Tacoma Narrows Bridge

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

Prior to a month ago, I was not in favor of I-695, until I started adding up what it would cost me to cross a New Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge, and that totals $800 plus dollars and thats to go to work. Unlike the way the vote was rigged to override those who will be most affected (Kitsap County/Gig Harbor who overwhelmling voted against it) the I-695 vote allows the tax payer to strike back at the politicians who are not listening. So I decided to vote for I-695 in order to pay for that potential $800 out of pocket expenses just to go to work. They should have used what was in the coffers to pay for the bridge as they are now truly going to pay!

-- Curtis Coley (cdcoley@excite.com), October 28, 1999

Answers

Good for you! Why should the people who use the bridge have to be the ones that pay for it? I mean it's not like all the other major bridges around the state were paid for by toll dollars. Oh wait, there was the 520 bridge, the I-90 bridge when it was built, the Hood Canal Bridge (twice), and of course the Narrows Bridge (also twice). And then of course the citizens on both sides of the bridge have been complaining about the congestion for years...

Isn't this a classic example of people wanting a service but wanting someone else to pay for it?

Curtis, to be fair, shouldn't you also factor in how much time and gas you waste sitting in that backup every day? Or would that make the cost/benefit ratio too even?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 28, 1999.


You either miss the point, Patrick, or are so caught up in your grief over the impending passage of I-685 that you're just venting aimlessly. The second bridge NARROWLY won. The Gig Harbor locals voted AGAINST it 80%. It won because the voting area was gerrymandered to allow people who would rarely if ever use the bridge to have equal say with those to whom the bridge would be a daily fact of life. He's not asking for you to pay for a bridge for him. He has a bridge that he considers to be adequate, with the tolls long since payed off (principally by people like him). He's now being told that he will be paying new tolls for another bridge that he does NOT want, because of chicanery from DOT. And it's this sort of arrogance that has lead to I-695 having such popular support. Now you can avoid getting the message as long as you want, but you are going to continually be surprised and upset by the outcome until you figure out what the reality is.

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

Oh again Patrick, you look to just point the finger and be sarcastic. Now if you reviewed this data, logically, you would see a point here. Okay so Curtis has to pay $800 per year for his trips to and from work for the toll booth's. Let us assume a price of $1.40 for regular gas. If Curtis did not have to pay this tax, then he would be able to pay for almost 11 gallons of gas in his car per week. Your worry about how much gas he wastes in traffic would be easily remedied if he had this money.

-- Matt Greenway (mgreenwa@u.washington.edu), October 28, 1999.

Gee Craig, I happened to be part of that advisory zone that was set up, and paid very close attention to the issues that were brought up. Although I know there was a very small minority who's opposition was based upon their desire not to do anything to solve the traffic congestions, there were quite a number of other reasons that people were bringing up instead. Like the fact that it only adds 2 HOV lanes, that it was being done by a private contractor, and first and foremost, that they were going to have to pay tolls on what they perceived to be something that was paid off decades ago. Unless you personally polled everyone who voted no and discovered that they were in fact opposed to the idea of a new bridge, you're making a HUGE assumption that, at least from my standpoint, wasn't the primary reason why people voted no.

And although I didn't live on the West side of the bridge I thought it was VERY appropriate for me to be voting on that issue. I lived in North Tacoma, and during that time I avoided getting anywhere near Hwy 16 between the hours of 3-7 PM. It DRASTICALLY affects the lives of people living on the East side of the bridge, so you'll forgive me if I don't share the view that this is only a Gig Harbor/Kitsap County issue. But if you feel burned about that, then you better hold onto your hat. If 695 passes then the ENTIRE STATE will be able to decide if it wants to jack up the toll on that bridge. And if someone in East Pierce County doesn't mind a $3 toll on the bridge, what's stopping a guy in Spokane caring if it's $6?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 28, 1999.


And to further support my point that those who voted no on the bridge vote may not have been voting against the idea of having a second bridge, I would like to point out that Curtis himself said:

"They should have used what was in the coffers to pay for the bridge"

As in, use the money paid in by the entire state to build a bridge that only affects a regional area.

Thanks for figuring the gas side of the equation Matt, but I did mention somthing about time as well. When I have to cross the bridge at rush hour it takes me anywhere from 45 minutes to an hour more than at a non-peak time sitting in a backup. Figure an hour and a half every day lost due to congestion 5 days a week turns into 390 hours of lost time due to congesion. As the saying goes, time is money, and even if you only factored it at minimum wage, the average commuter is STILL losing several THOUSAND dollars while he sits in that nightmare called the Highway 16 commute. Even if you only save 15 minutes in either direction due to the new bridge, you are STILL going to come out ahead in terms of the cost/benefit ratio.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 28, 1999.



"Unless you personally polled everyone who voted no and discovered that they were in fact opposed to the idea of a new bridge, you're making a HUGE assumption that, at least from my standpoint, wasn't the primary reason why people voted no. " Gee Patrick. Thanks for explaining it to me. With out the benefit of YOUR insight, I would have believed that people who voted no didn't want the bridge proposal to pass. Obviously YOU'RE CORRECT. I'm SURE that MANY, PERHAPS ALL of the NO voters voted that way thinking that this would insure that the bridge WOULD be built.

You aren't, by any chance, preparing us for an explanation that ALL those people who voted YES to pass I-695, REALLY DIDN"T WANT taxes reduced and public votes on new taxes and fees, are you? Is THAT what you will be telling us on Wednesday???

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


Well Craig, sorry to break it to you, but I do belive that the world switched from black and white a number of years back.

There is a slight difference between voting against the bridge proposal last year and voting against building a second bridge. Did the ballot ONLY say "Do you want the DOT to build a second Narrows Bridge"? Not even. Like I said, I followed the project quite closely, including the development phase in which "do nothing" was one of the options that could have been picked. Were there many people who were demanding this happen? No. Only after it was decided to use tolls and a private contractor did most of the opposition flare up.

It's a basic concept. The question was whether people liked the proposal. You cannot look at the results and then substitute a different question like do you want a second bridge at all? Otherwise you can do all sorts of fun things: The GOP lost seats in Congress last year, therefore the American people think affairs with interns half your age is okay. Washingtonians rejected a ban on late term abortions, therefore they believe that killing babies is okay. They also approved the use of medicinal marijuana, they must think we should legalize all drugs. Or, should 695 fail, does that mean that we all think the MVET is fair and should remain the same?

Newt Gingrich thought that Americans sent a clear message in 1994. How good was he at interpreting that message? Well let's look at an interpretation of what happened in 1998....

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 28, 1999.


The new Tacoma Narrows bridge is an example of what can happen when government tries to "privatize" essential services. While the clamor for better transportation facilities continues to rise and the available dollars for new captial projects fall, there will be increasing pressures to spread privatization. Toll bridges will be built, followed by toll freeways, maybe even toll lanes. Tolls will be collected by the owners of these facilities, the private companies that INVESTED in their creation. And they won't be subject to your vote any more than the price of cornflakes.

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), October 29, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ