If people would look at a vehicle for what it is, a means of getting from point A to point B in an expediant manner, then all of us who's lively hood does not require hauling alot of cargo and supplies would be driving compact cars that got 50+ miles-per-gallon, or better yet, electric/fual-cell cars. If that were the case then I think that $30 a year would be a great idea. Of course, that isn't the case and this piece of legislation looks suspiciously like someone way of skirting their social responsibilties. If I can afford to pay big bucks for a big car or recreation vehicle that will require more than my fair share of natural resources and contributes on a larger scale to the wearing down or our roads, forests, streams and air than other, smaller, more sensible vehicles, then I think that I would be willing to compensate for that by paying more for my right to drive that vehicle than someone who drives a Festiva which makes a far smaller i

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

impact.
(i don't know why it keeps cutting off the last few letters of my posts.) .....

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

Big difference Beau-
You aren't paying for my SUV. I AM paying for your transit bus. Only I'm soon going to be paying 2% less.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

well that's not entirely true.
I do pay for SUV in that I pay taxes that make up for the taxes that your manufacturer does not have to pay in order to produce your SUV (not to mention oil subsidies, metal subsidies, plastic subsidies etc). Also, I pay for the roads that you drive your SUV on. I breathe the air that your SUV is polutting. I drink the water from the stream that your SUV spoils. I hike in through the forests that your SUV desicrates. I pay higher insurance for your right to drive a more hazardous vehicle. I pay with my time for all of your SUVs that are clogging my route home. Further more, if I-695 were to pass, then I would be paying even more for your roads, insurance and environmental cleanup, not to mention emergency services should you flip you roll over or flip out while sitting in even more traffic. All of that money has to come from somewhere, why not the people that decide that they need to drive bigger, more wasteful vehicles.
Besides, I also pay for my bus (and yours too, should you choose to utilize it.) as well as all of those things mentioned above in regards to your SUV in regards to my bus ride and my car, when I choose to use it. One could make the argument that we are both infringing on each other's rights: my right to a clean environment, free from the grip of the petro/auto industry and your right to private and cheaper ownership and freedon of movement.
It is not an easy conundrum to resolve, but I still stand by my argument that making it cheaper to drive a car is not the solution or even a step in

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

If asked, I would be happy to vote for a "FARE" increase, so Beau can keep riding the bus. Perhaps if Beau knew what each ride really cost, he would direct his comments toward the Bloated Ego of Transit Agencies, who, in many cases waste more resources than they save. Does anyone know what a "ride" on the Bus actually costs? I have only my memory to go on here, but I believe it is around $7.00 for regular Transit and $30 to $35 for Paratransit. That rate is based on the area I live in. I do not live in a city, (where I assume it would be less.) So what portion of that fare is being paid by the Bus Passenger? Where I live it is $0. I wish Beau could see the entire budget of some of these Transit Agencies. He would be suprised indeed. I am all for mass transportation, when and where it works. But it doesn't work here.

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

"I do pay for SUV in that I pay taxes that make up for the taxes that your manufacturer does not have to pay in order to produce your SUV (not to mention oil subsidies, metal subsidies, plastic subsidies etc). Also, I pay for the roads that you drive your SUV on. I breathe the air that your SUV is polutting. I drink the water from the stream that your SUV spoils. I hike in through the forests that your SUV desicrates. I pay higher insurance for your right to drive a more hazardous vehicle. I pay with my time for all of your SUVs that are clogging my route home. " Actually, you don't. See belowhttp://www.rppi.org/ps245.html#Heading1
Also, this reference http://www.bts.gov/jts/murphy.pdf explores the many ways that social costs have been assessed. It also indicates that there is no consensus that the social costs of the auto aren't paid for by the users. Clearly the 3-4% of people who use transit do not begin to cover the costs of transit. Same goes for the air pollution,etc.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

For posterity let me acknowledge that I do not know how much each bus ride costs in regards to operation costs. Nor am I under the impression that the transit agencies are not wasteful; they are a bureaucracy after all. And if someone could procure some numbers for me, I'd be more than willing to address my comments to said agencies and I would hope that you would too.
Also, I am not sure exactly how someone outside of Seattle is paying for my bus ride, but if they are, then that is something that we need to address because that doesn't seem terribly fair. Of course, if you want to work under the assumption that you should be paying for services that I use but you do not, then please remember that I'm paying for your roads out there (whereever you are) that I do not use, as well as your transit service which I do not use, and transportation of goods to your area which I also do not use. Besides, for all you know, the money that you've paid to help me ride a bus to work may directly affect my ability to do my job which may directly affect the quality of your life.
I'm afraid that if this thread continues much more we will lose sight of the fact that I-695's impact on transit agencies is only a small piece of

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 14, 1999.

I recommend that all SUV commuters read that RPPI stuff.. it will make them feel better about blocking vision, guzzling resources and threatening lives in their just plain unnecessarily massive vehicles.
For a more slightly more centrist view on public transportation read:
"Dollars and Sense: The Economic Case for Public Transportation in America" from the Community Transportation Association of America at http://www.ctaa.org/pubs/dollars/

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 14, 1999.

RE: "For a more slightly more centrist view on public transportation read: "
Billy-
The second reference: http://www.bts.gov/jts/murphy.pdf is a USDOT funded study on the USDOT Bureau of Transportation Statistics website (your tax dollars at work). Seems pretty centrist to me. ;)

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

Interesting point about "electric/fuel cell cars." The enviros claim that we need "zero emission" cars. Otherwise, the polar ice caps will melt and we'll all drown.
But, what do these "zero-emission" cars have in them that produces electricity? BATTERIES!
What are those batteries made up of? LEAD! And SULFURIC ACID! Ya gotta mine the lead and produce the sulfuric acid.
We can't mine more lead, that's bad for the environment. And we can't produce more sulfuric acid because that contributes to acid rain.
And we can't use other materials for batteries (nickel-cadmium, lithium, etc) because those materials are "bad for the environment" too.
Plus, what powers these so-called "zero emissions" cars? ELECTRICITY! How do we get the additional electricity?
Well, can we dam up more rivers. Wait, that'll kill the salmon.
We can burn more coal or gas or oil. No, that will contribute to global warming. And that contributes to our dependence on foreign oil.
We can use wind power. No, that's visual blight.
We can use nuclear power. NOOO!!! NUCLEAR POWER WILL KILL US ALL!!
As an alternative, the enviros propose that we haul two or three people at a time around in $300,000 buses that belch plumes of choking black/brown smoke. Not really environmentally sensitive, if you asked me.
The fact is, many small to mid-size modern automobiles already have next to zero emissions. And we've already made cars much lighter than they used to be, which makes them less safe (I'd MUCH rather be in an accident in my '73 Plymouth than in a 54-mile-per-gallon Geo Metro). Yet the high license tab fees we have in this state keep people OUT of these newer, low-pollution cars and IN cars like mine.
So, it is very much an environmentalist position to vote YES on 695.

-- Joe Hylkema (josephhy@wsu.edu), October 14, 1999.

Billy--I read the article you referenced (okay a good portion of it). I found several things interesting. Since the group's mission is to be an advocate for community transportation, I'm not certain I'd call their position centrist. I *would* say they did a good job of finding transportation success stories. I do have some comments/questions about the article/organization:
1) Does anyone know why the site uses the term community transportation as opposed to public transportation?
As I was reading the article (I poked around their site as well), I couldn't determine if the transportation community sees them as two different things (FWIW, this wasn't my impression) or if it's a naming issue similar to the whole flight attendant/stewardess or administrative assistant/secretary thang
2) I found their advocacy for public transportation in rural areas fairly bizarre.
I don't know if the author has ever lived in a small town (I grew up in them), but my experience leads me to believe rural people will get out of their cars when they're either dead or in a nursing home.
3) The most interesting thing I noticed were the author's statistics about the consequences to particular metro areas in public transportation *didn't* exist (one of the appendices). In his analysis, I found an interesting statistic. He estimated that if Seattle had *no* public transit whatsoever we'd have another 68927 cars on the road.
I read this number with great interest as it corresponds closely to the 70000 cars/day estimate transit has given if they had to make *30%* across the board cuts in service. Remember, according to the analysis posted at the metro site, these cuts are across the board without regard to ridership.
Since I'm thoughtful, I came up with some potential explanations for this discrepancy. I came up with the following:
a) The author's stats were from 1990 and in 1999 the number of transit users in the Seattle area is much higher.
Given previous discussions in this forum about metro's ridership figures, this seems unlikely.
b) The metro statistics deal with King county and his statistics only deal with Seattle while excluding metro service in the rest of the county.
Maybe, it's commonly believed that public transportation is much more heavily used to commute to/from Seattle than it is commute in the 'burbs.
c) The author's statistics are just plain inaccurate and he's off by an approximate factor of 3.
This would mean that instead of approximately 69000 cars added to Seattle's roads if transit didn't exist, we'd really have around 210000 extra cars on the road.
d) Metro's statistics are just plain inaccurate and they're off by an approximate factor of 3.
This would mean the 70000 extra cars on the road would really be more in the 22000-24000 range.
e) For some reason I don't fathom, the two statistics have no relation to one another even though it seems they should.
Based on my reading of the methodology used to generate the statistics, I'm pretty confident asserting they should be directly related to one another. ===================================
Any comments. . .

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 14, 1999.

Found a site for those interested in transportation issues. The government (US) has been doing transportation surveys for a LONG time. The results are pretty consistent with other MEASURED FIGURES as opposed to political correctness and wishful thinking. I'd store the url. It is a great reference site. Here's the URL and a few select quotes. http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/trends_reportl8.pdf
DRAFT - 1995 NPTS Summary of Travel Trends Household Travel
Figure 2 Percent Trips by Public Transportation per Household by MSA Size Adjusted 1990 and 1995 NPTS The propensity of American households to travel more was evident regardless of where people lived (Table 6). However, where people lived did influence how people traveled. Not surprisingly, people in large metropolitan areas used public transit more often than those in medium and small areas. Nonetheless, the proportion of trips taken by public transportation decreased across all areas since 1990.

The average commute was one mile longer in 1995 than in 1990. However, with somewhat improved commute speeds, the average commute time increased only slightly. Although having only slightly longer commute distances, those who used public transit spent twice as long on their commute as those who drove or rode in privately-owned vehicles (Figure 11).
Although average household travel increased about 3% per year between 1990 and 1995, this trend did not hold for every household. Only households with income between $10,000 and $50,000 had this increase, while travel for households at either end of the income spectrum increased at a more moderate rate, around 1% per year. Low income households showed a lower growth rate presumably because of budgetary constraints. On the other hand, more affluent households may have reached a saturation point in travel.
The number and percentage of households without a vehicle continue to decrease over time. However, there is still concern about the mobility of households without vehicles. The next few tables will focus on this group. The norm in the U.S. is that each household is a multi-vehicle household, with nearly 60% of all households having 2 or more vehicles in 1995. Eighty percent of households in 1995 had at least one vehicle for each of their drivers, representing a slight decrease from 1990. Most American households continue to have one vehicle for each of its drivers. It is clear that income affects vehicle ownership and availability. While about one fifth of low income households do not own a vehicle, the comparable percentage in higher income households is merely one percent.

Travel statistics indicated that the population 65 and older was more mobile in 1995 than its corresponding cohort in 1990. On a daily basis, older drivers drove an average of 32% more miles, took 38% more trips, and spent 12 more minutes driving daily in 1995 than in 1990. On an individual household basis, vehicle ownership seems to have reached a saturation point. By 1990, household vehicle ownership had reached one vehicle for every licensed driver. In terms of travel, Americans continue to make more vehicle trips and drive more miles.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

Another interesting Transit site. This one is struggling to be pro- transit (hey, it's the University of San Francisco) and presenting real bad news in the most face-saving way possible.
http://www.cutr.eng.usf.edu/research/transit.pdf Changes in Trip Characteristics While the average commute has increased in distance, the travel time to work has not shown corresponding increases (Table 3-7). Between 1983 and 1995, commuting trips grew 37 percent longer in miles, while the travel time increased by only 14 percent. This comparison is meaningful because FHWA believes that work trip characteristics have not been significantly impacted by the survey changes. This trend seems to fly in the face of the reality of congested roads. There are three reasons most often cited for the increase in speed of travel to work: the continued decentralization of metropolitan areas; the expansion of the peak period, because of greater flexibility in hours of work; and the switch from carpool and transit to single occupant vehicle trips, which are usually more time-efficient for the individual worker, even though they may be less efficient for the overall transportation systems.

Summary People who rely on transit tend to view public transit more negatively than do others. For example, women, more frequent users, non-licensed drivers, and people without household vehicles perceive public transit more negatively than men, less frequent users, licensed drivers, and people with household vehicles, respectively.
National Distributions It is common practice to present national averages of modal trip characteristics, regardless of how these characteristics are distributed. Following this tradition, Table 4-13 shows national averages of selected trip characteristics by transit modes as derived from the NPTS. Compared with national averages of unlinked transit trips from other sources, the national average length of linked trips for transit modes seems to be larger than expected. APTA (1997) shows a national average of 5.1 miles for unlinked trips, which is less than half of the national average of linked trips computed from the 1995 NPTS. Differences between linked versus unlinked would not explain all of this discrepancy. Recall that the nationwide ratio between linked and unlinked trips is about 0.8. The average waiting time for all transit modes, 9.8 minutes, is about a quarter of the average travel time, 38.8 minutes. Accounting for waiting time increases total travel time and lessens overall speed of linked transit trips. In fact, accounting for waiting time increases average travel time to 48.7 minutes, while average speed falls from 19.2 miles per hour without accounting for waiting time to 15.3 miles per hour with accounting for waiting time.
Summary This section has presented selected results on public transits share of the overall travel market. Overall, the results show overwhelming effects of area scale, area density, and transit dependency on transit market share. Some of the results include: C Public transit in America captures 1.8 percent of all personal trips. This amounts to 6,666 million linked transit trips and 8,327 million unlinked transit trips. C The largest market shares are found to be comprised of people who use public transit two or more times a week and people who live in households without vehicles. People who use public transit two or more times a week make a quarter of all their person trips on public transit, while people who live in households without vehicles make over one-fifth of all their person trips on public transit. Transit market share for these two groups remains relatively high at 17.1 percent and 10.5 percent in the suburbs and 15.9 percent and 9.6 percent in the smallest MSAs (with a population under 250,000), respectively. C Transits market share drops dramatically between urban areas and suburban areas and between the largest MSAs (with at least 3 million in population) and medium-sized MSAs (with 500,000-1 million in population). Transit share falls from 8.3 percent in urban areas to 1.2 percent in suburbs and from 3.8 percent in the largest MSAs to 0.9 percent in medium-sized MSAs. C The effects of area density on transit market share are much greater in larger MSAs than in smaller MSAs. Similarly, the effects of area scale on transit market share are much larger in areas with higher density than in areas with lower density. C Public transit does not have a significantly large market share among those who live in close proximity to public transit.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 14, 1999.

Craig get a job, you are too productive! Yes certainly "centrist" is in the eye of the reader.
One thing I gleaned from the above statistics, and is supported by my experience, is that poor people ride public transportation more.
I believe the socio economic benefits of subsidized mobility among those working poor that clean our office buildings late at night, and hopefully attend school during the day, are a good justification for supporting public transit systems.
People who can afford luxury cars and the taxes that go with them are getting a return by affordable unskilled labor moved by public / community transit systems. Yay!

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Billy-
"I believe the socio economic benefits of subsidized mobility among those working poor that clean our office buildings late at night, and hopefully attend school during the day, are a good justification for supporting public transit systems. "
Read the references. Transit is not the mode of choice for the poor, either. They dislike it more than the non-users. And they still use autos (borrowed, or hitching a ride) in preference to it. And there are other more cost-effective options for the poor, taxi vouchers and similar. I've repeatedly said that if you want to justify a basic transit system as a safety net for those people who are unable to drive, that's something I'm ready to support. But that isn't what's happening. It is being sold to take care of congestion, and it is not taking care of congestion. If you want to help the working poor, subsidize economy autos for them. It'll be a WHOLE lot cheaper and open up a whole lot more opportunities for them. IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

Billy-
Look at the thread on Public Transportation for the references, but here is an example:
Summary This section has presented selected results on public transits share of the overall travel market. Overall, the results show overwhelming effects of area scale, area density, and transit dependency on transit market share. Some of the results include: C Public transit in America captures 1.8 percent of all personal trips. This amounts to 6,666 million linked transit trips and 8,327 million unlinked transit trips. C The largest market shares are found to be comprised of people who use public transit two or more times a week and people who live in households without vehicles. People who use public transit two or more times a week make a quarter of all their person trips on public transit, while people who live in households without vehicles make over one-fifth of all their person trips on public transit. Transit market share for these two groups remains relatively high at 17.1 percent and 10.5 percent in the suburbs and 15.9 percent and 9.6 percent in the smallest MSAs (with a population under 250,000), respectively. C Transits market share drops dramatically between urban areas and suburban areas and between the largest MSAs (with at least 3 million in population) and medium-sized MSAs (with 500,000-1 million in population). Transit share falls from 8.3 percent in urban areas to 1.2 percent in suburbs and from 3.8 percent in the largest MSAs to 0.9 percent in medium-sized MSAs. C The effects of area density on transit market share are much greater in larger MSAs than in smaller MSAs. Similarly, the effects of area scale on transit market share are much larger in areas with higher density than in areas with lower density. C Public transit does not have a significantly large market share among those who live in close proximity to public transit.
Now Oak Ridge National Laboratories has the data set for this, and will let you use their licensed copy of SAS to slice and dice that dataset anyway you want. What comes out is that there are fewer poor, transit doesn't get them where they want (or need) to go, they don't use it if they can avoid it, and they like it LESS than the people who don't ride it like it. Hardly an endorsement for increased transit funding.
So stop with the nobler than thou, BS. If you truly want to help the poor, buy them VW bugs and subsidize their auto insurance. They'll be a lot happier, and it'll be much cheaper. Don't INFLICT transit upon them.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

"I believe the socio economic benefits of subsidized mobility among those working poor that clean our office buildings late at night, and hopefully attend school during the day, are a good justification for supporting public transit systems. " Billy (and similar misguided liberal social engineers) You need to EDUCATE yourselves. The information is out there. Become informed before you express your opinions, they'll be better opinions. October 26, 1997 Daily Travel by Persons with Low Income Elaine Murakami Jennifer Young Federal Highway Administration University of Tennessee Washington, DC Knoxville, TN Contents reflect the views of the authors and may not reflect the official policies of the U.S. Department of Transportation. Paper for NPTS Symposium Betheda, MD October 29-31, 1997 Originally presented with 6-month NPTS dataset at African American Mobility Symposium Tampa, Florida April 3-May 2, 1997

Summary Persons in households with low incomes are much less likely to have a vehicle, largely in part because a greater proportion of their income is spent on shelter and food. About a quarter (26%) of low income households do not have a car, compared to 4% of other households These low income households often are without regular telephone service because it is an additional expense. Thus, monthly payments for a car or car insurance would be very difficult to meet. When these households have a car, the car is quite old. The average car is 10 years old in low income households, compared to 7.3 years for other households. However, in low income households, there is on average, only .7 vehicles per adult, compared to over 1 vehicle per adult in other households. Despite having fewer vehicles, people in low income households still make most of their trips in private vehicles. These trips are much more likely to be made in a vehicle owned by someone else, like a friend or relative (8 percent for low income, compared to 1 percent for other income group). The biggest difference in travel mode is in the proportion of walking trips. People in low income households are nearly twice as likely to walk as people in other income groups. For example, for work (and work-related) trips, low income households report 5 percent by walk, compared to 3 percent for other income groups. Low income households are also more likely to use transit to work (5 percent compared to 2 percent). Because so many trips are made by walking, the space in which people in low income households travel is more constricted than for others. About 60 percent of their trips are 3 miles or less, compared to 50 percent for other households. For low income single parent households, about 66 percent of trips are 3 miles or less.
Journey to Work Despite a greater likelihood to be without a car, people in low income households are still most likely to travel by private vehicles. For the work trip, 84 percent of trips by workers in low income households, compared to 90 percent in other households, use private vehicles (Figure 2). Average vehicle occupancy is somewhat higher for workers in low income households (1.20 vs. 1.15), but this may not be statistically significant. (Table 7) Average travel times by private vehicle for the journey to work do not vary by income group and average between 18 and 20 minutes. Other differences in the travel mode to work are a) workers in low income households are much more like to walk to work (6 percent compared to 3 percent), and b) are more likely to use public transit to get to work (5 percent compared to 2 percent) (Figure 2). The types of public transit trips by the two groups differ. For low income households, the public transit trips are likely to be by bus, and for other income households, more likely to be by train. Thus, the average trip distance for low income households using public transit is 10 miles, compared to 13 miles for other incomes; and the average travel time is 36 minutes for low income, compared to 43 minutes for other incomes. During the last twenty years, the majority of employment growth has been in suburban areas, and much of the jobs for entry level workers have likewise been in the suburbs. Suburban employment represents an increasing share of metropolitan employment. Case studies in Cleveland, and in Atlanta, have shown the mismatch between the residential location of welfare recipients and new employment locations in the region (5).
Person trips in low income households are much more likely to be made as passengers in private vehicles, rather than as the driver (Figure 5). Part of this reflects the greater likelihood of children in the household. Trips made in private vehicles are much more likely to be in non-household vehicles, that is, in vehicles of friends, neighbors, or relatives. For low income households, nearly 9 percent of private vehicle trips are in non- household vehicles, compared to less than 1 percent for other income households. For low income single parent households, the proportion is about 17 percent. (Figure 6) These results corroborate findings from the 1990 NPTS, showing that for persons in households without vehicles, more trips are typically made by private vehicles and by walking, than using public transportation. For example, for African Americans (age 16 and over), in households without a vehicle, 37 percent of trips were made by private vehicles, 37 percent of trips by walking, and 23 percent of trips by public transportation (6)
Conclusions The Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS) can be used to understand the travel patterns of low income households, and other special groups, such as households without cars. Understanding how people in low income households travel today may assist us in the efforts of transitioning welfare recipients into the labor force. On a short term basis, the quickest way to improve peoples accessibility to jobs may be to help them get a car. This could be through car ownership programs via employers, through non-profit groups, or through private/public joint ventures, perhaps involving car dealerships. Having a car provides the range to travel longer distances and to get to a range of locations that may be inaccessible by bus. Many entry level jobs may require work in the evenings, and some jobs may be shift work. There is usually much less opportunity to use transit at these times, even if the jobs are located in traditional downtown areas.
IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

Craig your education is obviously from Rush Limbaugh or some such fringe SUV high rider intellectual light weight.
When Rush pooh pooohs restraint on timber harvests with, "there are more trees in america than ever before," thus freeing Gorton and Weyherhauser from the mental weight of real externality costs, he ignores the fact that biodiversity and old growth are being lost.
Craig your trick here is in reasoning that relative rates of ridership by poor people being lower than wealthy implies that increased public transportation will not benefit the poor.
The study you cited shows that public transportation is underfunded currently, and that we should divert more road funds into better means of transportation.
http://www.communitychange.org/transportation.htm
"One of the greatest barriers to getting and keeping jobs for many inner city residents is transportation. While jobs once were concentrated in cities, two thirds of new jobs today are created in the suburbs. More than half of these new jobs are not accessible by public transportation. And 94 percent of welfare recipients do not have cars.
Bus service in many cities is notoriously bad. Service is often infrequent and unreliable, and routes and schedules do not effectively connect workers and jobs.
Much of the problem comes down to policy. For decades, the country has invested most of its transportation dollars in highways, which has caused cities to continually expand outward. Public transportation has often been badly neglected. In Wisconsin for example, per capita spending on highways in 1991 was almost 10 times greater than the amount spent on public transit. And this disparity has been growing. Again in Wisconsin, between 1983 and 1992, while funding for highways went up 82%, funding for transit increased by only 7%.
Environmentalists have pointed out the steep cost of this investment in highways: air and water pollution, congestion, loss of open space and much more.
But these inequitable transportation policies have also been very costly to low income residents of urban neighborhoods. They have found themselves increasingly isolated, not just from jobs, but services such as health care, decent grocery stores and other shopping, family networks and much more. ..."

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

Nice work Billy, just be careful not to stoop to Craig's level of name-calling and belittingment that pretty much negates any intelligent argument that he has set forth. Also, I think we can dispense with the "clean air/water/life" idea because frankly, i don't think they care.
I've changed my mind. I'm going to vote "Yes" and then sit back and smile in vile vindication when the absurdity of this issue reaches it's full boil in about 5 years and we're all FORCED to ride the bus because there just aren't enough maintained lanes left for the 5 million single-person carrying monster trucks to get from Bellevue to Nordy's d

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Thank you and yes, appologees for the name callin' lapse..
I had tried to mitigate the frustration with "retalitory barb" tags around the rush limbaugh association but this software appears to eat anything looking like HTML. BTW Double angles look like this: << >>

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

"Craig your education is obviously from Rush Limbaugh or some such fringe SUV high rider intellectual light weight."
No. As a matter of fact, I'm a UC Berkely Grad, among other places. The papers cited were USDOT funded or supported, from such bastions of conservative ideaology as UC San Francisco and from papers presented by invitation to the African American Mobility Symposium. This is hardly a real right wing crowd.
"When Rush pooh pooohs restraint on timber harvests with, "there are more trees in america than ever before," thus freeing Gorton and Weyherhauser from the mental weight of real externality costs, he ignores the fact that biodiversity and old growth are being lost."
Did I miss something here? When did the subject become biodiversity and old growth forests. I thought we were talking about what is cost effective transportation?
"Craig your trick here is in reasoning that relative rates of ridership by poor people being lower than wealthy implies that increased public transportation will not benefit the poor. " I didn't say that relative rates of ridership by poor are lower, they are not. What I said was that absolute rates of ridership aren't high for ANYONE and even people who don't have any cars in the household take more trips in cars than they do in public transit. It is true, however, that even less efficient transit (light and heavy rail) can steal resources away from the poor. LA had to divert funds from one of their commuter rail lines because of a consent decree after a group representing the poor was able to demonstrate that heavy rail funding was HURTING the poor. My point is that resources are finite. Given the resources available, what will do the most good. We have been throwing money at transit for the last ten years, and people have been staying away in droves. Transit advocates say that all these people are stupid. I say that transit doesn't meet their needs. It ought to get peoples attention when those who actually USE transit think less of it than those who don't.

The study you cited shows that public transportation is underfunded currently, and that we should divert more road funds into better means of transportation. Show me where it says that? I read it as saying that public transit is, at best, a niche market.
"One of the greatest barriers to getting and keeping jobs for many inner city residents is transportation. While jobs once were concentrated in cities, two thirds of new jobs today are created in the suburbs. More than half of these new jobs are not accessible by public transportation. Absolutely correct. Which is clearly shown in the demographic data. Which is one of the reasons that transit is incapable of solving their problems.
And 94 percent of welfare recipients do not have cars. Most welfare recipients arent old enough to drive, either. But notwithstanding that, they still take more trips in cars than they do on transit, even when both are available. What does that tell you about THEIR preferences? As the demographic data on womens linked trips demonstrated, transit does not meet their needs. Most people on welfare who are old enough to drive are women, often single moms who cannot effectively use transit because of their linked trips.
Bus service in many cities is notoriously bad. Service is often infrequent and unreliable, and routes and schedules do not effectively connect workers and jobs. But even when it is good, frequent, and reliable, it is not the mode of choice, even for people without cars.
Much of the problem comes down to policy. For decades, the country has invested most of its transportation dollars in highways Given that transit also uses roads and highways, and that 98.2% of trips are NOT ON TRANSIT, the fact that the majority of transportation dollars are spent where the overwhelming majority of the passenger miles are does not exactly strike me as a revelation. If it does you, you need to get out more. To my great surprise, Metro King County has FAR MORE in their 6 year capital budget for transit than they do for roads, despite the fact that the roads carry twenty times the passenger miles of transit. I wonder if that could be why were getting so congested?
Public transportation has often been badly neglected. In Wisconsin for example, per capita spending on highways in 1991 was almost 10 times greater than the amount spent on public transit. And highways carried twenty times the volume of passenger miles. And they supplied more passenger miles for the poor than transit did. But these inequitable transportation policies have also been very costly to low income residents of urban neighborhoods. They have found themselves increasingly isolated, not just from jobs, but services such as health care, decent grocery stores and other shopping, family networks and much more. ..." Not really. The low income residents have been getting more cars and becoming increasingly like the rest of the population.
STOP THE WHINING AND COME UP WITH FACTS, BILLY. Dont give me advocacy stuff from people who make their living providing transit service. Give me valid government studies, like Ive given you. Go to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory and use their data base and their SAS analysis program. Slice it and dice it anyway you want too, the REALITY doesnt come out the way your liberal orthodoxy wants it to. And ultimately, your opinion doesnt matter, because the REALITY is that people are voting with there feet, and they arent voting for transit. And theres not a darn thing you or I or anybody else can do about it. ITS THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

<< START RETALITORY BARB You, a whiner from Bezerkely? Oh yes, undergraduate there is as lame as your arguments. END RETALITORY BARB >>
You haven't added anything so I'll just point out for you explicitely that demographics are dependant upon public policy decisions.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 15, 1999.

"Oh yes, undergraduate there is as lame as your arguments. " Wouldn't know about it. Got one of my post-graduate degrees at Berkeley.
That the best you can do for a retort? Rates right up there with "Oh yeah?"
"You haven't added anything so I'll just point out for you explicitely that demographics are dependant (sic) upon public policy decisions. " Well, that's what they thought in Rwanda, Bosnia- Hercegovina, Kosovo, and Nazi Germany. In this country, we tend to go with majority rule. Give us FACTS Billy, not dogma. It isn't hard. You research the issue, form a hypothesis, analyze the hypothesis with data. Reality, Billy. Not wishful thinking. IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 15, 1999.

Yo Billy-
More better I think you slink quietly away. Too painful to see you embarrass yourself this way.
Beau- Glad you changed mind and will now vote with majority.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Oh i was kidding.
Glad to see that the "Nazi" refference finally popped up, Craig. It just doesn't seem like a good ol' American rant until that word get's thrown into the mix. I really have no desire to go to Berkely now. Anyone who uses the phrase "valid government studies" with a straight face... and yes, i have lowered myself to Craig's level and will now quietly slink away to have a beer with Billy. I think I'll ride my bi

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

"bike"
stupid form.....
...

-- Beau (oo_soulfinger_oo@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

leftdodo--"<< START RETALITORY BARB You, a whiner from Bezerkely? Oh yes, undergraduate there is as lame as your arguments. END RETALITORY BARB>>"
Craig 1 Billy 0

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 15, 1999.

"Oh i was kidding. " I knew this. Not even you would really mean "Nice work Billy" Lamest arguments I seen in a long time, his.

-- zowie (zowie@hotmail.com), October 15, 1999.

Hey Billy-
IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

Taking care of children and households tends to make working women highly dependent on their cars, a factor that has important implications for trip reduction and mode shift policies. Women are more likely to use transit than men, but the more children a women has and the younger the children are the more likely she is to drive to work. By contrast, the presence of children in the household had no measurable effect on menfs mode choice. Moreover, the general decline in transit use has been faster among women than men. The automobile dependency of women means that trip reduction and mode shift policies, which often use negative incentives to increase the cost of automobile use, strongly impact womenfs mobility. Such policies are not likely to be successful unless they take into account the mobility needs of women. For instance, it has been suggested that transit pass programs do not adequately compensate women for increased childcare expenses and lost flexibility. (Rosenbloom and Burns 1994)
Public transit accounted for only 2 percent of all trips. People are most likely to use public transit for work-related trips and least likely to use it for family and personal business (USDOT FHWA 1993a, 4-70). Other modes of transportation\ including airplanes, trains, taxis, walking, bicycles, and school buses\accounted for nearly 11 percent of all trips (see box 7-4 for a discussion of nonmotorized mobility). Not surprisingly, more than one-third of civic, educational, and religious trips are made by these other modes, especially trips made by school bus.
Interestingly, people with low income made a greater proportion of their trips by taxi (0.5 percent) than all other income groups (0.1 percent). (USDOT FHWA 1993a, 4-58)
All income groups increased their use of private modes of transportation, particularly those in households with less than $10,000 income increased by 45 percent from about 6,200 miles in 1983 to 9,100 in 1990.
All other income groups saw an increase between 20 and 30 percent. Those with income between $30,000 and $40,000, for instance, increased from about 11,100 miles per licensed driver in 1983 to 13,800 miles in 1990. (USDOT FHWA 1993a,

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transportation Statistics Annual Report http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/tsar97pt.html

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 16, 1999.

"Anyone who uses the phrase "valid government studies" with a straight face..." I realize I have come to this particular party late, but I thought it was the pro-695 people that were supposed to be the anti-government wackos and the anti-695 types that were defenders of the politicians and bureaucracy. Is this thread an alternate universe sort of thing, or is "Beau" just a couple of tacos short of a combo plate? Just wondering.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 16, 1999.

Global Trends and Factors While the pace and extent of change vary, common trends are underway worldwide. For both passenger and freight transportation, motor vehicles are gaining increasing modal shares, often at the expense of other modes. At the same time, many countries are also experiencing rapid growth in passenger and freight air transportation, although it accounts for a relatively small modal share. In general, these changes are occurring faster in countries with rapidly developing economies than they are in already industrialized countries. Table 10-1 provides a snapshot of transportation infrastructure in several countries.
Passenger Mobility Passenger mobility, whether measured by pkt or vkt or the number of motor vehicles, has increased worldwide in the last 20 years. Growth in the use of passenger cars and similar vehicles dominates all the statistics on increased mobility. In addition, air transportation is responsible for a small but rapidly growing part of domestic passenger travel worldwide. Domestic passenger air travel increased an average of 2.5 percent annually (measured in pkt) between 1985 and 1994 worldwide, although this growth was even more rapid in some countries and regions. (OECD 1997) Indeed, in many countries, air travel has been the fastest growing mode of pas-senger transportation in recent decades. (IEA 1996a, 47) Motor vehicles, particularly private passenger cars, are now dominant in most OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development ) countries and are gaining modal share elsewhere. In 1994, automobiles and similar passenger vehicles accounted for 86 percent of the pkt in the United States and 52 percent in Japan, while they accounted for 80 percent of pkt in Western Europe in 1993 (see figure 10-1 1994a) Data are not available for private cars in India,, but road transportation accounts for an estimated 85 percent of passenger travel in 1992. (World Bank 1995b) Between 1970 and 1990, growth in both the number of cars and in highway travel was higher in Europe and Japan than in the United States, as shown by figure 10-2. The United States, however, continues to have more automobiles and more automobiles per capita than any other country. In 1991, the most recent year for which comparative data are available, the United States also led in overall mobility, with 24,331 pkt (15,119 pmt) per person. (As reported in chapter 1, the per capita U.S. figure for 1995 was 26,554 pkt (16,500 pmt) by motor vehicles and 27,681 pkt (17,200 pmt) by all forms of transportation.) Most Europeans traveled half as much; people in developing countries traveled considerably less (see table 10-2). Non-OECD countries added cars at almost twice the rate as did OECD countries from 1970 to 1990, and accounted for 19 percent of the worldfs passenger cars in the early 1990s. (OECD 1995) Still, passenger rail and nonmotorized transport (such as bicycles and walking) remain important contributors to mobility. In general, people in developing countries travel less than those in developed countries because of immature transportation systems; less disposable income; limited access to cars, buses, and trains; and more congested urban areas.
Passenger Mobility Many of the factors affecting personal mobility trends in the United States that are discussed in chapter 7 also apply in other countries. For exam-ple, in many OECD countries there has been a shifting of population and workplaces from urban centers to more dispersed, suburban loca-tions. Suburbanites are more likely to use cars and roads for access to jobs and other activities. Suburbs also have lower population densities than urban centers, making mass transportation less economical, while the population and job shifts out of the city also mean that traditional transit patronage falls. In many developing countries, however, people are migrating from the countryside to larger urban areas and capital cities for jobs and other opportunities. In all cases, the urban poor face problems of transportation accessibility and cost, while transit operators are hard pressed to provide services without increased resources. Labor force participation has increased in almost all countries, largely because of a rise in the number of working women. Women entering the workforce tend to increase rates of automobile ownership and use. Population growth increases the demand for transportation. The age distribution of a population also influences demand, because young people and old people tend to travel less than those in the 20- to 50-year-old age group. Age distribution can affect mode preferences. For example, young adults may be more accepting of bus and train transportation (or have fewer alternatives) than middle-aged people who want the convenience of and are able to pay for private auto-mobile travel. Population density also can affect modal preferences and the availability of transportation. Rising personal income, which has occurred in most countries, is associated with increasing automobile ownership and passenger travel by other modes.
http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap10.pdf
It doesnft matter if we are taking about the USA, or the entire world,
ITfS STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

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

Yes Craig, our demographics are affected by public policy.
I'm not you would have objected to the US Govt' giving away land out west to railroads etc in the 1800s and early 1900s calling it misguided social engineering. Now is not the time to throw up our hands and let the auto and oil industries the wilderness helter skelter.
Do we wish to keep on expanding our roads into the wilderness, say Issaquah for example, or do we wish to make it easier to live in higher density areas where transportation efficiencies can be leveraged to improve quality of life without putting up another parking lot?
Yesterday on my walk to the music store on a fine sunny Sunday in Seattle. I passed a several busses as I walked yesterday and looked at 'em, many were full with a wonder of different types of people.
Let those who accept responsibility for the quality of life we enjoy in the PNW vote against inititiave 695. Let us continue to support the poor and economy minded with our existing progressive MVET, and continue to study and fund public transportation options.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

The demographics indicate that more people are choosing driving as their preferred commuting method - I agree. However, "Demographics" is only a tool used in the transportation planning decision-making process. If we blindly followed demographics, we would end up building roadways until the entire state was nothing but concrete and asphalt.
Luckily, "demographics" is not the only consideration in transportation or urban planning. Land availability, growth management, new technology and probably several other issues, including public opinion, come into play.
Citing demographics is fine. But it needs to be looked at in the proper perspective. My opinion, relative to the transportation problems in the Puget Sound area, is that we need to look at ways to encourage people to use commuting alternatives (public transportation - rail & buses, work-at-home, car pooling) over driving alone.
(I apologize for digressing from the I-695 issue.)

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 18, 1999.

But you must address the demographics involved, or all your planning will come to naught. What is driving the congestion problem is the growth in automobile numbers which, except for the declining number of very poor, has almost halted (albeit at one automobile per licensed driver). I would submit that congestion is not likely to be further increased by people buying MORE than one vehicle per licensed driver. That may exacerbate a parking problem somewhere, but you won't find the person driving two vehicles on the road simultaneously. The rise of working women has caused this also. It is also peaking. But the point of the demographics illustrations is to show that transit serves these people very poorly, and even for the majority of those who use it, it is not the mode of choice. And the high-density advocates should note that the trend away from transit is present even in Europe and Japan, where densities are far higher than ours (far higher than ours are ever likely to get), land costs are far higher than ours, fuel costs are far higher than ours, etc. What the demographics shows is that transit isn't working, it is massively subsidized, and if you were able to somehow afford to subsidize it enough that you doubled the use, that would still give you a transit share of less than 4%. So Gene- Your opinion is that we should try harder at doing that which hasn't worked elsewhere (excepting the new technology argument, if you wish to expand upon that, go for it). And you Billy, don't know what to do, but object philosophically to what's happening.
So given that the demographic trends are all against transit, what do you propose to do? Force peolpe to use transit by the police power of the state? Heck, the police don't use trnsit! The transit police don't even use transit, when they can avoid it. So what is your plan and where are your facts that show that it's viable. If you don't have one, all I can see is that Puget Sound Area transit is FAR MORE HIGHLY SUBSIDIZED than the national average, and isn't significantly helping the congestion. That being the case, we ought to cut back to a basic program that can handle the transit dependent crowd at a reasonable unit cost, and forget $100 million a mile light rail and expanded bus service to the suburbs.

And IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

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

Craig said >What is driving the congestion problem is the growth in automobile >numbers which, except for the declining number of very poor, has >almost halted (albeit at one automobile per licensed driver).
Was this misstated as absolute when you meant per person or do your demographics neglect population growth?
The growth of automobile use in the puget sound / washington has primarily to do with increasing population. Where do you see a that our population growth has almost halted?
Once a person is 16, and every day thereafter, they make a choice wether to drive, walk, bycicle or take public transportation.
Our roads, dramatically restrained by geography and real estate, are currently choked with single occupancy vehicles. The owners of these autos are HIGHLY subsidized by road construction and maintenance, untreated pollution, foreign wars and other costs that today are not accounted for by today's vehicle sticker prices or tabs.
Seems to me I-695's tab change would simultaneously encourage single occupancy vehicle use, and cut into funding from public transportation tends to reduce congestion -- not a good idea for Puget Sounders.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

"Craig said >What is driving the congestion problem is the growth in automobile >numbers which, except for the declining number of very poor, has >almost halted (albeit at one automobile per licensed driver). Was this misstated as absolute when you meant per person or do your demographics neglect population growth? " This is from a perspective of the growth of autos per capita, not from an absolute perspective.
"The growth of automobile use in the puget sound / washington has primarily to do with increasing population. Where do you see a that our population growth has almost halted? " I don't, but a constant number of autos and auto use per capita would imply that the worst is over for the country as a whole, in terms of demographic driven increase in number of autos.
"The owners of these autos are HIGHLY subsidized by road construction and maintenance, untreated pollution, foreign wars and other costs that today are not accounted for by today's vehicle sticker prices or tabs. " Show me facts, numbers, not assertions. IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.com), October 18, 1999.

While Billy and Gene talk blissfully about getting everyone to ride transit, here are the goals for the Federal Transit Administration. Looking at the DEMOGRAPHICS, these goals are wishful thinking. Nonetheless, look how MODEST they are compared to what Billy and Gene want, and their timeframe for accomplishing them. From the FTA Strategic Plan (the words in brackets are my editorial comments): http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/intro/fy2ppg2.htm

Performance Goal 1: Increase by one percent per year the urban population within > mile of transit service. Measure/Indicator 1: Percent of urban population living within > mile of transit. Base line: FY 1996 Data: Bus schedules formatted by the Geographic Information System calculated with1990 Census Population data. Comments: FTA does not have data for this measure prior to 1996 and will not be collecting data again until 2000. Percent of total urban population living within > mile of transit Year 1996 2000 2001 2002 Population within 3/4 Mile 69 73 74 75
[One would have to question whether or not 3/4 of a mile is a reasonable distance to expect people to walk to transit stops. Other research has indicated that 1/4 mile is more reasonable, and that only in fair weather, in safe neighborhoods, if there are no kids to leave at baby-sitters, and if there are no articles to transport bigger than a briefcase or backpack. Note also that the intent is to do this by rerouting the buses and increasing their number, rather than motivating redevelopment, infill of urban areas, or increased population density]

Performance Goal 2: Increase by one percent per year the amount of transit services. Measure/Indicator 2: Vehicle Revenue Hours (millions) and Passenger Miles (billions). Baseline: 1995 Data: National Transit Database. Vehicle Revenue Hours (Millions) Year 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Revenue Hours 174.9 180.3 183 184.1 187.8 191.5 195.4 199.3 204.1 209 Shaded Table Areas are Projections
Passenger Miles (Billions) Year 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Pass. .Mi. (B) 38.22 37.47 37.15 36.22 37.88 37.97 38.98 39.37 39.76 40.16 40.56 40.97 41.38 Shaded Table Areas are Projections
[Given that transit currently has a market share of approximately 1.8% (and dropping), a 1% per year increase for 40 years (with compound interest) would result in an increase to approximately three percent. If this goal is met (and the trend is in the other direction), it is unlikely that either Gene or Billy will LIVE LONG ENOUGH to see a transit market share of 4%]

Performance Goal 3: Increase by five percent every five years the number of non-metropolitan counties with transit service. Measure/Indicator 3: Number of non-metropolitan counties with transit service. Baseline: 1993, in which 30 percent of non-metropolitan counties had no transit service. Data: Rural Transit Assistance Program. Comments: The database for this information is updated every five years. The rate of change does not justify annual collection of the data. Data for 1998 will be collected early in 1999. Shaded Table Areas are Projections Year 1993 1998 2003 No. of Counties 1842 1934 2031
[This goal is responsible for some of the ludicrous things that WSDOT does, like giving Okanogan county a grant to start transit service, immediately after the voters had turned it down two to one. Now the reason that transit advocates are pushing increasing urban density is in the hope that it will make the urban areas more transit friendly. By pushing out into the rural areas where transit is even less cost- effective, we dramatically decrease the cost-effectiveness of transit by moving way out of the niche markets where it can compete reasonably effectively.]

IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

"This is from a perspective of the growth of autos per capita, not from an absolute perspective. "
I thought so, and thus we see again the trap of simple citing of 'facts'. Like Rush and the trees, its not honest or constructive to spout secondary order statistics whilst ignoring primary causes and context.
That's one reason why scientists who using statistics responsibly are peer reviewed before they are published. Heard of lies, damn lies, and demographics?? There are a lot of these studied people working in regional planning, why are your opinions on public transporation opposite of theirs? Oh yes, they are corruptly self serving, that must explain it.
But to take fair measure of public transportation subidy, you must evaluate the cost of automobile subsidy too. I suggest you start by adding the puget sound bill for Desert Storm and similar military operations, add in land aquisition, road construction and maintenance, then take a look at lead poisening mental deficiency rates, lung cancer rates, DUI deaths etc...
When you are resting your eyes from this hard work take a look out on the bumper to bumper highway and look from the tailpipes all the way out to the besmogged Olympics and then ask yourself if we want to encourage our burgening population to travel individually by SUV.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

"That's one reason why scientists who using statistics responsibly are peer reviewed before they are published." Know all about that Billy, I was peer reviewed before mine were published, I've peer reviewed others for scientific journals. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
"Heard of lies, damn lies, and demographics??" Actually, it's lies, damn lies, and statistics. You DO KNOW the difference between statistics and demographics, DON"T you Billy??
"There are a lot of these studied people working in regional planning, why are your opinions on public transporation opposite of theirs? Oh yes, they are corruptly self serving, that must explain it. " The posts I've been putting up are off the US Department of Transportation website. If these people aren't publishing accurate studies, why are we paying taxes to support them? Hmm. Maybe we ought to pay less taxes.
"But to take fair measure of public transportation subidy, you must evaluate the cost of automobile subsidy too. I suggest you start by adding the puget sound bill for Desert Storm and similar military operations, add in land aquisition, road construction and maintenance, then take a look at lead poisening mental deficiency rates, lung cancer rates, DUI deaths etc... "
So where are these alleged facts? Give me a URL from a responsible source. I gave you Federal Government sources. Do you consider them irresponsible?

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

Billy--"But to take fair measure of public transportation subidy, you must evaluate the cost of automobile subsidy too. I suggest you start by adding the puget sound bill for Desert Storm and similar military operations, add in land aquisition, road construction and maintenance, then take a look at lead poisening mental deficiency rates, lung cancer rates, DUI deaths etc... When you are resting your eyes from this hard work take a look out on the bumper to bumper highway and look from the tailpipes all the way out to the besmogged Olympics and then ask yourself if we want to encourage our burgening population to travel individually by SUV."
Craig 2
Billy 0 ~

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 18, 1999.

Craig so far your citation of national studies have pointed out that people are using public transportation less in the United States than they once were. There is no surprise there, urban sprawl is a well known here in the Puget Sound, try getting up onto the Issaquah platteau right about now.
Unfortunately you haven't made a convincing case for putting either putting more or less tax dollars toward public transportation.
THE DEMOGRAPHICS DEPEND ON POLICY STUPID!!

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

bILLY-
ITS THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

From the Federal Transit Agencys Strategic Plan: http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/intro/sp217d.htm

D. Migration and Shifts in Employment Trends--Impact on Transportation  Increases in suburb-to-suburb commutes, "reverse commutes," and increased distances between home and destination.  Scattered travel patterns.  Longer commutes and non-work trips (in terms of both distance and time).  Increased traffic congestion (Americans currently lose 1.6 millions hours a day due to traffic congestion).  Because low density population areas provide little low or moderate income housing, unemployed and low-income people are concentrated in inner cities, without transit links to suburbs where new jobs are being created.
E. Work and Family Trends--Impact on Transportation  A change in commuting patterns will place new and different demands on the transportation network.  The planning and designing of surface transportation systems must take into account non-traditional work schedules and provide intermodal linkages for people who work at varying locations and those who must combine work trips with other stops, such as at child or elder care facilities.  Telecommuting can provide significant reduction in highway congestion, fewer accidents, reduced emission of pollutants and savings in energy and petroleum consumption.  The design of public transportation systems will be impacted if the increase in telecommuting and self-employed people working at home result in people migrating further from urban areas.
G. Environment Trends--Air Pollution--Impact on Transportation  Because of their reliance on the burning of fossil fuels, transportation vehicles are major sources of air pollution.  The revised EPA Clean Air standards will bring a significantly larger proportion of the population and more jurisdictions under Federal oversight and procedural burdens to track and control these emissions. Control measures needed to meet the standards could have significant economic impacts on industry, including previously unregulated businesses, and require a lifestyle change by a significant part of the U.S. population.
External Factors Affecting Achievement of Human and Natural Environment Goals. In addition to the factors that will affect the achievement of all of the goals, discussed in the beginning of this section, the external factors affecting the achievement of the Mobility and Accessibility Goals also apply to the Human and Natural Environment Goals. Demographic factors and increased leisure travel combine to work against our ability to achieve our goals of improving the sustainability and livability of communities, and reducing the amount of transportation related pollutants released into the environment. Reduced public funding for transit will limit our ability to invest in transit facilities and services that improve the livability of communities, and technologies that reduce pollution.

-- (CRAIGCAR@CROSSWINDS.NET), October 18, 1999.

I asked a friend for advice on how to get through to Craig, numbers guy and he posted me with a fine rebuttal to Craig's argument.
I was getting at the same points eloquently stated below: the flaw has to do with the context of the numbers posted: the auto etc.. are all subsidized, numbers are meaningless without the greater context, and that analysis is np hard my friends.
Craig Wrote: ...But the point of the demographics illustrations is to show that transit serves these people very poorly, and even for the majority of those who use it, it is not the mode of choice. And the high-density advocates should note that the trend away from transit is present even in Europe and Japan, where densities are far higher than ours (far higher than ours are ever likely to get), land costs are far higher than ours, fuel costs are far higher than ours, etc. What the demographics shows is that transit isn't working, it is massively subsidized, and if you were able to somehow afford to subsidize it enough that you doubled the use, that would still give you a transit share of less than 4%. So Gene- Your opinion is that we should try harder at doing that which hasn't worked elsewhere (excepting the new technology argument, if you wish to expand upon that, go for it).
John replied- This is a widespread but deeply flawed line of reasoning. It reasons that mass transit is some idealistic attempt to fight individual choice represented by people's market choices to drive. Problem is those market choices are already shaped by a preexisting system of public investment in transportation. The simple truth is that all transportation systems dating back to the railroads and early canals systems are subsidized in some fashion or another. As products of public investment and public policy, transportation systems presume a level of collective decision making. IF you build roads people can't choose trains because trains aren't cost effective. As the development takes shape around this transportation system it often precludes other forms of transit such biking or walking). Mass transit will remain uncompetitiive as long as we continue to subsidize road construction and the automobile. Some market theorists who recognize this like to discount this fact by calling our established road system as "sunk costs"... previous investment in infrastructure that we should accept as a simple given. Problem is this infrastructure is has higher variable costs to maintain especially as our aging highways systems crumble. As the historic system fills up there also becomes questions of increasing capacity: building new roads.
Intelligent planning also begins with the realization that we don't build roads to get places; we build roads and developer build places to get too. In other words development and places are most often created as a by product of transportation systems. Transportation and land-use are linked.
This is all very timely. Oregon state is currently deciding how to spend the Statewide Transportation Improvement Fund (STIP) made up from gas taxes and vehicle registration fees (the bulk of road funds). Republicans in the legislature responded to their well financed political backers in the development community by proposing to spend the $600 million from the new gas tax (this is from the guys who promise no new taxes) to develop new road systems (which means access to new land to develop at low density) rather than to adequately maintain existing road systems.
Both incidently will have huge effects on waterquality and wildlife habitat (other public values). Roads contribute most to increases in impervious surface per acre of developed land and are the major source of non-point source pollution in urban environments. Meanwhile roads increase land values (that's why developers like them) and when constructed mindlessly increase market pressures to develop and fragment sensitive wildlife areas.
This points again to the need to consider the broader public interest in our transportation choices. Which raises an even larger question. Is the decision we make to drive as a consumer of transportation the same as the decision we make as a citizen about what sort of community we want to live in. Consumerism is no substitute for citizenship.... in creating a livable community and posterity for the future.
Thus, intelligent transportation planning begins by realizing that all transportation systems require some form of subsidy and involve public choices as well as individual choices. Indeed, if we want to maximize individual chice we ought to think about intelligent public investments that preserve a variety of transportation options (rail, bus, bikes, walking, and yes even the over endowed automobile).

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

bILLY-
"from the tailpipes all the way out to the besmogged Olympics " If the issue is air pollution, will you go along with getting rid of the subsidy on the ferries? Turns out, they are worse polluters than SOV SUVs, even on a per passenger mile basis. Even if you assume the passenger had to drive a big roundabout trip, rather than a quick straight line route. At least that's the numbers that were crunched by the Bluewater Network, an environmental group in San Francisco: http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/display?storyID=37997be655&query=ferry+poll ution Or do you think that environmental groups play fast and loose with the truth?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

Per your last post: "...Demographic factors and increased leisure travel combine to work against our ability to achieve our goals of improving the sustainability and livability of communities.."
From which it follows that protecting our beautiful northwest environment, under the pressure of increasing population, requires that we should not accelerate the current trend towards sprawl by increasing SOV subsidies at the expense of public transportation as 695 would almost certainly do.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 18, 1999.

"THE DEMOGRAPHICS DEPEND ON POLICY STUPID!! " No they don't. The demographics depend in large measure on the existing population. How are you going to decrease the number of people who are in an age distribution that tends toward motor vehicles? How are you going to decrease the number of working child care-givers who make linked trips to the baby-sitter en route to their jobs? Are you going to go back to the "Leave it to Beaver" 50s, when women stayed at home? The increase in working women has driven much of the increase in motor vehicles. Are you going to take the autos away from the poor? The decline in zero auto households has driven much of the decline in transit usage. Are you going to decrease the number of people who telecommute? Are you going to increase the number of individuals who are blind, have seizure disorders, or substance abuse disorders, or are otherwise transit dependent? These are the heavy users of transit, and even they don't use it as mode of choice, preferring to hitch rides with friends who are able to drive. Explain please, what policies you will use to change these demographics. It'll no doubt be real interesting.
"Thus, intelligent transportation planning begins by realizing that all transportation systems require some form of subsidy and involve public choices as well as individual choices. Indeed, if we want to maximize individual chice we ought to think about intelligent public investments that preserve a variety of transportation options (rail, bus, bikes, walking, and yes even the over endowed automobile). " And as the FACTS I have provided clearly show, people are staying away from bus, bikes, and walking, in droves. Regarding rail, you have yet to answer my question: If relatively cheap buses are losing out due to demographics, how can rail hope to compete when it is MORE geographically restricted than bus, no faster (light rail average speed 14mph http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/apxa/transt98.html), and we are having a hard time bringing it in on budget (If you can use "budget" to describe $100 million a mile). I understand the desire to have a large public works project for the immediate benefit, but rail has HURT the economic viability of other transit systems. Why do we keep saying that we want it here?
"Problem is those market choices are already shaped by a preexisting system of public investment in transportation. " Actually, they are shaped by public perception of desirable choices (ie, their preferences)and by the demographics. Even in foreign countries that previously had a predominance of public transit (Eastern Europe, for example), people are abandoning public transit in droves, as they get more choices. Historic "sunk expense" investments in this country do nothing to explain the GLOBAL trend toward increased auto use.
So happy as I am to learn that you have a friend who has opinions, please give us some FACTS, or if not facts, at least some convincing arguments. So far you've produced neither.
IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 18, 1999.

!! THE DEMOGRAPHICS DEPEND ON POLICY STUPID !!
Are our west coast demographics in large part a direct result of US development policy?
Are the demographics of the issaquah platteau in large part due to local development policy?
!! THE DEMOGRAPHICS DEPEND ON POLICY STUPID !!

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

Main Entry: de7mo7graph7ics Pronunciation: -fiks Function: noun plural Date: circa 1966 1 : the statistical characteristics of human populations (as age or income) used especially to identify markets
---------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------
!! THE DEMOGRAPHICS DEPEND ON POLICY STUPID !! No, actually they do not in a democracy, despite the volume of your reply. People make choices. They choose to get married or not. They chose to have kids or not. They choose to be DINKS, or not. Are there policies that can affect some of these choices? Sure. But short of something really Draconian, we are stuck with an aging baby boomer population (Why do you think Social Security is in a bind?). We are stuck with two income families. We are stuck with the choices that individuals make. Can policy change demographics? Sure, if it's Draconian enough, witness China's one baby policy. That isn't going to happen here, Billy. Neither is massive change to transit. I posted the Federal Transit Administration's Goals above. They ASPIRE to a 1% per year increase in transit miles. Starting from a market share of LESS THAN 2%, you and I'll die of old age before the transit share doubles. That's the reality, Billy.
"Are our west coast demographics in large part a direct result of US development policy?" What policy are you referring to, Billy, building the Railroads? Do you think that if we had not opened up the West, there would be no development here? Heck Billy, the Spanish were building missions in California LONG BEFORE there was a US. The Russians had come down through Northern California, long before there was a US. There would have been people here, Billy. Maybe speaking Russian, maybe speaking Spanish, but there would have been people here.
"Are the demographics of the issaquah platteau in large part due to local development policy?" Yes and no. If you are saying that different policies in the past MAY HAVE lead to a different population, sure, at least up to a point. If you are saying that different policies might have lead to less women working, fewer people being prosperous and being able to afford a second car, different decisions on number of children, etc., I'm pretty skeptical. But regardless, you have the situation AS IT IS NOW. And we ARE in a democracy. What is your plan for dealing with the current demographics? These are the demographics that have rendered transit ineffective. What are you going to do with the cards you've been dealt. Don't tell me what cards you WISH you'd been dealt.
It's STILL the demographics, stupid!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

Craig as I understand it your point is that a lower percentage of people using transit systems nationally than they were a few years ago suggests that we should decrease funding for public transit initiatives. I disagree with your conclusion, for the many reasons given above.
Like you I suspect, I'm all for telecommuting but we both know that won't help people get around more effectively and they'll still need to for quite a while.
What is your prescription to solve our smog, commute time, hassle and pollution challenges related to trips in the Pugest Sound?
By supporting 695, you are encouraging increased SOV use, but have'nt done your homework about the costs of SOVs per other options, so your personal opinion that public transportation is a relatively bad investment is entirely unsubstantiated.
"What are you going to do with the cards you've been dealt?"
I'm voting No on 695 because the initiative would increase SOV use at the expense of public transportation, the latter of which I believe holds the best course for a more livable, higher core density, puget sound future.
"Its the Policy AND the Demographics Stupid!"

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

What is your prescription to solve our smog, commute time, hassle and pollution challenges related to trips in the Pugest Sound?
By supporting 695, you are encouraging increased SOV use, but have'nt done your homework about the costs of SOVs per other options, so your personal opinion that public transportation is a relatively bad investment is entirely unsubstantiated.
"What are you going to do with the cards you've been dealt?"
I'm voting No on 695 because the initiative would increase SOV use at the expense of public transportation, the latter of which I believe holds the best course for a more livable, higher core density, puget sound future.
I'm voting YES, there are alternatives to Mass Transit. My Husband and I have been Carpooling for years. Citizens need to take PERSONAL responsibility for their lives and stop expecting the "Government" to solve all their problems. My Community does not have the funding available for Staffing a Sheriff's Department Substation, making Citizens drive farther to County Offices. They are no longer forced to do that. Volunteers Staff the Substation, of which I am one. When I-695 passes, and they require more hours of my time, I, and others like me will be there to assist. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. (I would like to add, these same Volunteers CARPOOL to training) That is MY prescription! Vote YES!

-- Marsha Schaefer (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), October 19, 1999.

Craig I hope you attend your public transit meeting to vet and test your views with the people who work on these problems full time.
For those interested in improving transit systems in the puget sound region, something that takes more effort than just criticizing them, King County's Metro has already started work on a new six year plan and is asking everyone to get involved by reviewing drafts etc... http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/tp/transit/6yrflier.htm
More general stuff on Metro here: http://transit.metrokc.gov/programs_info/metrotransit.html
If you folks outside of King County would post links and information on your public transportation organizations we'd really have a good start at making something constructive coming from this discussion.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

I can't argue the facts and demographic information that is being provided. The issue is how this information is used.
We need to define what our regional goals are. - What do we want? - What do we need? - Where do we want to go? - How do we get there?
The demographic trend information presented thus far, has shown people's behavior (as far as transportation preferences). Can we predict the consequences if we continue to follow this behavior? Do these consequences coincide with the regional goals? If they coincide, great! If not, then maybe this behavior may need to be modified so that the goals may be achieved.
The point is that demographic trends need to be reviewed relative to regional goals. Demographics should not be followed blindly, nor should they be ignored. They are important tools, but not the only tools, used in the decision making process.

Personal Opinion I see nothing wrong in encouraging commuting alternatives. The initial report that was cited identified several considerations to promote public transportation, ride sharing and work-at-home as commuting alternatives. If we blindly follow the demographics, then we might as well pave over Western Washington. I think that a more diverse commuting plan is necessary for the region. And if we need to subsidize commuting alternatives to achieve our goals, then we should subsidize them.
The regional goals and subsequent decisions of our transit agencies are different issues. Some may not agree with them. There are existing avenues to make your feelings known to them. Voting for or against I-695 is not the proper vehicle for communicating your feelings.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 19, 1999.

I agree 695 should be evaluated more broadly than as being an initiative against public transporation and for the SOV. I also believe that 695 must be evaluated more narrowly and carefully than as a "message to the government" by overburdened tax payers as some have tried to justify their support.
I am all for alternatives like ridesharing and carsharing and think local volunteering is great too. In King County, where the higher population density makes the economies of scale pay, many transit alternatives are facilitated by Metro: This is rideshare week (Oct 18-23).. metro page
http:// transit.metrokc.gov/travel_options/carshare.html

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

"Craig as I understand it your point is that a lower percentage of people using transit systems nationally than they were a few years ago suggests that we should decrease funding for public transit initiatives." No. My point is that anyone who believes that transit is going to solve the problems of congestion in the Puget Sound region is barking up the wrong tree. I have demonstrated that transit is losing market share for rational demographic reasons. I have demonstrated that it is subsidized, in the Puget Sound region, at a much higher level than it is nationally, and that it STILL has a trivial market share. I have demonstrated that the National Transit Administration has a goal of increasing transit use by 1% per year in terms of miles. If this goal CAN be met, transit use will take 69 years to double. That is simple mathematics. From a market share of less than 2%, a doubling will give us less than 4% of travel by transit. That too is simple mathematics. Given that Puget Souns ALREADY oversubsidizes transit, relative to the rest of the country, I am ASSERTING that it is unlikely we will do any better than the country as a whole. Therefore, we are unlikely to see a doubling of transit use in the Puget Sound area in our lifetimes. Ergo, transit isn't the answer. More intensive transit, certainly isn't the answer.
"Like you I suspect, I'm all for telecommuting but we both know that won't help people get around more effectively and they'll still need to for quite a while." Rare agreement. Since most trips are NOT related to work commuting, even during the commute hours, this will only mitigate congestion at the margins. An area of rare agreement between us.
"What is your prescription to solve our smog, commute time, hassle and pollution challenges related to trips in the Pugest Sound?" Even lumping smog and pollution challenges together (and that's a stretch) and commute time and hassle together (and that's a stretch) these are AT LEAST two different (albeit not totally unrelated) issues. I believe that we are well on the way to alleviating the smog/air pollution problems. If you look at nationwide air quality, it has done nothing but improve in the last twenty years. That doesn't mean it has improved everywhere, and it doesn't mean we ought to stop, but there is definite improvement. My post concerning ferry caused air pollution (which you elected to not reply to) was not just "pimping" you about mass transit, it was an appeal that we look past philosophical dogma and look at fact. It could be that the most cost- effective thing to go after is the ferries (or lawnmowers or chainsaws or personal watercraft), not the SOV? I have appealed for FACT based policies. Even good policies are not effective if you push them beyond the point of diminishing returns. With regard to congestion, I referred you to other sites that suggested such things as autoways that could be built at less cost than conventional, dedicated busways, etc. Are these likely to be cheap? No. But light rail at $100 million a mile ain't exactly cheap either, particularly if it doesn't do the job as well as the buses it will replace.
"By supporting 695, you are encouraging increased SOV use, but have'nt done your homework about the costs of SOVs per other options, so your personal opinion that public transportation is a relatively bad investment is entirely unsubstantiated." Actually, I have done my homework and it IS well substantiated. I gave you both a USDOT site that reviewed a large number of cost-allocation designs which I think fairly represented many authors views on social costs, and a WSDOT site that I frankly believe was laughable. If you looked at these URLs you know that is the case, and tyour statement is a misrepresntation. If you did not look at those URLs, you should. Perhaps you'll agree with the WSDOT one. I don't.
""What are you going to do with the cards you've been dealt?" I'm voting No on 695 because the initiative would increase SOV use at the expense of public transportation, the latter of which I believe holds the best course for a more livable, higher core density, puget sound future. " You get to vote your way and I get to vote my way. Isn't democracy great? So we'll cancel each other out. My vote, however, is based upon well researched facts, which I've made available to you. Yours is based upon your assertions, for which you have provided neither facts nor a particularly convincing argument. That obviously is adequate in your opinion. It isn't in mine. In the meantime, I'm going to continue to try to inform and educate those who will listen. You can continue to preach your dogma. The voters will decide.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

"If they coincide, great! If not, then maybe this behavior may need to be modified so that the goals may be achieved. " OK Gene, You're up.
Explain what behavior modification steps you would take.
How much do you think they'd cost?
How long do you think they'd take?
These going to require any legislative changes, constitutional amendments? If so, how you gonna get the support you need?
Can you come up with a change quicker than the 1% per year increase in miles that the National Transit Administration has set as a goal? If so, how?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

Craig in keeping with your continued use of facts while ignoring context, you cite a national goal of increasing total miles traveled by people on public transit by 1% per year as evidence of transit's futility.
What you ignore in this case is that transit efficiencies lag behind density increases. Decreasing percent of ridership as well mean its time to gear up, not give up!!
Over the last 40 years from which you say the 1% is derived from (where's that NTA study website? ) we've used government funds to pave many new miles of roadway, all working against transit efficiencies by spreading people out.
But transit efficiencies naturally FOLLOW behind in time because the time it takes for density increases.. therefore the demographics of public transit naturally should take an INCREASING role here in the Puget Sound over the next decades.
I ask what solutions to the commute and polution problems in the puget sound you propose and you cite a web site having alternate car ways.. Then you have the audacity to turn around and demand specific plans from another poster. But you are much better at tearing plans down them building them aren't you?
I've heard Rush Limbaugh say 'there are more trees in America than ever before,' but I know there's more to the picture than one number.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

From the Puget Sound Regional Council newsletter TOWARD A MORE LIVABLE 2030 - TRANSPORTATION PLAN DUE FOR UPDATE
"By 2030 there'll be nearly 5,000,000 people living within the same 6400 square miles about 3.2 million people inhabit today."

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

Billy
Writes By 2030 there'll be nearly 5,000,000 people living within the same 6400 square miles about 3.2 million people inhabit today."
This on the surface lots like it will be a little tight.
But Bill if you had pulled out a calculator and did the math it comes out to 1.2207 acres per person. My current lot is only 10,500 sq.ft. in size. Does this mean Ill get more land.
Now if you look at it my way, if we use 10,500sq.ft. for 1 person, then we could fit 16,992,548 people in the same 6400 sq.mi. Of course this is only one person on each lot. If we use a figure of 3.2 people per household then we could fit a total of 54,376,155 in 6400 sq.mi. Of course this doesnt take into account for streets, businesses, city hall, etc
At this rate we could fit everyone in the country comfortly into Washington.
Typical liberal tactics throw out some numbers that look bad until you take a closer look.
Ed its all in how you look at it

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

Hi Ed, you wrote "...At this rate we could fit everyone in the country comfortably into Washington."
Will you be the one killing the cougar to make yourself some space on a cliff in what used to be Discovery Park?
Typical dittohead tactics: 1) throw out some numbers that look good until you take a closer look. 2) pretend that humans don't need a healthy environment to be healthy.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

Will--"By 2030 there'll be nearly 5,000,000 people living within the same 6400 square miles about 3.2 million people inhabit today."
This statistic has nothing to do with transportation. By itself, it only makes a good case for increasing access to birth control or reducing the ease of immigration.
Silly me, I forgot. These people will jump at the chance to live really close to one another and _insert_favorite_marginal_transportation_method_here_ to work.
Is it okay if I call you a crackpot???

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 19, 1999.

Will--"Will you be the one killing the cougar to make yourself some space on a cliff in what used to be Discovery Park?"
Will 0
Ed 1

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 19, 1999.

No problem Brad / Impartial referee / Troll-boy -- I'll help you out, you obviously have pretty limited comprehension and besides I'll get a rise out of insulting you too!
Higher population density will increase public and cooperative transit efficiencies because of increased opportunities to share the ride and increased pressure to stay the heck off the road, making public transit even more attractive relative to the SOV.
Especially because there will be a projected 5Mil in the Puget Sound region by 2030, its time for we the 3.2 Million here currently to get serious about acquiring those public right-of-ways now to avoid worsening gridlock.
Instead of heckling you may wish to have some fun with this, it will quote you your population density per zip code. http://link- usa.com/zipcode/pop.htm
According to that my home zip in seattle is 13.2 K/Mi^2 (1000/Square Mile) work in bothell is 8.9 and 10001 in NYC is 52.7

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

"What you ignore in this case is that transit efficiencies lag behind density increases. Decreasing percent of ridership as well mean its time to gear up, not give up!!" Except you ignore the international figures in the NTD site that I gave you that demonstrate that even at density levels FAR above what are envisioned in SmartGrowth, Western Europe is seeing their transit share DECREASE, Japan is seeing their transit share DECREASE, and even impoverished Eastern Europe is seeing their transit share DECREASE. Now I can understand a lag, but what makes the trend go in the wrong direction? Simple: It's the demographics.
"Over the last 40 years from which you say the 1% is derived from (where's that NTA study website? ) we've used government funds to pave many new miles of roadway, all working against transit efficiencies by spreading people out." What I SAID was that the National Transit Agency GOAL is to increase transit miles by 1% per year. This is given in their strategic plan:http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/intro/fy2ppg2.htm Over the last 40 years, they've lost ground, not gained.
"But transit efficiencies naturally FOLLOW behind in time because the time it takes for density increases.. therefore the demographics of public transit naturally should take an INCREASING role here in the Puget Sound over the next decades." Again, the demographics (and the results) are a lower transit share, not higher, even in areas with much greater population density than we are shooting for. IN OTHER REGIONS WITH MUCH HIGHER DENSITIES,TRANSIT IS STILL LOSING MARKET SHARE. It's the demographics, Billy
"I ask what solutions to the commute and polution problems in the puget sound you propose and you cite a web site having alternate car ways.. Then you have the audacity to turn around and demand specific plans from another poster. But you are much better at tearing plans down them building them aren't you?" You asked four different questions that are peripherally related. I wasn't going to answer them in one posting. I have been accused of posting "War and Peace" size postings in the past. Start a thread with one (1) issue at a time, and we'll go for it.

It's STILL the demographics, Billy!

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

Billy
First off I dont listen to Rush, Hamblin, or any other of the conservative talk shows. So you made one wrong assumption among many.
Next 0.81 acres (sorry for the wrong number) is a pretty good size chunk of land to plop your butt on. So I dont think too many cougars will have to die, just the ones that endanger our children.
Next I was not heckling you, just pointing out that saying there is only 6400 sq. miles for us makes it look small when put with 5,000,000 until you realize it comes out to 4,095,983.61 acres.
Last as I stated in a previous post, when a liberal is backed into a corner with no facts (or guards) to back them up, they start name- calling.
P.S. whats Discovery Park and where is it?
Ed need new batteries for my HP 48GX. Plus the density of Seattle would be less if all the liberals didnt converge on it like lemmings.

-- Ed (ed_bridges@yahoo.com), October 19, 1999.

"Except you ignore the international figures in the NTD site.."
There is no mention of 'Japan' on the plan page you pointed too, nor could I find it looking around the table of contents: http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/intro/
And I do want to see because when you say Japan et al are decreasing in transit utilization you don't say from what, and you don't say for how long. Could it be the US has a lower utilization of public transit than those countries currently? YES! Could it be that transit utilization in Japan is down the last ten years because of relatively cheaper oil / gas which may double in price soon? COULD BE!
So of all those countries' transit use data you cite as evidence for your theory that demographics are all that matter, where have you carefully examined and discarded with reason the factors of disparate policies, existing investments in transportation, geography, population densities and growth, culture et al. so that we may reliably draw conclusions from these international studies for use here in the Puget Sound?
Going ast the dictionary definition, what specific factors do you consider to be reflected by demographics? Where has it been shown scientifically that for transit utilization all factors cancel out except for these demographics you list?
I await the URL or repost of your study from another thread. Without it I'll continue to feel that you're just making noise with static utilization figures from widely disparate regions and economies.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

"Billy First off I dont listen to Rush, Hamblin, or any other of the conservative talk shows. So you made one wrong assumption among many. "
Please excuse me for the innacurate retalatory name calling... for lack of better word to describe the opposite and equally offensive stereotype of 'liberal', which you've called me twice in this last post, I called you a dittohead. You get the idea when I said dittohead just like I get the idea when you call me a liberal. I'd be very happy to stop the name calling, tiring of seeing "whiner", "liberal", "social engineer" and other terms being flung against me and others on the board who dare to hold the opinion 695 is a bad idea.
Check, the nesting with a Cougar reference was meant to communicate that 5 Million acres of total area does not 5Million acres of paveable, liveable land make.
Discovery Park is Seattle's biggest park, formerly a military reserve called Ft Lawton, it is located in the Magnolia neighborhood. The park has great running trails, has been known to host cougars, and provides habitat for a lot of wildlife. It has rapidly eroding sand bluffs on the sound, or sand cliffs. Here in the city I at least need to get out to some semblance of nature for a walk and general attitude adjustment and that is often where I go.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

"According to that my home zip in seattle is 13.2 K/Mi^2 (1000/Square Mile) work in bothell is 8.9 and 10001 in NYC is 52.7" And the transit share in NYC is continuing to slip, just like THE REST OF THE WORLD: 1 New York Transit Market Share by year 1960-43.65%, 1970-37.48%, 1980- 29.61%, 1990- 26.85%
http://publicpurpose.com/ut-jtw60.htm
So when you QUADRUPLE the population, you increase the users of transit about seven-fold. That remains a HUGE increase in congestion, because you still have a lot more people not using transit than you did to begin with. You have effectively tripled the congestion. This is a GOOD thing?
"There is no mention of 'Japan' on the plan page you pointed too, nor could I find it looking around the table of contents: http://www.fta.dot.gov/library/intro/ " Look in the reference listed above for international data, Billy http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap10.pdf If you're not going to read these, I'll stop posting them. You can take my word for the facts I post.
"And I do want to see because when you say Japan et al are decreasing in transit utilization you don't say from what, and you don't say for how long. Could it be the US has a lower utilization of public transit than those countries currently? YES! Could it be that transit utilization in Japan is down the last ten years because of relatively cheaper oil / gas which may double in price soon? COULD BE! " Yeah, but the fact is this is happening in almost ALL countries, not just Japan, due to the common demographic trends affecting most of the world.

It's still the demographics, Billy.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

Will--"Higher population density will increase public and cooperative transit efficiencies because of increased opportunities to share the ride and increased pressure to stay the heck off the road, making public transit even more attractive relative to the SOV."
Yawn. . .why am I unsurprised you missed the point?
Given Americans' overwhelming preference (almost without exception) for detached, single family homes, how ya gonna convince people to live close enough together so we can realize your utopian pipe dream of high-density housing areas served by ubiquitous mass transit? Since I'm a thoughtful person, I saved you the trouble of coming up with a title for your response. You should call it "Will's Guide to Revamping the American Dream."
IMO, the *only* things I see that would work to help Puget sound congestion are telecommuting, restricting immigration (while this offends me, I think it would probably work), or imposing draconian measures designed to reduce peoplpe's mobility (ie last initial A-M drive Mon-Wed and N-Z drive Thu-Fri. . .next week they switch) or housing choice (ie Boing field employees are only allowed to purchase houses in the Beacon Hill or Georgetown neighborhoods).
For your benefit, I'll continue to type slowly. With "our" current definition of the American dream, we've a growing number of people who live a growing distance from their work who are taking a growing number of trips (whew). I guess I should just say "IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS STUPID."

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 19, 1999.

"So of all those countries' transit use data you cite as evidence for your theory that demographics are all that matter, where have you carefully examined and discarded with reason the factors of disparate policies, existing investments in transportation, geography, population densities and growth, culture et al. so that we may reliably draw conclusions from these international studies for use here in the Puget Sound? " So can you show me somewhere that densification has been associated with an increased transit market share that is adequate to offset the congestion caused by the densification? I've showed you one place after another where the demographics have driven down transit market share. Show me JUST ONE where your recommended cure has worked.
It's the demographics, Billy.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

"Where has it been shown scientifically that for transit utilization all factors cancel out except for these demographics you list? " All other factors don't cancel out, but they frequently are overwhelmed by the effect of the demographics. That's why epidemiologists need to correct every population based study they do for demographics. That's why none of those peer reviewed scientific reports that you were talking about will be published if they don't correct for the demographics. That's why we had such a crunch for elementary schools in the 50s, high schools in the 60s, why we're sweating blood over the baby boomers reaching retirement age, why we have the healthcare crunch we do (it ain't the children, it's the old fogies....like me), in short, the demographics need to always be considered and in cases like this, YES, THEY DO OVERWHELM OTHER FACTORS. So I'd ask you, Billy, to read the references I gave you, and when you're done with them I think you'll have a little better idea of the issues involved. I'm not anti-transit because I hate the environment, I'm anti-transit because we've pushed it past the point of cost-effectiveness in Washington state. And I'm not anti-densification because I dislike people or wish to despoil the wilderness, I'm against it because it's ineffective and being sold to do a job it can't possibly do. And until we turn away from expensive things that can't do the job, we'll never get the resources we need to do (probably equally expensive things) that can do the job. And being an old fogey, I was raised in an era when we honored facts and well designed studies more than we honored feel good dogma, of either a left wing or right wing persuasion. And for that reason, if you can come up with some facts and some good arguments you could convince me I'm wrong, but I don't think you will because I HAVE studied the issue and AM familiar with the literature, apparently more so than those who just go by the dogma. But go ahead and try Billy, educate yourself with the literature (not the biased stuff, but good studies with good designs and good statistics) and if you find something objective that I haven't found that will change my mind, I'll admit I'm wrong and thank you for the education. But until you do, let's hold down the name calling and stuff (I had to have someone explain to me what a dittohead was, it wasn't as bad as I thought, I figured it was ..... never mind, this is a "G" rated forum). But it's still the demographics, Billy.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

Brad / Troll yawn to match.. and here we go again....
Its the policies vis a vis the demographics stupid!
By controlling how are mix of our tax dollars spent on roads versus public transit systems we either choose to promote detached, single family homes, set on an acre, or alternatively higher density urban housing which can more readily be served by cooperative transit.
You and Craig believe demographic trends should lead transportation policy, not seeing how our current condition is a direct result of previous policy. I on the other hand understand admit at least there is interaction between the two, which makes the problem harder.
Craig, I found your Japanese / global trend source via your earlier posting at http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/ and I no where do I see anything facts that the auto is increasingly being used as a tool for achieving mobility. More people are buying SUVs too, in no small part because Detroit has been successful at postpone the imposition of the truck loophole in US emmisions and efficiency regulations.
People will move whichever way has the best cost to benefit ratio.
Because roads are subsidized every bit as much as light rail or carpool organization efforts are, your argument has in no way shown that we should decrease our funding of public transportation for the benefit of the automobile, which if you hadn't noticed, are currently jamming our freeways.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

Billy-
You asked for the Japan reference. Please read the whole chapter on international trends, but here is the Japan part: ) Japan As in Europe and the United States, automobile and air travel are increasing in Japan. In con-trast, travel by bus and rail is growing much more slowly. Automobile use has grown 12 per-cent annually since 1960 while rail use grew 5.7 percent per year. (Japan Ministry of Transport 1996) Figure 10-1 shows modal shares for select-ed years. The first Japanese expressway was completed in 1969. During the next two decades, the Japanese built roads, added passenger cars, and increased their driving at annual rates exceeding those in the United States (see figure 10-2). Today, 80 percent of Japanese households have at least one passenger car, up from 67 percent a decade ago. Japanese commuters face particularly heavy congestion along expressways and arterial roads as they travel in Tokyo and its suburbs. The medi-an commute time for Tokyo is 43.5 minutes, com-pared with the national median of 27.3 minutes. (Statistics Bureau 198393) The government has attempted to address congestion by adding road-ways, a policy that may help to explain the small change in median commute times between 1983 and 1993. ) Japan As in Europe and the United States, automobile and air travel are increasing in Japan. In con-trast, travel by bus and rail is growing much more slowly. Automobile use has grown 12 per-cent annually since 1960 while rail use grew 5.7 percent per year. (Japan Ministry of Transport 1996) Figure 10-1 shows modal shares for select-ed years. The first Japanese expressway was completed in 1969. During the next two decades, the Japanese built roads, added passenger cars, and increased their driving at annual rates exceeding those in the United States (see figure 10-2). Today, 80 percent of Japanese households have at least one passenger car, up from 67 percent a decade ago. Japanese commuters face particularly heavy congestion along expressways and arterial roads as they travel in Tokyo and its suburbs. The medi-an commute time for Tokyo is 43.5 minutes, com-pared with the national median of 27.3 minutes. (Statistics Bureau 198393) The government has attempted to address congestion by adding road-ways, a policy that may help to explain the small change in median commute times between 1983 and 1993.
Rail and intercity and urban bus travel have suffered from competition with passenger cars. Most trams disappeared from Japanese cities in the 1960s, city buses felt the effects in the early 1970s, and in the late 1970s railways lost passengers. In 1987, because of continuing losses, Japan National Railway was privatized and broken up into six regional lines. The intercity market has grown with improved services, cost reductions, and lower fares (in real terms). Provincial railways, however, still depend on national and provincial subsidies. Hanging over the entire rail system is a $250 billion debt accumulated during its nationalization period, for which the government has yet to devise an acceptable repayment plan.
http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap10.pdf page 17

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

"People will move whichever way has the best cost to benefit ratio. " Which is strongly affected by the demographics.
Give us facts, Billy, not assertions. I keep posting studies, you keep parroting dogma. I show you that even if we reached NYC levels of transit use it would not offset the congestion, because the market share for transit in NYC is STILL NOT HIGH ENOUGH. Show me Billy. Don't tell me, show me. It's still the demographics, Billy.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 19, 1999.

Will--"By controlling how are mix of our tax dollars spent on roads versus public transit systems we either choose to promote detached, single family homes, set on an acre, or alternatively higher density urban housing which can more readily be served by cooperative transit."
Again, you completely miss the point. Given the current state of the American dream and the fact that we've a democratic form of government, how are you going to convince the American people that they want higher density? I don't know what it's like on your planet, but on mine I don't see any mainstream politicians (presuming they have a desire for reelection) proposing a *serious* plan to increase density. Given the fundamental change you propose, I don't see it working except by fiat. Unfortunately for your position, American governments don't work that way.
"You and Craig believe demographic trends should lead transportation policy, not seeing how our current condition is a direct result of previous policy. I on the other hand understand admit at least th ere is interaction between the two, which makes the problem harder."
You've obviously no idea what I do or don't understand. I fully understand your point about how we got into the current situation. However, until we change the culture of the "The American Dream", your point is only an interesting artifact. We've got to deal with the world as it *is*, not how we *want* it to be. Proverbially, we've made our bed and now we've gotta sleep in it.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 19, 1999.

And just so the point is not forgotten, I-695 is not about transit, or highway construction, or the ferry system, or any other MVET supported program. Nothing in the initiative changes any state or local program. The funding cut is not targeted. Short term, MVET funded programs may be hurt; but long term any program may be cut to fund the Tacoma Narrows bridge or more HOV lane conversions. The initiative does nothing to change any of that.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 19, 1999.

- errata- my sentence up there several posts regarding the report at http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/ should have read "..and no where do I see anything but FACTS that the auto is increasingly being used as a tool for achieving mobility."
Craig: Thanks for the summary, I believe Japanese automakers have been successful world wide. The international data provided does not account for the environmental costs of different modes of transportation.
We and the Japanese have increased funding regardless of less per capita use because they see its societal benefits like competing with autos, carrying tourists, smart and poor folk, handicapped, kids, and others who live near current lines.
Relying on numbers like those cited, I believe we two odiffer on how long and broad a view we need to account for externalites, both good and bad. Historically based forecasts into the future get mighty fuzzy 20 years out.. investing in public right of ways and for public transportation seem a worthy investment in my opinion, provided its done carefully.
This discussion is part of that care; if you were at a meeting, might you advocate that telecommuting should be further encouraged via public policy? I would heartily support funding, but wouldn't limit my support to the fastest growing form, be however entrenched it is.
Brad: "I don't know what it's like on your planet, but on mine I don't see any mainstream politicians (presuming they have a desire for reelection) proposing a *serious* plan to increase density. Given the fundamental change you propose, I don't see it working except by fiat. Unfortunately for your position, American governments don't work that way. "
I suspect you and I are city and country folk respectively? Close on my neighborhood by the zoo in Seattle, high housing density is going up all over, according to plan. The Seattle Dept of Neighboorhoods has plans online, commercial zones concentrating, apartments, many older single family houses are being replaced by for multi unit duplexes all over town. Density shouldn't go everywhere by definition.
dbvz: And let us not forget that if 695 passes and is adopted, we will have changed our levying system from a representative one to directly democratic one.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 19, 1999.

Will--"I suspect you and I are city and country folk respectively? Close on my neighborhood by the zoo in Seattle, high housing density is going up all over, according to plan. The Seattle Dept of Neighborhoods has plans online, commercial zones concentrating, apartments, many older single family houses are being replaced by for multi unit duplexes all over town. Density shouldn't go everywhere by definition."
Out of curiousity, how do they get past the zoning board? Have they been rezoning single family areas as multi-use property? Given most property owners' attitudes towards multi-family housing, I'm surprised the neighbors didn't fight it.
In my neighborhood (more or less Columbia City), the only new construction we have are single family homes. Just up the street in Beacon Hill, they construct monstrous homes with a target market of extended immigrant families. To be fair, Belltown has interesting high-density construction.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Billy
Thank you for the infomation on Discovery Park. Never heard of it before, but next time I get over there I'll take a look. I too need to escape once in-a-while, so I work on my basement or clean my wife's car.
P.S. If responses were pharsed as yours was to me about the park this would be a lot friendlier forum.
Ed - Hopeing to get my '82 GT tomorrow, or today (which ever day this reply gets posted as)

-- Ed (ed_brigdes@yahoo.com), October 20, 1999.

" The international data provided does not account for the environmental costs of different modes of transportation." Would you please give me a definitive source on the environmental data? I've given you numerous on the domestic data, not counting the WSDOT reference that's a laugher.
"We and the Japanese have increased funding regardless of less per capita use because they see its societal benefits like competing with autos, carrying tourists, smart and poor folk, handicapped, kids, and others who live near current lines. " As noted repeatedly above, this is a declining market share. As also noted in the above, they had to privatize their railroads to keep them viable. As also noted above, they ran up a $250 Billion debt BEFORE they privatized their railroads, part of what ruined their economy. Please reread (or read, if appropriate) the reference. That entire chapter "Global Trends: Passenger Mobility and Freight Activity" disproves your assertions are saying, and it's 41 pages.
I realize that you would prefer the situation to be different Billy, but IT'S STILL THE DEMOGRAPHICS!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 20, 1999.

PS: Billy-
What do you think we should do with the air pollution problem with the ferries?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 20, 1999.

I thought that I would state my position.
I am not so naive to believe that we do not have to address the immediate transportation needs. Demographics clearly indicate that additional roadways are needed. Most people living here could attest to that. But, neither am I naive enough to think that additional roadways is the only solution. Especially when planning for the future is the topic.
In that respect, I do not claim to have the education or experience to propose a viable plan that would support everyone's needs. I rely on the appropriate government agencies to do what they are supposed to do. I trust that these agencies will solicit public opinion when they develop these plans. I also believe that those who do not agree with these plans should raise their concerns in the appropriate venue.
I do not think that passing I-695 will not make government more efficient. The tax cut only requires them to prioritize where to cut spending. They could still fully fund most projects, including transit, and cut funding to essential services. Then they could put a new tax or a tax increase for these essential services up for a vote. (I don't think that they would do that, but they could!) If the goal is to make the government more efficient, or to cut funding to a specific project, then passing I-695 is NOT the answer.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 20, 1999.

Gene-
You first imply that the government has the wisdom to make good decisions. You then indicate that forcing them to reprioritize will not necessarily make things more efficient because they won't necessarily cut the least important programs. You then say that you don't think that they will do that. Based upon this logic train, you hope to convince me to not vote for 695? This is not a REAL convincing argument.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

Brad:
Neigbors certainly make objections but density in Seattle is increasing. For the multi family homes I see in Greenwood (and there seem to be lots of apartments going up in Bothell too though the new huge homes are on the hillsides too).. I believe that the zoning is being changed to accomodate multi family units per demand from developers, who can build two 250K tall narrow homes with no yard on a 4500 square foot lot and public officials, who cite the need to curb sprawl with high density housing. Mayor Schell and the Deptartment of Neighborhoods are definitely encouraging density via 'urban villages', and transit is factor in planning these areas, but I coulnd't find permit trend data specific to Seattle.
On the county level check out http://www.psrc.org/d4trend.htm which says "Although the number of multifamily units permitted from 1996 to 1997 remained fairly stable, the change in multifamily permit activity has been very significant over time (Figure 2.). During the 1980s, the number of multifamily units permitted grew from 5,000 in 1982 to nearly 19,000 in 1989 - the highest annual number of multifamily units permitted to date. From 1991 to 1995, the number of multifamily units permitted remained relatively steady, varying from 5,900 to 6,700. However, in 1996 and 1997 that number increased to over 9,000 units. "
Ed "P.S. If responses were pharsed as yours was to me about the park this would be a lot friendlier forum. " Thank you, the trends seem good!!
Craig:
"As noted repeatedly above, this is a declining market share" Rereading http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap10.pdf I find plenty of support that the auto is gaining share worldwide, but nothing about the costs and benefits of the different modes. I also find: - "Because the quality and quantity of passenger and freight data vary greatly across countries, the discussion is illustrative rather than definitive (see box 10-1). In addition, as the data used here are national in scope, they may mask important differences at the local and regional levels in many countries." - Per figure 10-1, Japan has only a 51% modal share for the auto, versus 86.5% here in the US. - "In response to concerns about the growing dominance of road transportation, with associated congestion and environmental impacts, national governments and the EU have started to promote rail, inland waterways, and intermodal-ism." - Without an accounting for the costs and benefits of different modes when looking at these international trends, there is no way to determine whether one or another mode should be promoted more or less by public policy here.
Per "What do you think we should do with the air pollution problem with the ferries?" Increase utilization of ferry trips, by adding cars and people, or reducing frequency, design cleaner burning ferries. I don't know much about ferries. When looking at their efficiency I would consider that they carry a proportion of walk on passengers, and that some places are unreachable except by ferry.
A return question Craig: Do you support public efforts at examining and facilitating telecommuting as a tranportation subsitute?
To reiterate, the demographic trends you have pointed out, without careful analysis of costs and benefits, are as much a call for more spending on public transit than less.
Gene: I agree more paving will and should be done in specific places, I also believe that competitive alternatives to the highly publically subsidized automobile should be encouraged.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 20, 1999.

Craig presents this question: "PS: Billy- What do you think we should do with the air pollution problem with the ferries?"
Well Craig maybe we should make all the ferries stay up on Capitol hill. That way all the air pollution will be centralized.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

"A return question Craig: Do you support public efforts at examining and facilitating telecommuting as a tranportation substitute?" Certainly, for those whose businesses that can do so. Also, alternate scheduling (4-10a, flex-time, etc.) for those businesses that can meet customer demand that way. Anything that can spread peak loads over a broader time zone will allow us to get more use out of less infrastructure (year roud schools too, for that matter). Unfortunately, certain businesses just can't do this (hard to telecommute a haircut, for example). But you also need to realize that some of the things that are helpful for peak load traffic management make such things as car-pooling MORE DIFFICULT. I worked for an organization that instituted flextime. It broke up car pools that had been stable for 20 years. Net result was an INCREASE in commuters. Watch for unintended consequences. For e-commerce, it may be the loss of small retailers and downsizing of large retailers. Certainly one Fed-ex truck delivering packages to 50 homes is better than 50 people driving to Southcenter and back, but it will drastically change the outlook for cities, particularly if the internet remains untaxed. Now I can live with that, but it's why the nations mayors are really running scared of e-commerce. It may also dramatically decrease the need for cities. They were put together to spread information and to be centers of commerce, not to warehouse people. If I can telecommute from Dash Point, I can probably telecommute from the San Juans. If I can e-commerce from Lands' End in Wisconsin, why do I need to go to Nordstroms?
"To reiterate, the demographic trends you have pointed out, without careful analysis of costs and benefits, are as much a call for more spending on public transit than less." I have given you a number of references that discuss the cost/benefit picture in this country. I do not hav, and am not sure that anyone has international figures, since cross-cultural comparisons are difficult. But I did not give you the international data to solve international problems, only to demonstrate that the demographic trends were world-wide, not just in the US. With respect to the US, we have been spending more on transit, considerably more on both a dollar basis and an inflation adjusted basis. The utilization has in fact dropped, yielding skyrocketing per capita costs. But despite this, we continue to lose market share everywhere and in most markets, have seen an actual drop in numbers as well as market share. I've given you references that show this. Given that, we are spending more and getting progressively less return, I have to ask at what point YOU would be willing to say transit isn't goping to do the job? If we are already well past the point of diminishing returns, and only getting 1.8% of people using transit (and that percentage continuing to drop), what would it take to get you to say, you're right, it just doesn't make sense.
If you can't answer that question, you are not talking rational thinking here, you're talking blind adherence to dogma. You are entitled to your dogma, if that is your wish, but you are no more entitled to require me to spend my money on your dogma than I am entitled to require you to spend YOUR money supporting MY church or religious beliefs.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 20, 1999.

I was asked to clarify my statement...
I-695 basically imposes an environment where the overall budget is smaller and restricts how government can regain those lost revenues, nothing more. Inefficiencies, "pork barrel" politics, poor policy decisions, etc. could still exist and do not have to be corrected in this environment. I-695 DOES NOT FORCE CHANGE specific to how our government functions, sets priorities or funds projects. Change will occur, no doubt, but I-695 does not directed where this changes will occur.
If your goal is just to force change in government with little or no care of the results, then you should vote for it.
If, however, your goal is to force SPECIFIC changes in government (e.g. address inefficiencies, stop/limit projects, affect policy, etc.), then you should vote against it because I-695 does not do that.
If you do trust government and the predictions on budget and service cuts are acceptable, then you should vote for it. If the predicted budget and service cuts are not acceptable, then you should vote against I-695.
If you do not trust the government, I-695 does nothing to stop them from fully funding their pet projects and proposing additional taxes or levies to pay for essential services. If this is the case, then you should be voting against I-695. (Yes, they can be voted out of office by their constituents if they did this. But if their constituents didn't trust them, then they would not have been elected in the first place.)
So - my position is that I basically trust the government. I believe that essential services will be negatively affected if I-695 is passed. I am currently planning to vote against this initiative.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 20, 1999.

"So - my position is that I basically trust the government. I believe that essential services will be negatively affected if I-695 is passed. I am currently planning to vote against this initiative. "
By this I take it you believe that 98% of current government spending is essential, that there is not 2% waste?
If not, do you then believe that our elected politicians lack the will or ability to separate the non-essential 2% required by their loss of revenue from the REST of the services?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 20, 1999.

It is not just a matter of identifying the essential services. The issue is what services are needed or wanted by the state as a whole, and local communities.
If you want the bare necessities, consider the third-world village I have mentioned before. No pavement, no running water, no police or fire department, no jobs, no inductry, etc. How "essential" do you want to get? Even "essential" services can be delivered at differing levels-of-service, that require a value judgement that is subjective.
When we recognize that government services are in the need and want catagory, subjective value judgements need to be prioritized and rated. That is what politics does. That is what the initiative process, and I-695 in particular, can't do. The initiative gives you all or nothing. The good with the bad. 695 is more bad than good.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 21, 1999.

"The initiative gives you all or nothing. " No, the initiative gives you 100% or 98%. No, that isn't even right. It gives you 111% or 109%. Neither would be my preferred option, but in a forced choice situation (which this is), I opt for the 109%

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

More Clarification
Like any large bureaucratic entity, there is probably more than 2% waste that could be recovered with improved efficiency. But I-695 does not address efficiency. It is strictly a budget reduction initiative. It does not specify where these budget cuts will occur. Typically in a large bureaucratic entity, when budget cuts occur, jobs are lost.
The will or ability of our elected politicians is not the problem. The question is determining what is and is not essential. I'm sure that every budget item was placed there because someone or some group believes that item as being essential. So one way or another, the result will be reduction in some services that someone will consider essential.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 21, 1999.

"The will or ability of our elected politicians is not the problem. The question is determining what is and is not essential. I'm sure that every budget item was placed there because someone or some group believes that item as being essential. So one way or another, the result will be reduction in some services that someone will consider essential. " What you are saying is that our politicians are incapable of prioritizing government service. If I were to presume that to be true, that would certainly be a valid reason to deny them ANY tax increases, once I-695 passes. Why give MORE money to people who do not know what to do with the money they already have?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 21, 1999.

What I was saying is that everything is probably considered "essential" to one group or another. Politicians will use whatever resources are available to help prioritize these essential items relative to each other. That is why feedback for their consituents is so important. In this respect, I trust them to do a good job.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 21, 1999.

Re: Politicians "I trust them to do a good job" Perhaps I'm older than you are Gene, but I remember a government contract that Boeing bid on called the TFX. As I recall, they had the best plan at the best price, should have gotten the contract but an obscure Texas politician with the initials LBJ sent the contract to General Dynamics in FORT WORTH TEXAS. Two of the services (the Navy and Marines) managed to jink out of the program and the Air Force (and the poor Aussies) were stuck with the monstrosity that the troops called "McNamara's second Edsel." Ask some of the older engineers around the plant, Gene. While you're at it, ask what happened to the SST (the team was originally the SuperSonics, for those of you recently arrived from California). Yup, them politicians make some FINE decisions.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 21, 1999.

Craig:
And that is why you support an untargeted tax cut, that leaves all the important decisions about programs and priorities to the politicians you don't trust? That doen not sound like a very consistent arguement. If you think transit ought to be cut, and the ferry system ought to pay its own way, propose an initiative that does that. 695 isn't it. Poorly written. Bad law. Vote NO.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 21, 1999.

Craig: "A return question Craig: Do you support public efforts at examining and facilitating telecommuting as a tranportation substitute?" "Certainly, for those whose businesses that can do so..."
I meant to gain your conceptual support of public subsidizing of telecommuting, but yes, companies can help too. Anecdotally one might expect Microsoft to be an early adopter, but their last HR VP didn't think it was worth encouraging. I think their is more hope in more independant workers. Certainly some significant proportion of telecommuting is done now, and perhaps remote information access will reduce reduce trips overall.
I now see how pro-active peak trip reduction programs could sometimes backfire, they should be carefully considered.
Per the evidence that overal percentage transit utilization has decrased over the last 40 years as funding for it has increased: "If we are already well past the point of diminishing returns, and only getting 1.8% of people using transit (and that percentage continuing to drop), what would it take to get you to say, you're right, it just doesn't make sense. "
I'm not sure of a number, for one, the answer would vary greatly per locality. I do know that in many areas autos enjoy a plethora of support services, to the detriment of transit competion.
From earlier discussion on whether policy can influence local demographics, I heard of an example ( more recent than our land grants populating the West ), on the radio, a story about the sleepy little town of Laredo reported by All Things Considered.
"Laredo Trucking -- NPR's John Burnett reports that increased trade with Mexico, primarily due to NAFTA, has turned Laredo, TX into the nation's second fastest growing city. Trade has grown there nearly 20 percent a year for 13 years turning this border city into a trucking and warehousing super center. But the growth has been so explosive it has created a traffic nightmare as more than 9,000 tractor-trailers a day cross the border. (7:30)
Back to demographics and density, I cannot imagine a NYC or San Francisco without public transit, whereas a LA I can. These cities built build rights of way before the car, out competing the horse, before the car had taken over.
Am I clear in thinking that in small and growing communities, Laredo for example, public efforts at developing transit might be 'easier' and more cost effective than they are in a more mature place like Seattle?
dbvz: I'm with you on Voting No! I believe a popular vote on raising taxes may be a good idea, that it deserves and requires its own initiative.

-- Billy Morton (leftodo@deja.com), October 22, 1999.

No d-
I support I-695 for the popular plebescite and the (minimally) decreased resources to government. My statement regarding politicians was in response to what seemed to me to be a rather childish confidence that Gene was expressing in politicians. I believe that some politicians are good, some are bad, most are in between. But I have seen the political process up close, and it's an inherently corrupting process, that takes even very good people farther and farther from their roots, farther and farther from common sense. Even the long time politicians were surprised by the I-695 movement. How could they have misjudged this situation so bad, if their common sense had not gone seriously astray? I honestly think this is going to PASS, notwithstanding the big money being spent against it. This alone tells me the politicians have lost touch.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.

Attention Odo (Billy) You spoke of telecommuting. Terrific idea. Probably upwards of 90% of government could be accomplished by telecommuting and all the congestion would be solved and BILLIONS of dollars would be saved by converting government buildings back into tax revenue producing edifices.
Yeah I'd back telecommuting for government and put the change back into EVERYBODY"S pockets

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 22, 1999.

Billy-
"I'm not sure of a number, for one, the answer would vary greatly per locality. I do know that in many areas autos enjoy a plethora of support services, to the detriment of transit competion. " I agree that the effectiveness of transit depends greatly on population density and in particular the population of "transit dependent." All the studies show this. Just as it would be ineffective to try to push walking past it's niche in the transportation scheme, biking past its niche, rail past it's niche, and autos for that matter past their niche, it is ineffective to try to push transit past it's niche. In many locales, I believe we have done that. That doesn't mean it DOESN'T have a niche. I think you and I mainly disagree on just how big that niche is. I also believe that it is seldom the mode of choice for the non transit-dependent, and outside of the biggest cities (>3 million), even those without a vehicle in the household use autos more than they use transit. The degree of support services that autos have is ONE issue, but I personally don't accept arguments like the pacnrail accounting that charges the entire cost for an individual of owning a car as a societal cost in comparison to the publically funded alternative. I think this is invalid for two reasons. The forst is that auto ownership for that individual was NOT publicly funded for those costs, that was an individual choice. The other was that the rail costs really weren't IN LIEU OF the auto costs. Unless the individual owned a car FOR NO OTHER purpose than to commute between the rail stations, there was no cost avoidance associated with these ownershipcosts (excepting the minimal marginal costs of the trips the owner actually made to the rail stations). Now I can tell you are concerned about the environment. If you read the literature you will find that transit is only marginally better than autos in emmissions per passenger mile, and that autos are improving at a faster rate than transit buses. That article about buses gave part of the reason why. Few manufacturers. Little economy of scale. Can't afford the research. Can't affor to innovate, etc. Like the ferry which HAS gotten a free ride from the environmentalists because it was MASS TRANSIT despite it's rather substantial air pollution, transit may NOT be the most effective means of decreasing air pollution. Ditto energy consumption. It's necessary to get the FACTS for each individual case. The comment I made about lawnmowers and Personal Watercraft was neither hyperbole or sarcasm. They are substantial air polluters.
"Back to demographics and density, I cannot imagine a NYC or San Francisco without public transit, whereas a LA I can. These cities built build rights of way before the car, out competing the horse, before the car had taken over." Actually, LA is pretty old for a New World city too. And clearly when the "sunk investment" is there, it ought to be used to the extent it's cost-effective. The LINK system, on the other hand, providing 14mph transport for $100 million per mile capital cost with operating expenses only 2 cents a passenger mile (about 4%) cheaper than a bus, will NEVER pay off it's capital investment. It, IMHO, is dumb as dirt, although the companieds that build it will get rich. There is NOTHING that LINK will be able to do, that buses couldn't do better. But even in Europe where most of the cities not razed and rebuilt due to WWII are pre-automobile, the auto is winning the war against transit, even with $5 a gallon gas and sales taxes on autos of 115% (no kidding) in some countries. The auto is VERY potent competition. I might also add that transit has a hard time in many of the older towns, particularly in the area of the Med. Even a small fiat has a hard time negotiating many of the roads thad date back to ox cart days. I drove a (very) small van in Spain once in a town called Bardenas. I missed my turn on the main road, and as I tried to get back to it on the next turn the road became progressively narrower. I finally wound up with my choice of backing up a mile or going up on the sidewalk on both sides, collapsing my side mirrors against the van, and driving between two buildings with about 2 inch clearance on either side to get back to the main road. The locals witnessed from their balconies in amusement, than gave me a standing ovation. They pretty much all used motor scooters on that street, hadn't seen a car on it their entire lives. You couldn't have gotten a bus on more than about three streets in the whole town, and it was a good sized town.
"Am I clear in thinking that in small and growing communities, Laredo for example, public efforts at developing transit might be 'easier' and more cost effective than they are in a more mature place like Seattle? " For a very limited system in the downtown area for the transit dependent, sure. I've been to Laredo a number of times. The area around it is REALLY wide open spaces and cheap land. It almost disappeared when Laredo AFB was closed (only a slight exaggeration), and it's recent prosperity is associated with it being astride a main highway with a major trading partner. But if you don't mind filling in a few old played out stripper oil wells, you could build a 12 lane freeway around it REAL cheap. And, except for the transit dependent, everyone's got an auto (or pick-up). Why spend a weekend in Laredo when San Antonio is down the road.
Anyway, I'm probably not the rabid anti-transit person you believe. I think they are necessarry and appropriate and, in the King and Pierce county areas, subsidized way too much for the average person, probably not enough for the transit dependent. But as I said, there are fewer transit dependent every day. That's NOT who we are expanding these systems for.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.

While some may assume so, I am not so naive to believe that our elected representatives will always vote according to the stated desire of their constituents. I agree that some are probably good, some are probably bad and most are probably in between. I just happen to feel that, IN THIS CASE, our elected officials will do a good job in prioritizing the state budget.
Many of the inputs for I-695 imply that part or all of the government is corrupt and that passage of I-695 will magically eliminate this corruption. Assuming I-695 will eliminate this corruption is truly being naive.
People need to constantly scrutinize their elected officials if the want to keep this corruption at bay. Our officials have only done what we have allowed them to do.
One of the good things that I-695 has done, whether it passes or not, has been to raise people's interest in how our state government is run. Hopefully, people will maintain this interest by contacting their representatives, and maintaining that contact, so that their views are truly represented.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 22, 1999.

"Hopefully, people will maintain this interest by contacting their representatives, and maintaining that contact, so that their views are truly represented. " Now Gene, I do this all the time. My representatives numbers are in my e-mail address book. I have almost as many dealings with them as I do with d. You know the difference? I respect d a whole lot more than I do them. d listens, usually disagrees, challenges me, I challenge him, there's dialogue, I haven't convinced him to vote for I-695 YET, but he's learned things and I've learned things, and were both (I hope) better for it. I get a different treatment from my represenatatives. I get, at best, political fluff, and at worst, condescension. Usually they are positive in a very non-commital way. But they never follow-up on it, and it's plain that contributors such as Boeing, AWB, WEA, etc., are buying far more than just access with their contributions. These representatives can do a U-turn in their own body lengths if one of their political masters calls. If you are old enough to remember Al Capp and the Lil Abner movie they made, it had a song in it about "If it's good for General Bulmoose, It's good for the USA!" that was a parody of General Electric and the military industrial complex buying the government. That's 35 years ago or so, but it is even more apt today.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.

Craig - Your are one of the few who has provided data to back your statements, much more than myself. Granted, the system is far from perfect, but I think that we both agree that people need to be more involved if they expect their wishes to be followed. There are a few like you who have been "watch dogging" our elected officials for the rest of us, telling us what is actually going on. Hopefully, there will be many more like you after this next election.
If people do not get involved, then they should not complain when things do not go their way. We are where we are now because of voter apathy. My fear is that, after the election, people will start losing interest and we will be back to where this all started.

-- Gene (eugene.ma@boeing.com), October 22, 1999.

My fear is that the apathetic and uninformed voters will vote down good proposals without reading more than a ballot title, or thinking about it longer than it takes to mark the no box. Representative democracy is about electing good people to take the time required to make informed decisions. Direct democracy is about direct responsibility, and I have not seen much evidence the general public is willing to give that the time and thought required for the development of informed decisions. What we have worked for over 200 years at the federal level, and over 100 at the state level. The proponents should be required to prove the initiative is better. They haven't.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 22, 1999.

Gene- d-
"Your are one of the few who has provided data to back your statements, much more than myself. "
"My fear is that the apathetic and uninformed voters will vote down good proposals without reading more than a ballot title, or thinking about it longer than it takes to mark the no box. Representative democracy is about electing good people to take the time required to make informed decisions. Direct democracy is about direct responsibility, and I have not seen much evidence the general public is willing to give that the time and thought required for the development of informed decisions. "
If I could have one wish in politics, it would be that we restore FACT BASED reasoning. Somehow, many of the electorate has bought off on the idea that they are too ignorant to understand the issues, and must give sway to the politicians. I've met these guys, they aren't any rocket scientists. A few really take the time to get the details, although the political process doesn't make that easy (you try reading the state or national budget in the week that you get it before the vote, it's about half a meg of text, if you can get through 5%, Evelyn Wood would be proud). The lobbyists and bureaucrats play most of these guys (and gals) like the detail men for pharmaceutical companies play physicians like Dick Clark and Ed McMahon play little old ladies. I know,I've been there. And voters CAN understand these issues. For most issues, it isn't that hard, but it does take information. That takes time. Much less time than before there was so much on the internet (I mean good facts, figures, and reports, not the Turner Diaries or junk like that). Our schools used to teach students how to do research papers, used to teach them more about civics, their rights and responsibilities of citizenship. My generation accepted the fact that, if you were a male, you were going to give up a couple of years of time for public service, if not in the military, than in the peace corps, or a Guardsman or Reservist. We no longer have an expectation that we have to pay our dues as citizens, even when it comes to the issues of the day. We all need to take the time to research the literature, to understand what is fact, what is speculation, what is propaganda. This is all do-able, but it really takes effort. And our politicians, do not do it well, nor will they unless we insist upon that standard, and are willing to meet it ourselves. So d, I have to reject your idea that the politicians are wiser or even better informed. I wish they were, but in reality all they know is how to use the jargon (level of service, etc).
I know that some of my postings come across as fairly negative to some people. The reality is that I love the environment just as much as the next guy, I simply want to use fact based ideas for keeping it for my kids, rather than dogma based ideas. I don't enjoy congestion any more than the next person, I just don't want to waste money on things that don't work, or at least don't work as well as alternatives. I want, not just my kids, but all kids to have the best education they can. These are the people that we will have to entrust with the world in a few years. Why would I, or any rational person, want them to be less than as well educated as possible. Having said that, I still believe that the WEA is a trade union and is working in the interest of it's union members, as it should. Where their interests and our kids interests overlap, that's fine. But I'm not going to go passively along with a WEA (or politician or bureaucrat or whatever) knows best attitude when what they say flies in the face of common sense or established fact.
So yes, I agree in part with both of you. Citizens need to take more responsibility and make more effort, but I disagree that the politicians are a great deal better informed. And worst of all, way too many politicians are overly influenced by the lobbyists whose views WILL always support the people who pay their salaries and whose advocacy may or may not be in the public interest.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 22, 1999.

Craig:
I have no disagreement with 99% of what you wrote. My prefered solution is that the public get involved in selecting better candidates for election, rather than attempt to have everyone achieve a working knowledge of the details of every level of government. That was the framers vision, and the basis for a representative democracy. If the general public has not done a good job of selecting representatives, when it only takes a few minutes every 2 years; what are the chances they will do a good job if they need to understand that "half meg of text" themselves? Government by popular vote will lead to simplistic solutions to complex problems - like 695.
I don't dispute that the MVET requires some changes, but no representative body that would write a solution, would leave as many holes in it as this has. If they did the Governor would veto on advice of the Attorney General and Department of Revenue.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 23, 1999.

"I have no disagreement with 99% of what you wrote. My prefered solution is that the public get involved in selecting better candidates for election, rather than attempt to have everyone achieve a working knowledge of the details of every level of government" I dunno, d. When I research an issue, I can look up references, get conflictiong opinions, and come to an opinion that spans quite a list of options. Since both major parties have rigged the system to rule out effective third party participation in this (and most) state(s), I wind up having to choose between two people that I often have no chance to meet, and no real way to decide their credibility or their integrity. Heck, in Pierce County they have an elected official who has been telling lies about her education for years, including sworn testimony. It is a LOT easier to assess an issue than it is an individual. And when you only have two options, and neither are good, you really have problems. I'll take working the issues anytime.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 23, 1999.

Craig:
Again, we can agree to disagree. I believe issues submitted as ballot titles for decision, will have simplistic and misleading titles like 695 does; and with several on each ballot they will not be evaluated at all by a majority of voters.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 24, 1999.

d-
" I believe issues submitted as ballot titles for decision, will have simplistic and misleading titles like 695 does; and with several on each ballot they will not be evaluated at all by a majority of voters. " Like this doesn't happen with CANDIDATES? George W. is a mediocre to OK first-term governor who has become the front-runner for the next election, largely due to name recognition, the same way that Al Gore got as far as he did, riding the legacy of his daddy. Now "The Donald" wants into the fray, using HIS name recognition to go after the public funding that the Reform Party will have coming, due to Perot's showing. Most ludicrous of all, Hillarry is about to announce for the Senat in New York (a state she's never lived in) based upon,,,,,,,,what?? To my knowledge, she's never been elected to any public office. Her main claim to fame is that she slept with Bill, and that doesn't appear to be exactly what I'd call a real exclusive club. And potential Democratic candidates with experience deferred to her decision to run, and took themselves out of the race! In the age of Celebrity, I'd just as soon be able to vote on the ISSUES, thank you very much. Hopefully if the issues are important there will be a reason for the populace to become informed. If they aren't important enough to the people to inflrm themselves, they may well just not cast votes.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 24, 1999.

Meant inform themselves, not infirm themselves, Sorry.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 24, 1999.

To Craig: I have yet to see you post anything which shows how we can mitigate congestion in a cost-effective and timely manner. My personal belief is that a network of transit centers coupled with a network of non-stop express buses (connecting folks amongst the transit centers) plus vanpool vans will mitigate congestion. The approach can be done incrementally, especially the part with vanpool vans.
Building roads costs too much and takes too long. And, finally, the incremental road building does not lessen congestion, because the surrounding roadways were not expanded to handle the increased capacity.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 25, 1999.

Matt-
"To Craig: I have yet to see you post anything which shows how we can mitigate congestion in a cost-effective and timely manner. My personal belief is that a network of transit centers coupled with a network of non-stop express buses (connecting folks amongst the transit centers) plus vanpool vans will mitigate congestion. The approach can be done incrementally, especially the part with vanpool vans. Building roads costs too much and takes too long. And, finally, the incremental road building does not lessen congestion, because the surrounding roadways were not expanded to handle the increased capacity.
-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 25, 1999. "
You've already HAD this discussion on a different thread. Your figures were WRONG. You VASTLY underestimated the administrative cost/expense/liability of your proposals. You vastly underestimated either the difficulty associated with participants parking or the willingness of an unpaid driver to go all over the territority to pick up passengers.
Basically, transit is a niche market, and a portion of that niche can be met cost-effectively with vanpools. The demographics are still against it, and the megatrends are still against it.
With regard to roadbuilding, there are a number of different factors involved but you are correct that throughput at constraining points is not the only problem. Overall, though, the worst of the problems for traffic nation-wide are leveling off, since the real problem has been the growth in vehicles per capita associated with two wage- earner families. Once our roadways have been restored to a capacity that offsets this, then we will mostly be dealing with keeping up with population growth. Except where policy is decidedly anti- roadway (the Puget Sound region, and a few others) congestion will become more manageable in the next 10-20 years. Eventually the political establishment will get the picture, even here, and we'll see more roadways, even if they're toll roads.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 25, 1999.

To Craig: No, my figures were proven to be correct. In present dollars, a recurring capitalization cost of $50 million dollars (per year) can reduce rush-hour congestion (in the Puget Sound region) by approximately 100,000 cars. The remaining expenses are borne by the members of the vanpool. In any case, you were challenged to offer timely, cost-effective methods for mitigating congestion. Your silence is deafening.
You claim that nation-wide, traffic congestion is leveling off. Is this a euphemism for "it's gotten so bad, it can't get any worse"? Or, is this a fancy way of saying "gridlock"?
You do make an oblique reference to tolls. Are you proposing the state of Washington lease the state highways to a private company? I suppose this would reduce congestion on the 520 bridge, as everyone would attempt to use I-90 or drive to I-5 via I-405.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 26, 1999.

"a recurring capitalization cost " I am pleased to see that you've discovered the difference between capitalization and amortization.
Please go back to the previous thread and re-read the replies. Nothing else has changed.
With regard to my silence--- that too has been answered on another thread. Why don't you post these repetitive questions just once, it will avoid having to follow so many threads?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 26, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ