Tax to the max has, contrary to the assurances of our very own d, indicated that he will take cuts in those areas funded by MVET, not reprogram any other monies to offset those cuts. See details on the metrokc website at: http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/110499.htm

Highlights of the revised 2000 Executive Budget reflecting Initiative 695 as approved by the voters Tuesday include:

Direct Revenue Losses from Initiative 695* 2000 2001 Transit $50.7 million $105.7 million Public Health $10.5 million $11.2 million Criminal Justice $4.05 million $5.8 million Roads  Veh.Lic.Fee + Ref 49 $5 million $5 million TOTAL: $70.25 $27.7 million

*These losses do not include lost grant funds in transit and losses in fare box collections due to decreased routes.

Now I don't know if the criminal justice, public health, and roads budgets are over-funded or not, but TRANSIT CERTAINLY IS. Why don't they take an extra $20 million out of transit, and not have any cutbacks in the others??? They might also save money by FIRING THE ACCOUNTANT who made the $100 million error in addition in fy 2001 (Oh well, it's only a tenth of a billion, about what 5000 feet of light rail will cost).

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 04, 1999

Answers

If Ron Sims is out to punish the voters of King County, Then we should boycott king county! by not going to the Kingdome or safeco feild or the seattle center or the boat show.

that would show Ron Sims whos the BOSS THE PEOPLE NOT HIM!!!!

think of all that money that would not be spent in King,county and Seattle I wronder what he would say to that????????/

-- Dave A (davarc@Premier1.net), November 04, 1999.

"Out to punish the voters..." Get over it, guys! He's doing the best he's ALLOWED to do. Public funds can't be reallocated as easily as private funds can. I explained this point in my earlier post, "Big Government Bureaucracies, and some little-understood things about them" - and Sims says exactly the same thing in his news release: "Under the law, funds have a dedicated use and cannot be moved from one program to another to cover the loss of funds. That is why these three areas will be reduced  voters repealed the revenues that funded them Tuesday." They've been telling us this all along.

Craig, I saw from your posts elsewhere on this bulletin board that you seem to have done quite a bit of research on transit, and have a lot of good ideas on how to improve it. They would have been worthwhile things to fight for in a normal public forum. But there is no way they can implement those types of changes now. They are way too busy just figuring out how to deal with this sudden drastic funding cut within their existing organization. No way can they undertake a massive restructure of the entire transit organization at this point.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

Anirudh-

"Under the law, funds have a dedicated use and cannot be moved from one program to another to cover the loss of funds. That is why these three areas will be reduced  voters repealed the revenues that funded them Tuesday." They've been telling us this all along. "

With all due respect, Bull****. I worked in the federal government at one time where the "different colors of money" issue was true. In this case, it isn't. Yes, those funding streams were targeted to those areas, but only a relatively small amount of the general budget is dedicated by law, most is just dedicated by tradition, and is easily reprogrammable by Sims and the Council. Now having said that, I think the transit cuts are reasonable. The unfortunate thing is that they can't reprogram Sounder and Link money to the more efficient buses. But I'd take it ALL out of transit, if I were doing it.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 04, 1999.

No one ever said a restructure would be easy. But that is not the point. The point of this whole thing was, the state had EVERY opportunity to reform the state tax code, make reductions, even recalculate formulas to make it less burdensom to the average taxpayer- and they abjectly REFUSED to do it. Not just avoided the issue, but made wholesale REJECTIONS of the concept altogether. Our Governor, Gary Locke is one of the best examples of someone who fought tooth and nail, heelmarks all the way, kicking and screaming every time a tax reduction or state budget was submitted that reduced spending, which would have resulted in yet higher surplusses than we have now. Yet, politicians sit, with mouths wide open, in complete surprise that 'such a measure' would ever get past the voters. We have been told, and are still being told that if only we had rejected 695, that the state legislature would have fixed all of these problems in a more 'reasonable' way. The problem with the term 'reasonable' is that we, the taxpayers have been stretched beyond any reasonable point of taxation, and whenever we either counted on our elected representatives to cut spending/taxes, they failed us, nay, thumbed their noses at us and further jacked our taxes up yet even higher.

I remember listening to a 695 opponent who himself admitted that the tax was overburdensome, and should be changed. Then he went on and cited example after example of opportunities the state gov't had wasted or rejected to reform the mvet tax. Then, after citing these examples, pleaded with the voters to vote "no" so the legislature could reform the mvet tax. It defies LOGIC. The "no" campaign was its own worst enemy. See Westin's post "why the no on 695 campaign will fail". It's quite astute in its predictions and assessments.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), November 04, 1999.

Why would Sims have an interest in punishing the voters? Especially considering that his county voted No.

Anyway, I think you (Craig) posted a comparison at some point of transit subsidies here vs. transit subsidies elsewhere. Where is it?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

P.S. I have a hard time accepting the complaint that taxpayers here are stretched beyond the limit, given that the WA Research Council tells us that the WA tax rate is 11.979% of income while the US average is 11.299%.

Perhaps what people are really feeling is the regressive tax problem - that lower-income families in WA are taxed at higher rates than higher-income.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 04, 1999.

"Anyway, I think you (Craig) posted a comparison at some point of transit subsidies here vs. transit subsidies elsewhere. Where is it? " Data for all transit systems can be found on the National Transit Database site: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/93d3d09cdf428d3d852567a7005 47bb5?OpenView

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 04, 1999.

"P.S. I have a hard time accepting the complaint that taxpayers here are stretched beyond the limit, given that the WA Research Council tells us that the WA tax rate is 11.979% of income while the US average is 11.299%. Perhaps what people are really feeling is the regressive tax problem - that lower-income families in WA are taxed at higher rates than higher-income. "

No Anirudh-

That argument was tried by the pro-MVET people, without much success. I believe that people feel that government is too big, too arrogant, and gives too little value for the resources that it requires. I believe that many individuals in government have lost credibility with the people, from the President down to the local level. I believe that many people want government constrained, and that denial of resources is the method most likely to constrain it. And I believe that this is a GOOD thing. People are willing to take the time and effort and spend the resources to change it peacefully, incrementally, without violence or destruction. I believe that if this is NOT done, you increase the likelihood for the sort of political instability seen in other countries. This is a country, you must remember, that was willing to go to war with the strongest nation on Earth over taxes on tea, the stamp act, and other issues that, to the people of England, would have seemed, at worst, minor annoyances. If you are going to live here, you need to understand that this is part of the national psyche.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswind.net), November 04, 1999.

Boy talk about a bunch of poor loosers. You know if I oned a business and charged the people for my product based on the way the State charged me MVET, I would be in jail in a day for FRAUD!, and they can't deny that the intent was there. As for Ref 47, part of that was a cap on real estate taxes at the rate of inflation I believe, OH WELL King County and TAX TO THE MAX SIMS declared it an emergency and just raised our taxes.. WELL......Never again Ron!!... Put it on the ballot!!!!!

-- Michael Jackson (mejackson@home.com), November 05, 1999.

Craig: Thanks for explaining the traditional American suspicion of government. That helps me understand how so many could so easily fall for the false words of a smooth-talking salesman who pretended to be saving them from the evil government.

I-695 was not a revolt against an evil government. The economy was doing well. The "leader" provided no evidence of evil, let alone evidence that his scheme would fix any of the evil; just a flood of vague accusations against phantom targets such as "big business" and "greedy politicians". I-695 was also a lousy way to constrain government. I would not call it an incremental, non-destructive change. For example, here's a quote from the Washington Research Council web site: "Rather than offering a careful, two or three year phase-out of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, [I-695] eliminates it in the middle of a fiscal year, giving local government no time to adapt to reduced revenues."

A handful of 695 supporters (such as you) had independent reasons for supporting it, but the majority fell for the salesman's fast talk - they really thought that they were voting for a mere 2% spending cut that would make government more efficient. Just look at the number who are still quoting that phony 2% figure in newspaper letters and on this bulletin board. As the true impacts of I-695 become clear, some who voted Yes will continue to blame the "politicians," but others will start opening their eyes and realizing that they were duped.

What do you mean by, "That argument was tried by the pro-MVET people, without much success" ? That's not an answer. Once again: I have a hard time accepting the complaint that taxpayers here are stretched beyond the limit, given that the WA tax rate is 11.979% of income while the US average is 11.299%. Perhaps what people are really feeling is the regressive tax problem.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

"What do you mean by, "That argument was tried by the pro-MVET people, without much success" ? That's not an answer. Once again: I have a hard time accepting the complaint that taxpayers here are stretched beyond the limit, given that the WA tax rate is 11.979% of income while the US average is 11.299%. Perhaps what people are really feeling is the regressive tax problem. " As I said, you need to understand the national psyche. The Stamp Act and the Tea Tax that lead to the American Revolution were both relatively trivial taxes. They nonetheless lead to a war by a developing nation against the planet's greatest military power. The first revolution in the US was about a fairly trivial $0.25 per BARREL tax on whisky. The Civil war was only peripherally about slavery. It was started over import duties (taxes) against English goods designed to buttress the market share of New England's developing manufacturing industries. The Emancipation Proclamation came later, as the North was getting beat, in part in hopes of opening up another front. As for graduated income taxes, they were not even LEGAL in this country until the Constitution was amended as a wartime necessity. So understand, YOU may not think there is excessive taxation, and relative to what some cultures (Canada, for instance) tolerate, current levels may not seem excessive to you, but they do to many people. And I think the polls showing that the public plebescite was more important to voters than the money savings confirm this. You're free to advocate for higher taxes if you want, though.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 12, 1999.

Anirudh--"I-695 was not a revolt against an evil government. The economy was doing well. The "leader" provided no evidence of evil, let alone evidence that his scheme would fix any of the evil; just a flood of vague accusations against phantom targets such as "big business" and "greedy politicians". I-695 was also a lousy way to constrain government. I would not call it an incremental, non-destructive change. For example, here's a quote from the Washington Research Council web site: "Rather than offering a careful, two or three year phase-out of the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax, [I-695] eliminates it in the middle of a fiscal year, giving local government no time to adapt to reduced revenues.""

People and organizations have many similarities. One of these similarities is their remarkable ability to adapt to extreme changes. Paradoxically, another similarity they share is their general unwillingness to embrace change. Private organizations (profit *and* non-profit) have competition forcing them to evolve and grow. . .what motivations do state/local government have?

Put another way, I-695 stresses government. In general, stress is a healthy thing. . .as long as you don't get a heart attack and die.

"A handful of 695 supporters (such as you) had independent reasons for supporting it, but the majority fell for the salesman's fast talk - they really thought that they were voting for a mere 2% spending cut that would make government more efficient. Just look at the number who are still quoting that phony 2% figure in newspaper letters and on this bulletin board. As the true impacts of I-695 become clear, some who voted Yes will continue to blame the "politicians," but others will start opening their eyes and realizing that they were duped."

I never have nor will believe I-695 will make government more efficient. That being said, I do believe I-695 will make government more effective.

In fact, there's already evidence that this is occurring--the transit cuts targeted at south King county. They're planning on nuking approx 60,000 hours/year of bus service. They estimate these cuts will affect 540000 passengers/year (trips *not* bodies). Personally, I believe that getting rid of bus routes carrying 9 passengers/hour is a beneficial thing. . .perhaps you can explain to me how this would've happened without something like I-695.

"What do you mean by, "That argument was tried by the pro-MVET people, without much success" ? That's not an answer. Once again: I have a hard time accepting the complaint that taxpayers here are stretched beyond the limit, given that the WA tax rate is 11.979% of income while the US average is 11.299%. Perhaps what people are really feeling is the regressive tax problem."

Craig provided a reasonable answer to your question. . .I'll put it slightly differently.

Many people feel the state of Washington sticks its nose many places it doesn't belong. Unfortunately, as long as they can increase taxes relatively easily, there doesn't seem to be any way to keep them from continuing to do this. . .put simply, some people believe (count me among them) that the only way to restrain the power of government is by making it relatively more difficult for governments to obtain resources.

In answer to the obvious question, why not just vote them out of office? Well, it comes back again to the natural tendency of an organization is to expand itself and its influence.

Put another way, it probably wouldn't matter who's in charge. The unchecked organization would still have a tendency towards growth.

===========Another more crude answer=================

Every time governments waste "face time" (you know the governor or mayor on tv) talking about issues that are blatantly absurd and obviously wasteful (ie the King county logo issue, Lake Washington catamarans or banning circus animals from the city), they lose credibility with the public.

Put way too simplistically, if they don't take their job seriously, why should we continue to give them our money?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 12, 1999.

Craig:

I note that in your original post, you cite an assurance by me that local governments will not make cuts based on the current projects supported by MVET. If you read my prior comments, I believe I was clear in stating my opinion that the initiative does nothing to cause that to happen, and the state and local governments are free to cut wherever they want to cut, and no programs are safe. I also stated that government inertia being what it is, the short term impact will be primarily on the current MVET supported programs. All that is happening.

As for what Sims and Locke will actually do, they are not the final word. The Legislature needs to meet. The County Council has a Republican majority, and Sims is a Democrat. Voters may be asked to approve several issues.

I understand that a Chinese curse and blessing, is stated in these words: "May you live in interesting times." It will be interesting, and whether it is a curse or a blessing may depend on your point of view and expectations.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), November 12, 1999.

Just a quick answer to one of Brad's points for now: You've pointed out something that I think is about the only good thing about I-695: that it provides a one-time excuse for government agencies to get rid of a small amount of obviously wasteful spending, which under normal circumstances would be very difficult to get rid of, for political reasons. While talking with transit planners this summer I heard some stories about the difficulty of eliminating underutilized bus routes. People will get together and sign a petition objecting to the removal of their route, complain to their council members, etc; while (of course) few people will take the initiative to ask for the removal of someone else's route; so, based on the public input they get, they can't eliminate the route. Hence there is some wasteful spending that doesn't get eliminated even though the authorities want to eliminate it, and a funding cut provides them a political excuse for eliminating it. In another post I referred to such stuff as "useless stuff in the trunk that you never got around to removing and can immediately toss out."

(I remember you brought up this point in an earlier post somewhere; I didn't respond there, but I liked it, because I really think the transit planners should have more power to eliminate unproductive routes.)

But there is only a small amount of such "fat" that can be easily eliminated. The routes you're referring to are only the ones in the first round of cuts, which I think are only 10% of King Co. Metro's total bus service. Another 20% of their service stands to be cut in subsequent months. I can't imagine that as much as 30% of Metro's bus service is so useless that it deserves to be wiped out.

(Also don't forget that saving money is not the only goal of a public transit system. 9 bus riders means 9 fewer cars on the road, which is worth something. And if the average bus ride lasts, say, 20 minutes, "9 riders per hour" actually means 27 different people on that bus in one hour... etc.)

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 13, 1999.

anirudh--"(Also don't forget that saving money is not the only goal of a public transit system. 9 bus riders means 9 fewer cars on the road, which is worth something. And if the average bus ride lasts, say, 20 minutes, "9 riders per hour" actually means 27 different people on that bus in one hour... etc.)"

Thanks for your response. . .

WRT 9 fewer cars on the road, I agree. However, I wonder if it's relevant. Personally, I'm curious if 1 (well-maintained) bus causes more pollution (continuously running diesel engine) and gridlock (reduced visibility, more frequent stops, and relatively slower acceleration at stoplights) than 9 (maintained) cars.

I've no idea of the answer to this question, but I presume there is a magic number where buses become "better" than cars. . .

As far as 9 riders/hour -> 27 riders/hour on a particular route, I agree this is possible in certain circumstances. Conversely, this would lead me to think (simple heuristic) you'd presumably have the bus running empty about 2/3 of the time.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), November 13, 1999.

Regarding 9 passengers an hour. Guys, this is nine BOARDINGS per hour. If these people ride for twenty minutes (which is about right , the average transit speed being 13mph and the average distance traveled being 4 miles (http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/apxa/transt98.html)) that will give you an average of THREE people on the bus (not counting the driver), not 27.

So in an eight hour shift you would have about 288 passenger miles ( 72 times 4miles/trip) for about $800 ($100/hr) operating expense (which of course, doesn't count the $250,000 capital cost of the bus. That's about $2.77 per passenger mile.

Nor does that take 72 people off the road. Some of those are trips that wouldn't be made if transit weren't there, or would have been taken by foot or bicycle or car pool.

Now these are average figures, and my guess is that these bus routes are not average routes. They may be longer than the average , which would reduce the passenger mile cost somewhat.

What this does demonstrate is that MetroKC has been massively subsidizing these runs, much more so than the national average for transit.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 13, 1999.

You're right that it's boardings per hour and not average number of riders at any moment. I don't know what the average number of riders is. But that was the least important of my points above. My main point was that, although there is some amount of "fat" in public spending that is wasteful by almost anybody's standards, and definitely good to get rid of, that amount is small.

I haven't been able to view the transit database you pointed to. Would you quote the relevant figures from there comparing national subsidy levels to King Co. levels? In any case, I'm not sure why transit funding in King Co. should be expected to match the national average. We have low density, unusual topography, and a wealthier population than the national average. We have no commuter rail. We're also said to have the 6th worst traffic congestion in the country, though we're only about the 20th largest metro area. All of these things argue for higher than average bus service per person.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

"I haven't been able to view the transit database you pointed to. Would you quote the relevant figures from there comparing national subsidy levels to King Co. levels?" Nationwide users pay (through farebox revenues) about 40% of the cost of providing bus service. Big cities are higher than that, small cities typically less than that. For Washington State, the numbers go from MetroKC 21% to Pierce County and Kitsap County 16% to Whatcom's 6%. The rest is funded by taxes on everybody, 95% of which are non-users. These numbers are pre-I-695

"In any case, I'm not sure why transit funding in King Co. should be expected to match the national average." It's not just King County, it's virtually every transoit system in the state. Ferries too. Public transit in this state is MASSIVELY subsidized compared to most states.

"We have low density, unusual topography, and a wealthier population than the national average." No worse than San Francisco. But low density is not a reason for MORE transit. It's a reason for LESS transit, since it guarantees that transit will be less cost efficient and get lower ridership. That's simple demographics. A wealthier population also makes for LESS demand for transit, not more, since a smaller proportion of the people will be transit dependent. That's also simple demographics. Death Valley has low density and unusual topography too, and I wouldn't recommend we spend much on transit there either.

"We have no commuter rail." That's good since commuter rail is even less efficient and more costly than bus transit. With any luck at all, I-695 passing will kill light rail in Seattle. If it does get built, it will likely be to the detriment of the bus service. In Los Angeles, a coalition of low income groups got a court order to stop construction on their heavy rail because it was sucking so much money out of the system that the more cost effective bus service was suffering.

"We're also said to have the 6th worst traffic congestion in the country, though we're only about the 20th largest metro area." Probably a good reason to not clutter up the roads with 18 ton articulated buses hauling an average of NINE people per hour, wouldn't you say? Also a good reason to put more capital investment into roads (which everyone uses) rather than transit, which carries about 2% of total miles and 5% of commuters. The six year capital investment plan for King County (prior to I-695) had two and one-half times the money going for transit (not counting light rail) that it did for roads.

"All of these things argue for higher than average bus service per person. " They certainly do not. If you are only hauling 9 people an hour in a 100+ person bus, that seems a p*** poor reason to ADD CAPACITY. We've been trying "build it and they will come" for twenty years. During that time, transit has continued to lose market share, and in most markets lost numbers in absolute terms as well. People are staying away in droves. They don't need MORE buses to not ride. They have an excess of buses they are not riding now.

In summary, you are wrong on just about every statement. The NTD database is at http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 17, 1999.

Wow! It only took a few words from me to provoke that outburst.

"In summary, you are wrong on just about every statement." - (Is that the main theme of your posts on this forum, to prove that you are right and anyone with a differing viewpoint is wrong?) On the contrary, of the five reasons that I gave, off the top of my head, for why King Co would be expected to spend more than the national average on buses, I don't think you have refuted a single one. Let me clarify a few.

"low density is not a reason for MORE transit. It's a reason for LESS transit, since it guarantees that transit will be less cost efficient and get lower ridership."

Thank you, Craig, for enlightening me to the fact that buses are more cost-effective in dense areas. I spent much of the summer fighting for certain low-ridership bus trips in Seattle to be re-routed through a certain high density neighborhood, on the grounds that they would become more cost-effective.

Try to slow down and think just two steps beyond what seems obvious to you. Obviously, buses pay off the most in dense areas, because more people are within walking distance of bus stops. What you're saying is that since bus service pays off less in sparse areas, less should be provided. But another way to look at it is that it takes more money to build bus ridership in sparse areas, because it takes more buses per capita to get people within walking distance of buses. Ergo, if you have a strong need to get some percentage of the population out of cars and into buses - and King Co most certainly has such a need, having the THIRD worst traffic in the country (see the 11/17 Seattle P-I, http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/traf17.shtml) - you need to spend more money per capita than you would in a denser area. Get my meaning now?

The comparison with Death Valley is absurd. I don't see Death Valley listed among the nation's worst traffic congestion spots either.

""We have no commuter rail." That's good since commuter rail is even less efficient and more costly than bus transit."

D-uh... well, whether or not commuter rail is good, the absence of commuter rail means we should be spending more on buses, right? The other info in your paragraph seems to be arguing for my point, not against. (Perhaps the misunderstanding is my fault for not making clear that by "transit" I meant "buses," not "all forms of mass transit." Sorry.)

"If you are only hauling 9 people an hour in a 100+ person bus, that seems a p*** poor reason to ADD CAPACITY."

I said above, in some detail, that I think the elimination of the very-low-ridership routes is a good thing. Those very-low-ridership routes are the exception (10% of South King County's service hours, if I'm not mistaken), not the rule. It's completely bogus to talk about them as though they were representative of the entire bus system, which you do twice in your post.

"The six year capital investment plan for King County (prior to I- 695) had two and one-half times the money going for transit (not counting light rail) that it did for roads."

And here we casually ignore the tremendous capital investment that has *already* gone into roads. An extremely biased comparison.

But thank you for posting the other statistics.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 22, 1999.

"Wow! It only took a few words from me to provoke that outburst." That wasn
ft an outburst. Merely a statement of fact.

""In summary, you are wrong on just about every statement." - (Is that the main theme of your posts on this forum, to prove that you are right and anyone with a differing viewpoint is wrong?)" Definitely NOT! Fortunately, most people aren
ft as wrong as you are.

"On the contrary, of the five reasons that I gave, off the top of my head, for why King Co would be expected to spend more than the national average on buses, I don't think you have refuted a single one. Let me clarify a few." You
fd do better to research things before asserting them "off the top of your head."

""low density is not a reason for MORE transit. It's a reason for LESS transit, since it guarantees that transit will be less cost efficient and get lower ridership." Thank you, Craig, for enlightening me to the fact that buses are more cost-effective in dense areas. I spent much of the summer fighting for certain low-ridership bus trips in Seattle to be re-routed through a certain high density neighborhood, on the grounds that they would become more cost-effective." In that case, you should have seen the error in your own logic, even if it was "off the top of your head."

"Try to slow down and think just two steps beyond what seems obvious to you. Obviously, buses pay off the most in dense areas, because more people are within walking distance of bus stops. What you're saying is that since bus service pays off less in sparse areas, less should be provided." That is correct. Hence the Death Valley analogy.

"But another way to look at it is that it takes more money to build bus ridership in sparse areas, because it takes more buses per capita to get people within walking distance of buses." Another way to look at it is, as population density decreases; you need more buses per capita. When it decreases enough, you wind up with a bus carrying NO MORE PEOPLE THAN AN AUTOMOBILE, albeit in a 30-ton vehicle with a driver that has $100 per hour operating expenses.

"Ergo, if you have a strong need to get some percentage of the population out of cars and into buses - and King Co most certainly has such a need, having the THIRD worst traffic in the country (see the 11/17 Seattle P-I, http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/traf17.shtml) - you need to spend more money per capita than you would in a denser area." Not if the load factor in the buses is so small that they
fd be better off in an automobile.

"Get my meaning now?" Yup. You
fre wrong again.

"The comparison with Death Valley is absurd. I don't see Death Valley listed among the nation's worst traffic congestion spots either." That
fs because you don
ft have a SmartGrowth initiative directing all new growth to Death Valley. Seriously though, that was in sarcastic reply to your rather simplistic comment about unusual geography and low population density.

""We have no commuter rail." That's good since commuter rail is even less efficient and more costly than bus transit." D-uh... well, whether or not commuter rail is good, the absence of commuter rail means we should be spending more on buses, right? NO. If the demographics don
ft support additional bus service, they don
ft support additional bus service. Whether or not you have light-rail does not substantially change whether or not the demographics supports buses, outside of the area immediately adjacent to a light rail station. Since only about 4 square miles out of King County will be immediately adjacent to a light rail station, the presence or absence of light rail has a trivial impact upon the demographics of transit use for the vast majority of King County.

"The other info in your paragraph seems to be arguing for my point, not against. (Perhaps the misunderstanding is my fault for not making clear that by "transit" I meant "buses," not "all forms of mass transit." Sorry.) "If you are only hauling 9 people an hour in a 100+ person bus, that seems a p*** poor reason to ADD CAPACITY." I said above, in some detail, that I think the elimination of the very-low-ridership routes is a good thing. Those very-low-ridership routes are the exception (10% of South King County's service hours, if I'm not mistaken), not the rule." You of course ARE mistaken. The cuts announced by Sims were for 1.1 million hours service (out of the current 3.3 million) next year, when the revenue shortfall will be realized. It was specifically noted that these were the LEAST productive routes, and that they averaged less than nine boardings per hour.

"It's completely bogus to talk about them as though they were representative of the entire bus system, which you do twice in your post." No I didn
ft, I indicated that they represented one-third of the current hors of service, and the least productive one-third at that.

""The six year capital investment plan for King County (prior to I- 695) had two and one-half times the money going for transit (not counting light rail) that it did for roads." And here we casually ignore the tremendous capital investment that has *already* gone into roads." And we also ignore the tremendous capital investment that has already gone into transit as well. But the FACTS are that the feds put 1/6 their money into transit (which carries 2% of the passenger miles) and 5/6 of their money into roads which carry 98% of the passenger miles in autos AND all of the bus miles except foe the bus tunnel and a few bus only on/off ramps. King County puts the majority of their capital funds into transit, despite the fact that it carries only 5% of commuters and 2% of total passenger miles.

An extremely biased comparison. Bullsh*t.

You treat the demographic problem like it were a physical chemistry problem that can be overcome by exercising the law of mass action. It really can
ft. As the demographics go against transit for a number of reasons, adding additional capacity becomes ruinously expensive, with no real advantage in congestion. When you must add so many low capacity transit vehicles to attract ridership that they clog the roadways with a few people each, you have succeeded only in replacing a 2 ton car with a 30-ton bus. And at nine passengers an hour, the bus only averages about three riders at any given time. And it
fs a queuing problem. If you make the routes longer to gather more passengers you make the time on the bus longer for each passenger and decrease the number of passengers WILLING to take the bus. THE PROBLEM IS NOT A LACK OF CAPACITY. IT IS A LACK OF DEMAND. IF YOU ARE NOT FILLING THE SEATS YOU HAVE NOW, ADDING MORE SEATS WILL NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. IT WILL MERELY GIVE YOU EVEN LOWER LOAD FACTORS AND EVEN INCREASED COST PER SEAT MILE. DUE TO LOW LOAD FACTORS, ENERGY EFFICIENCY FOR AUTOS ALREADY EXCEEDS THAT FOR TRANSIT. Read the thread" Which is more energy efficient"

The issue, Anirudh, is not whether I am right or you are right, but what is the right thing to do. You have inaccurate data, models, and concepts, and are trying to convince people of a course of action based upon this superficial and simplistic database. It
fs not that hard to get the figures and read the studies. For a start, I
fd strongly recommend http://www-cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/trends_reportl8.pdf particularly the chapter on commute travel patterns and Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1997 both the domestic and the international trend (Chap 10) data.

What these show is that people are making REASONABLE CHOICES TPO NOT USE TRANSIT, because it costs them significantly in time and inconvenience. And this is a worldwide trend, not just in the USA. Adding more unused capacity is not going to solve that. Increased density really isn
ft going to

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

"You of course ARE mistaken. The cuts announced by Sims were for 1.1 million hours service (out of the current 3.3 million) next year, when the revenue shortfall will be realized. It was specifically noted that these were the LEAST productive routes, and that they averaged less than nine boardings per hour."

Here's the relevant part of the Tribune article from which you got the "less than nine boardings per hour": (http://search.tribnet.com/archive/90days/1107b11.htm)

"Under Sims' proposed February cuts, South King County alone would see 59,312 hours of bus service disappear - a move that would affect 525,767 riders annually, Metro said. Sims actually has targeted the agency's least productive bus service. The runs in question carry an average of 8.86 riders per hour, Metro officials said."

The 8.86 boardings/hour figure came from 8.86 = 525,767 riders / 59,312 hours. As you see, it refers only to bus routes in the FIRST round of cuts (not all of next year's cuts) and only the ones in South King County (not all of King County). Those 59,312 hours, which carry 8.86 riders per hour, are 1.8% of Metro's total 3.3 million service hours -- a far cry from the 30% that you have been calling them all over this forum.

You have some good ideas about reducing government waste, but if you want to convince people to follow you, you should stick to the truth. Resorting to exaggerations or false statistics only undermines your credibility.

"You have inaccurate data, models, and concepts, and are trying to convince people of a course of action based upon this superficial and simplistic database."

Arbitrary statements such as that one don't make you right. I wasn't aware that I was trying to "convince people of a course of action" ?! Craig, again, if you want people to listen to you, you need to get better at listening to them. I've seen in your responses to people's posts (not only mine) an extraordinary ability to misinterpret their words, and to find disagreement and enmity even where no disagreement exists.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 24, 1999.

Anirudh- I checked with Metro Transit, and we
fre both wrong. Here
fs the quote from the Tribnet:

King County is taking a more direct approach. Down to the specific routes, Executive Ron Sims has proposed cutting 200,000 hours of service from the 3.3 million-hours-per-year Metro bus system. Those cuts would take effect in February. By June 2001, Sims' plans call for Metro to cut a full third of its service to cope with the eventual loss of 29 percent of its $366 million operating budget. Under Sims' proposed February cuts, South King County alone would see 59,312 hours of bus service disappear - a move that would affect 525,767 riders annually, Metro said. Sims actually has targeted the agency's least productive bus service. The runs in question carry an average of 8.86 riders per hour, Metro officials said.

The ANNUALIZED effect by June 2001 will be the loss of a third of the hours. The 8.86 riders, according to Metro, represents ALL the runs being cut in February (200,000 hr), not just the South King County runs. They could not give a rider per hour figure for the 1.1 million hour cut yet, because the routes had not yet been determined (and they were hoping that the State would find money to bail them out).

If you look at METRO
fs ridership figures, you can get an idea of the magnitude of their overall ridership. The last figures available on the federal web are at: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0001/ $File/ P0001.PDF

These are 1997. Additional transit routes and hours have been added in the last 2 years. These have, on the whole, been less productive routes, and are likely over-represented in the early cuts, with the result that the 1997 figures probably more closely approximate what
fs left after the initial cuts, than the average for the cuts themselves. If you crank these numbers, interesting data comes out. Looking only at buses (right side of the report), Average trip length 6.5 miles Average bus speed 13.9 mph Average passengers boarded per hour 31 Average passengers on the bus (annual passenger miles divided by vehicle revenue miles) 14.6

Now considering the fleet is composed of 20 ton buses capable of holding 64 people (http://www.newflyer.com/flmo/fmlf60d.htm) (http://www.tri-met.org/pictures/1400.htm) costing up to $435,000 per unit, and considering that these figures count a lot of full buses that go to the Husky and Seahawk games each year, perhaps you
fll be willing to agree that with a system that is running at 14.6/64 or 23% of capacity even after tossing in SRO special event buses and people riding for FREE in the downtown no fare zone, METRO KC does not have a capacity problem. This was the point of this issue, if you recall. You were justifying high subsidization as a mechanism of controlling congestion, and I was pointing out that we are not capacity limited, we are demand limited. Building more capacity when the demand is not there, and you already have surplus capacity,

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