A remedy for congestion? (http://www.eastsidejournal.com/Homepagedocs/topnews/cmo07732.html)

Friday, November 12, 1999 Some think a ferry route across Lake Washington would relieve traffic woes

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Chris Maag Journal Reporter

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

KIRKLAND -- Two high-speed, $5 million catamarans could be zipping between downtown Kirkland and the University of Washington by next fall.

But they probably would only carry 50 people on each trip, or between 500 to 1,000 passengers each day. That's minuscule compared to the 115,000 vehicle trips that use the State Route 520 bridge every day.

Some King County and Sound Transit officials think that could be enough to justify Lake Washington's first ferry service in almost 50 years.

$10 million startup plus $2.5 million per year so that 500-1000 people can go between a rich suburb and the UW.

Worst case (500 people) that's $20,000 per person capitalization costs and $5000/year/passenger subsidy. WHY DON'T WE JUST BUY THEM THEIR OWN BOATS?

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

Answers

Hey thanks for showing up to the meeting and speaking your mind. Oh what's that, you weren't there? Different story then, untill you are a part of the decision making public process you have nothing to bitch about. You are just sitting around and watching everyone make decisions for you and then crying foul after the fact. Don't waste my time with your whining untill you have something worth whining about.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

RE: theman Were you there? If you were what did you say?

-- ERAmerican (william.reagor@guidant.com), November 12, 1999.

I wasn't there, I was trying to make a point that no one shows up to public meetings and becomes part of the process. I do show up at the meetings, research the topics and speak my mind. I have been to countless meetings where I was the only person there other than the local electeds. And I have seen the public cry foul after these meetings "I never got a chance to speak", "no one told me this would happen", "when did they make that decision" etc, etc. If you're not part of the process, you have no right to bitch about decisions that were made that you don't like.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

THERE WEREN'T NO FRIGGING PUBLIC MEETINGS!

These are private talks between the government elites in King County and the government elites in Sound Transit. Now strawman issues aside, "theman", do you want to address the fiscal responsibility and cost effectiveness of this? Forget the chaff and flares, tell me STRAIGHT OUT; Do you believe that this is a cost-effective use of public monies? Do you believe that this will make a significant difference in congestion on the floating bridge? If "we shouldn't build more bridges/traffic lanes/ etc., because "you can't build your way out of congestion" and "you just stimulate additional demand," why are boats different than more lanes? Do you believe that there are going to be a lot of poor people on this run? Do you believe that there are going to be a lot of transit dependent people on this run? Do you believe that this will increase or decrease air pollution? Is there some public purpose for this, or should the Kirkland Merchants who are pushing this pay for it? Don't try to change the issue to process. MY assertion is that this is waste and an abuse of taxpayer's money. Do you deny that assertion?

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

theman tells us:

"I wasn't there, I was trying to make a point that no one shows up to public meetings and becomes part of the process. I do show up at the meetings, research the topics and speak my mind. I have been to countless meetings where I was the only person there other than the local electeds. And I have seen the public cry foul after these meetings "I never got a chance to speak", "no one told me this would happen", "when did they make that decision" etc, etc. If you're not part of the process, you have no right to bitch about decisions that were made that you don't like."

There is, of course, a fundamental flaw to that kind of reasoning.

The idea that this system would hit the water with NO state tax dollars is absurd. I seem to recall a certain little outfit in the Seattle area... you may have heard of it... the RTA?

They came down to the Legislature before the vote... and swore up and down that they would build their light rail system WITHOUT any state tax dollars.

Now, how much is it that they fantasize about taking from the state to build this? AFTER they told the Legislators that they wouldn't NEED any?

Can YOU say $400,000,000? I KNEW you could!

So your position is that those of us who live around the state have no bitch coming if we didn't attend the myriad of meetings where they cooked this up?

I don't think so, Home Boy.

Westin

Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), November 12, 1999.

"I wasn't there, I was trying to make a point that no one shows up to public meetings and becomes part of the process. I do show up at the meetings, research the topics and speak my mind. I have been to countless meetings where I was the only person there other than the local electeds. And I have seen the public cry foul after these meetings "I never got a chance to speak", "no one told me this would happen", "when did they make that decision" etc, etc. If you're not part of the process, you have no right to bitch about decisions that were made that you don't like. " BS! I work for a living (have to, to pay my taxes!). I go to meetings when I can, but clearly do not, and WILL NEVER have time to go to every meeting, even if they weren't generally scheduled during the work-day. That does not mean it is the inalienable right of politicians and bureaucrats to spend my tax money foolishly, inefficiently, or for inappropriate purposes, nor is my presence or absence at a meeting a justification for THEIR stupidity.

THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO ME FOR THEIR ACTIONS, whether or not I was able to be present, because IT WAS MY MONEY and THEY WORK FOR CITIZENS LIKE ME. Your point is ludicrous. I have a perfect right to bitch about decisions made by them in my absence. They are hired to look after the public's interests including mine, not just to go along with the lobbyists and special interest advocates that show up!

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

Re" ABOVE

In the words of Ronald Reagan, It's my microphone. I paid for this microphone. And I'm gonna use this microphone.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

Can you say open public meetings act? Before these decisions can be made, there has to be public meetings. that's what I was getting at.

As far as the boats between kirkland and UW go, I am ignorant to that topic. On the surface, I would say that it would be a complete waste of money and they should sell the boats to recoup some of the money instead of mothballing them.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

"I am ignorant to that topic. " One of EVER so many.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

"Can you say open public meetings act? Before these decisions can be made, there has to be public meetings. that's what I was getting at. " No it isn't. I have no problem with encouraging greater voter involvement in government (heck, that's the BEST thing about I-695). But what you ARE getting at, is being an apologist for big government stupidity. The defaults in government bureaucracy are ALWAYS going to be for bigger government, same as the defaults in Boeing and Microsoft being for more business. It is the JOB of the elected officials to act in the taxpayers interest to reign in this desire for growth when such growth would not be cost-effective or in the interest of the general public (as opposed to special interest groups). Elected officials FAIL when they do not do that, with the consequences of undermining public faith in government in general and the elected officials in particular. YOU are an apologist for these failings, blaming the victims. And by doing this, you defend a status quo that obviously benefits you at some level, if only philosophically. I'm simply not willing to subsidize you to this extent, to allow you to feel good. Nor are a majority of my fellow citizens, apparently.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 12, 1999.

Re. the objection that public meetings are usually scheduled during working hours - anyone can submit written comments to be presented as his/her testimony at a public meeting where decisions about public spending are discussed. These comments become part of public record, even the most ill-considered crackpot comments. If you submit such comments and the government still acts against your wishes, you have excellent grounds for complaining, "We told them so and they didn't listen." The evidence is in your favor for newspapers and others to see. If all you do is rant to your friends, over lunch, or on a privately owned web server, you don't have much basis for complaint. It's not the government's job to track down every comment made in every private forum that's likely to have worthwhile comments. We are not paying them to do that.

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

"It's not the government's job to track down every comment made in every private forum that's likely to have worthwhile comments." No. But it IS THEIR JOB to be reasonably prudent with taxpayers money. Does the project above strike you as reasonably prudent, Anirudh, since it is the issue at hand?

And it is really rather disengenuous to expect everyone who might have an objection to attend (or even submit recorded comments) to every meeting. An individual in eastern or southwest Washington might have no way of knowing that a meeting is being held to discuss cross Lake Washington ferry service between the UW and a relatively well-off Seattle suburb, but they will be subsidizing it with their state tax dollars. They have an expectation, however, that the elected officials will look after their interests even if they are not there or do not know about the meeting, and I do not think this is an unreasonable explanation. Were YOU aware that Wahkiakum has a ferry? It does (runs at about a $20K annual loss, I believe). Were Wahkiakum to decide that they needed two $5 million high speed ferries to replace their current one, people at the UW and Kirkland might not be aware of it, but they have a reasonable expectation that their elected representatives would insure that this would not happen, even if only the advocates showed up at the meeting.

Your assertion that if you don't show up at the meeting, you forfeit your right to complain, is a classic case of blaming the victim. The individual who was busy working to make the resources should ACCEPT the fact that the resources are being wasted because they were too busy or too uninformed to attend the meeting. If this is truly the philosophy you believe and our elected representatives have NO ROLE in prudent management, we might just as well put the biennial budget in one big trough and let whoever shows up take whatever they can carry. My philosophy is that WE HIRE THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE PRUDENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS WITH THE TAXES WE DECIDE THEY NEED TO DO THE JOB. If they will do a good job only if I am looking over their shoulder, they are not competent to manage public resources.

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

"WE HIRE THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE PRUDENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS WITH THE TAXES WE DECIDE THEY NEED TO DO THE JOB". Craig

didn't 695 take that decision making capability out of their hands?

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.net), November 12, 1999.

""WE HIRE THESE PEOPLE TO MAKE PRUDENT MANAGEMENT DECISIONS WITH THE TAXES WE DECIDE THEY NEED TO DO THE JOB". Craig didn't 695 take that decision making capability out of their hands? "

No. It gives US the ability to decide how much tax they need to do the job. That doesn't mean that we are micromanaging approved existing taxes, just validating the necessity for new ones. Not a subtle difference to me. Don't understand YOUR confusion.

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

You're misrepresenting my words when you say, "Your assertion that if you don't show up at the meeting, you forfeit your right to complain" and "you believe ... our elected representatives have NO ROLE in prudent management". I never said either of those things. I said that you have little ground to make the complaint "They're not listening," if you didn't give THEM your input in the forum that has been established for giving them your input. Read my post again.

And speaking of the Lake Washington ferries, what grounds do you have to assert that they are a waste of public money? Have you checked out the background leading the transit officials to consider those ferries? Is it possible that the people who made those decisions DO have broader knowledge of the overall situation than you do, and came up with the ferry idea based on that knowledge?

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

Statement one: "If you submit such comments and the government still acts against your wishes, you have excellent grounds for complaining, "We told them so and they didn't listen." If all you do is rant to your friends, over lunch, or on a privately owned web server, you don't have much basis for complaint"

Statement two: "You're misrepresenting my words when you say, "Your assertion that if you don't show up at the meeting, you forfeit your right to complain""

EXCUSE ME?

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

"And speaking of the Lake Washington ferries, what grounds do you have to assert that they are a waste of public money? " I have posted the dollar figured for this plan. Are you asserting that it DOES make sense to spend $10 million in capital expense and then $2.5 million per year so 700 people can commute daily between a prosperous waterfront suburb of Seattle and the UW?

"Have you checked out the background leading the transit officials to consider those ferries? " To the extent possible in the information publically avaiilable, yes. Is it now my responsibility to not only pay for such projects, educate myself concerning the issues, attend the meetings, but check upon the background og the elected officials motivation? What is THEIR responsibility to justify to ME the expenditure of MY resources?

Is it possible that the people who made those decisions DO have broader knowledge of the overall situation than you do, and came up with the ferry idea based on that knowledge? All things are possible. But THEY WORK FOR ME. I DON'T WORK FOR THEM! The onus is on THEM to convince the taxpayers that this is a good idea, not vice versa.

Do YOU support this proposal? Can YOU justify it? If YOU cannot, why should I be willing to fund it? Why should YOU be willing to fund it?

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

In my "Statement one" please consider "you don't have much basis for complaint" corrected to, "you don't have much basis for making THAT complaint".

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 15, 1999.

"To the extent possible in the information publically avaiilable, yes."

What did you check, besides the Eastside Journal report you quote above?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), November 15, 1999.

"To the extent possible in the information publicly available, yes." What did you check, besides the Eastside Journal report you quote above? 

Whats been in the papers:

http://www.seattle-pi.com/pi/local/lake101.shtml http://www.seattlep-i.com/pi/local/fery12.shtml http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi- bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/display?storyID=3829a4c71e&query=Kirkland+f erry

A phone call to Jane Hagues office (that wasnt returned) and a phone call to Sound Transit (got left on hold until I gave up).

Given that I personally would never use this service (although MY taxes would pay for it), I think thats reasonable due diligence as a taxpayer.

As long as were playing twenty questions, I repeat: Do YOU support this proposal? Can YOU justify it? If YOU cannot, why should I be willing to fund it? Why should YOU be willing to fund it?

And what did YOU check before you decided that you didnt think that the citizens of the state believed they were over-taxed, just that the taxes were too regressive? A Ouija board perhaps?

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

No Craig, you are the one suggesting that the people who proposed the ferries "need a reality check," so the onus is on YOU to prove that they do. If YOU cannot justify that their recommendation is wrong, why should I be willing to believe that it's wrong? What's more, the stories you pointed to speak of proposals from a *private* company, Argosy Cruises. They say that the ferries will cost $5 million, and they say that some level of subsidy will be needed, but they don't say how much, so I see no reason to be outraged. Nor do I see a reason to doubt the $5 M figure in your message. You haven't pointed us to a cheaper source of ferries.

(By the way, if we go by the budget analysis methods in fashion today, what's $5 million? "Less than 0.02 percent of government spending in the state...")

And if you think that ferries are obviously too expensive, or that no new way to cross the lake is needed, perhaps you are the one who needs a reality check? I have to say you're jumping to rather quick judgments about Seattle's traffic issues. Don't forget that what you think is cheap may be very expensive to someone else. For example, some people think that a new bridge or new bridge lanes are the only way to go; some environmentalist groups think that any cross-lake traffic solution that risks damaging the UW Arboretum is unacceptably expensive. Given that we live in a democracy, any solution founded in "reality" needs the consensus of many different groups with conflicting interests.

You claim to have checked out the background behind those ferries to the extent possible in the information publicly available, but you aren't even aware of the Trans-Lake Washington Study. A committee representing cities, counties, neighborhoods, employers, environmentalist groups, transit authorities, etc. spent several months studying the very contentious topic of crossing Lake Washington. One of their recommendations was that Kirkland-UW ferries should be studied further. That's exactly what the Argosy proposal is. If you are going to convince me that the study committee needs a reality check, YOU need to come up with a much stronger argument than what you have above.

This committee's work was covered in newspapers, and is publicly available, in detail, on a well designed web site, for anyone to "scrutinize in the full light of day" - see http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/TRANSLAKE/. Among the things on that web site are all the public comments they received, including transcripts of phone messages, etc. They have an email address for you to contact them, and an offer to be put on their mailing list. What more do you want them to do to keep you informed about how they spend "YOUR" money?

---

"you didnt think that the citizens of the state believed they were over-taxed" - Another interesting misrepresentation of something that I said elsewhere. Anyway, the answer to your last question is a discussion on this forum titled, ""6th highest taxed state??" WA rate is 11.979%, US average 11.299%!", which cites the WA Research Council and a newspaper letter about the regressive tax rate.

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

"No Craig, you are the one suggesting that the people who proposed the ferries "need a reality check," so the onus is on YOU to prove that they do" Not as long as they are proposing to spend MY MONEY on something as obviously non cost-effective as this. They have NO ENTITLEMENT to tax funds. The onus is on those who would take money from the taxpayers to justify that, not the other way around.

"They say that the ferries will cost $5 million, and they say that some level of subsidy will be needed, but they don't say how much, so I see no reason to be outraged. Nor do I see a reason to doubt the $5 M figure in your message. You haven't pointed us to a cheaper source of ferries. " I am NOT SAYING that I can provide cheaper ferries. I think that the whole thing is hare-brained. If they wish to do this with private funds, that's great. If they go broke, that's too bad. If they get rich, they've created a new industry. I just see no reason why the voters should subsidize it.

Thanks for the website. I've looked at it.. The summary of what is has to say concerning this issue seems to be "The Trans-Lake study showed that car or bus ferries would have significant impacts at loading points, and passenger-only ferries would not substantially enhance people-moving capacity. The committee recommends, however, that passenger ferry options across Lake Washington should be studied further, with emphasis on private operation. " Given that is says that passenger only ferries (this proposal) would not substantially enhance people moving capacity, you'll forgive me if I don't suddenly reverse my position and change my opposition.

" "you didn? think that the citizen? of the state believed they were over-taxed" - Another interesting misrepresentation of something that I said elsewhere." In what way did I misrepresent what you

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

Anirudh-

Hoping third times the charm. Are you EVER going to answer the questions?

I repeat: Do YOU support this proposal? Can YOU justify it? If YOU cannot, why should I be willing to fund it? Why should YOU be willing to fund it?

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

And if you think that ferries are obviously too expensive, or that no new way to cross the lake is needed, perhaps you are the one who needs a reality check?

It would appear that Anirudh ALSO needs a reality check. Also, perhaps an adjustment of his medications.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

""No Craig, you are the one suggesting that the people who proposed the ferries "need a reality check," so the onus is on YOU to prove that they do" "

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." -George Washington

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), November 17, 1999.

"A committee representing cities, counties, neighborhoods, employers, environmentalist groups, transit authorities, etc. spent several months studying the very contentious topic of crossing Lake Washington. One of their recommendations was that Kirkland-UW ferries should be studied further. "

Meetings are an addictive, highly self-indulgent activity that corporations and other large organizations habitually engage in only because they cannot actually masturbate. -- Dave Barry

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), November 18, 1999.

Where did Anirudh go?

He pops up, castigates Craig for not finding a two sentence statement that SUPPORTS what Craig was asserting, doesn't answwer any of the questions that were asked of him, and then disappears. STALL WARNING as we used to say in wrestling.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 18, 1999.

Tempus Fugit Anirudh (Get Jeffey to translate)

Another 24 hours has elapsed.

2nd Stall warning.

One point awarded to Craig.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 19, 1999.

Whether it is ferries, buses, rail or highways, the government, in one way or another, subsidizes all transportation. So why not fund a study to investigate the feasibility of ferry traffic across Lake Washington? On the surface, ferry traffic across the lake may seem to be a waste of money, but you don't know where it may lead. While there are few people that frequently uses all of the transportation options that the government subsidizes, I am sure that everyone fraudulently uses at least one of these transportation options.

I'm sure similar studies were made to determine the feasibility of building a couple of floating bridges across the lake. I'm sure that when those studies were done, there were those who were not in favor of the bridges.

Now, if the issue is on government subsidies of transportation, the government does not have to subsidize any transportation. They don't need to subsidize ferries, buses, rail or even roads. They don't need to fix the traffic problem. They could just do the minimum by just managing the existing transportation system without doing anything to increase the overall capacity of the system. Is that what you want?

If this is all that you want your government to do, then that is fine. If you want them to increase the overall capacity of the transportation system, that's fine also. If you want them to focus on a single option solution (e.g. more roadways), then that is also okay. In all of these cases, you should express your opinion to your representatives.

As for the previous posts, the government should be working in the best interest of the people. If the people feel that they were not represented well, then the people have the option to vote for someone else. People are also entitled to voice their opposition. However, just because there is some opposition, does not mean that the opposition reflects the voice of the majority of the people.

The trick to all of this is to convince the decision-makers that the opposition reflects the voice of the majority. If you are adamant in your opposition to an issue or decision, then you need to contact your representative and have similarly minded people contact their representatives to convince them that these decisions are not supported by the majority.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 19, 1999.

Gene- GET OFF IT!

I am getting sick and tired of the nihilistic, non-judgmental, everyone is entitled to an opinion (except those who believe that people ought to use common sense), platitudes constantly thrown out by the apologists for the bureaucracy.

Some things are just plain inherently ridiculous, and if you continue to make apologies for them you risk triggering more tax revolts like I-695. If that's your intention, go for it. If that isn't your intention, you'd better apply the common sense test to the bureaucracy that most people will use, or the backlash is going to take you by surprise. No idea is so good that it can't be carried to an illogical extreme. That goes for Socialism, that goes for Capitalism, and that even goes for mass transit.

If you can't stand up and say, " I don't need a committee on this one, it doesn't pass the common sense test," on this proposal, and on the Sound Transit Light Rail amusement ride for Tacoma, you aren't hurting my side of the issue at all. You're destroying your own credibility in the eyes of everyone other than the terminally confused.

William Proxmire used to give out "Golden Fleece" awards for things like this.

Tell me straight out, no equivocation, no appointing a committee to study whether or not to appoint a committee to study the issue. Do you believe this proposal, as given above, is a reasonable expenditure of the public monies? If so, why? Do you believe the 1.6 mile Tacoma Dome Light Rail (see the other thread) is a reasonable expenditure of public monies? If so, why?

Don't lecture me about how to talk to elected representatives, I was probably talking to elected representatives before you were born. But it doesn't make any sense to talk to them if you don't have an opinion. So quit waffling with PROCESS. What's your opinion?

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

Craig,

First of all, I think that it is wrong to make a judgment on a study based upon a single article in the paper. I think that it is also wrong to judge people or ideas in a similar manner.

Second, I believe that our current form of government is not perfect, but it is the best one in the world and is still developing. Its main fault is also its main asset in that it relies on the people. And since no one is perfect, we end up with imperfection. Government can be improved, but it requires the people to work within in the system. The current government problems are the result of the lack of participation by the people.

Third, I consider the transportation system of an urban area as a conglomeration of all of the separate systems. Roads, highways, buses, rail and ferries constitute part of an overall transportation system. Other items like tele commuting, ride share, and para-transit should also constitute part of a transportation system. When facing a transportation problem/issue, decisions need to be made on how the entire system can work the problem, rather than fixing a single part of the system.

Fourth, I believe that a transportation plan needs to fit within an overall growth management plan for an area. Few things can survive in a stagnant environment. Growth is a necessity. However, un-managed growth can also be detrimental. I believe that I-695 makes it difficult for area growth.

I think that traffic in the Puget Sound region is extremely bad and needs solutions. However, I think that we are near the limit of additional roadway that can be added to the overall system before it starts affecting the overall quality of life. Some additional roadways could be added to relieve the current situation, but it would not be able to handle the problem in the long-term. The existing road system needs to be made more effective. For a large part, this would be possible by encouraging more people to use alternatives to single-occupant vehicle commutes. These alternatives include car pools, a mass transit system of rail and buses, and passenger-only ferries.

Specific to the two projects, I think that a 5 million-dollar STUDY of a Lake Washington ferry system is a valid use of government funds. It is only a STUDY. Who knows how many people will actually prefer to leave their cars on the East Side and commute across the lake.

As for the Dome Light Rail, I think that a 1.6-mile rail system in Tacoma can also be valid, IF it can be shown how it fits within a larger rail plan. If there were no plan to expand the system beyond the 1.6 miles, then I would agree with you in saying that it is probably a waste of money.

Getting back to our current government, I think that the people have four options. They can work within the system to improve the government through participation. They can do nothing and live with what we end up with. They can place themselves at risk and ignore the government and its laws. Finally, they can leave and find a better one. (A corollary to last option is to overthrow the existing government and install a better one. I don't think that anyone actually wants this, but you never know.) I prefer the first option.

But that's just my opinion.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 19, 1999.

Gene-

[First of all, I think that it is wrong to make a judgment on a study based upon a single article in the paper. I think that it is also wrong to judge people or ideas in a similar manner.]

You are judging ME without apparently even reading the thread. Had you read the thread, you would have seen that I did considerably more than read a single article in the paper. You are deciding that I operated on inadequate information WITHOUT EVEN TAKING THE TIME TO READ THE MATERIAL I PROVIDED THAT DEMONSTRATED THE OPPOSITE. What a hypocrite!

[Second, I believe that our current form of government is not perfect, but it is the best one in the world and is still developing. Its main fault is also its main asset in that it relies on the people. And since no one is perfect, we end up with imperfection. Government can be improved, but it requires the people to work within in the system. The current government problems are the result of the lack of participation by the people.] Classic case of blaming the victims. Were in trouble because of manipulation by special interest groups and because of politicians who put their political ambitions above doing what is right. I-695 WAS participation by the people. It will become increasingly Draconian until the politicians get the message.

[Third, I consider the transportation system of an urban area as a conglomeration of all of the separate systems. Roads, highways, buses, rail and ferries constitute part of an overall transportation system. Other items like tele commuting, ride share, and para-transit should also constitute part of a transportation system. When facing a transportation problem/issue, decisions need to be made on how the entire system can work the problem, rather than fixing a single part of the system.] Yes. The sun sets in the West, too. Is this supposed to be a revelation to anyone?

[Fourth, I believe that a transportation plan needs to fit within an overall growth management plan for an area.] I think we managed growth in this area a Hell of a lot better before we had a growth management plan. I think we might do still better if the government would just get out of the way.

[Few things can survive in a stagnant environment. Growth is a necessity. However, un-managed growth can also be detrimental. I believe that I-695 makes it difficult for area growth.] I dont think I-695 has much to do with area growth, one way or another. How we invest transportation dollars certainly does. How many transportation dollars we have also makes a difference. Whether we get those from the MVET or from elsewhere does not. I-695 did not even LEVEL the growth in state and local government spending in Washington, let alone decrease it.

[I think that traffic in the Puget Sound region is extremely bad and needs solutions. However, I think that we are near the limit of additional roadway that can be added to the overall system before it starts affecting the overall quality of life. Some additional roadways could be added to relieve the current situation, but it would not be able to handle the problem in the long-term. The existing road system needs to be made more effective.] I, on the other hand, remember full well when we built the bulk of the existing infrastructure. We havent done anything MAJOR since the 60s. Time we did. There are a number of demographic issues that have increased the congestion. One is area population growth. One is increasing prosperity. One is the increasing number of females in the workforce. We have not built infrastructure to keep up with population growth (example, the Narrows bridge, completed in 1950). This was by decision of the transportation department. They have been more than adequately funded, both on a per capita basis and by area served, relative to other cities that have lesser problems (or none whatever). They squandered this money. The growing percentage of women working has about peaked. Due to prosperity, we now have one licensed motor vehicle for every driver. Further increases in the ratio of cars to drivers obviously wont put many more on the road. It would appear that total miles driven per individual are plateauing. WE CAN BUILD OUR WAY OUT OF CONGESTION, but not if we keep increasing population density in Seattle with SmartGrowth.

[For a large part, this would be possible by encouraging more people to use alternatives to single-occupant vehicle commutes. These alternatives include car pools, a mass transit system of rail and buses, and passenger-only ferries.] No it wouldnt. While it would be mathematically possible, this goes against the demographic trends worldwide. People are using less transit worldwide, not more. We are tremendously over-funding transit right now, and its market share continues to dwindle and in most locales it is dropping in absolute numbers as well as market share. This is happening in Japan. Its happening in China. Its happening in Eastern Europe. Its happening in Western Europe. Wishing it were otherwise hasnt stopped it. Over funding transit hasnt stopped it. Even gasoline priced at $5 a gallon hasnt stopped it (although it did make people buy more economical cars). It isnt going to stop it in a free society either. Densification doesnt make the problem better, it makes it worse. If you start with 3000 people per square mile and double the population density and quadruple the people who use mass transit you wind up with 4800 people per square mile who DONT use mass transit, cause you only started with 5%. Worse yet, while 5% used mass transit, mass transit only accounted for 2% of the total miles to begin with, so the congestion is even worse than would otherwise be expected in going from 3000 to 4800 per square mile. All these things have been posted on this bulletin board, citing studies in the National Transportation Database on the USDOT website.

[Specific to the two projects, I think that a 5 million-dollar STUDY of a Lake Washington ferry system is a valid use of government funds. It is only a STUDY.] No. That isnt the issue AT ALL. You didnt read the referenced articles. You didnt even read this thread. The proposal was that we spend $10 million on two ferries and $2.5 million per year to allow about 700 people to commute daily from Kirkland. I would hope even our most stodgy bureaucrats would not spend $5 million to STUDY whether or not to spend $10 million. How can you even VENTURE AN OPINION when you havent read the question, let alone accuse me of being uninformed. What hypocrisy again!

[Who knows how many people will actually prefer to leave their cars on the East Side and commute across the lake.] And WHO CARES. That isnt the issue. If they want to get a boat with their money, they can go for it. The ISSUE is whether or not it is reasonable to pay $10 million down and $2.5 million a year from PUBLIC FUNDS to subsidize the commuting habits of 700 people. You CANT come up with an opinion on that issue??

[As for the Dome Light Rail, I think that a 1.6-mile rail system in Tacoma can also be valid, IF it can be shown how it fits within a larger rail plan.] Oh right. Its 20.87 miles from the southern terminus of the proposed 21-mile LINK segment. If on budget (because its hanging by a thread right now) and it gets the desired federal support (and there are about twenty other cities competing for the same money) and its on time, initial service will begin in 2006. Phase II, if there ever is a phase II, would go NORTH, to Northgate, in preference to going South. Given that light rail travels at 14 miles per hour, would you spend another $2 billion to get from the Tacoma Dome to Sea Tac in an hour and a half?

[If there were no plan to expand the system beyond the 1.6 miles, then I would agree with you in saying that it is probably a waste of money.] Given that its going to cost $65 million for a system to replace ONE BUS ROUTE in which one bus circulates in a loop every 15 minutes, Id say that it would be even a worse waste of money to expand it. When youre spending $65 million to replace each bus, how many buses do you think we ought to replace?

[Getting back to our current government, I think that the people have four options. They can work within the system to improve the government through participation. They can do nothing and live with what we end up with. They can place themselves at risk and ignore the government and its laws. Finally, they can leave and find a better one I prefer the first option. But that's just my opinion.] My opinion is that you are either too lazy to inform yourself and therefore abysmally ignorant, you are SO non judgmental that youll never come to an opinion, or youre simply an apologist for big government stupidity because you are philosophically incapable of believing that the government could EVER do wrong. Unless this changes, I doubt that society will greatly benefit from your participation.

. (A corollary to last option is to overthrow the existing government and install a better one. I don't think that anyone actually wants this, but you never know.) I agree. This is the default option. Hopefully, I-695 and other populist actions can turn the government around before it so estranges its populace that this happens here, but government has proved itself sufficiently stupid to provoke the people to revolt repeatedly throughout history, in most all geographical locations and ethnic cultures. You would be fooling yourself to think it wouldnt or couldnt happen here. You increase that risk if you do not understand the populist feelings that lead to I-695. That has been acknowledged by prominent men in BOTH major political parties. We forget that at our peril.

"The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive." Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) 3rd US President, Democrat "This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or exercise their revolutionary right to overthrow it." -Abraham Lincoln

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

Anirudh- THIRD Stall warning. Another point. Better post SOMETHING or you'll lose by forfeit.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), November 21, 1999.

Craig,

I apologize for giving the impression of judging you, which was not my intent. I said that I didn't like to judge a something based upon a single article in the newspaper. Your input may have been based upon additional research, but that additional research was not included in the original post.

Second, the point that I keep trying to make is that just passing I-695 is not enough. If the people have an issue, then they need to get involved in the process. This is not a dig at you since you obviously have taken a lot of time and trouble to research may of the issues. However, from reading some of the messages being posted to this site, there seems to be many who voted to pass I-695, but do not plan on taking any additional action. My comments in this case, are only meant to convince those people that they still need to take action if they want the government to understand the message correctly.

Third, while it may be clear to you that roadways, buses, transit and ferries are part of an overall transportation system, it may not be clear to others. The comment was only meant to get people to think of transportation in a larger context.

Fourth, a growth management plan may not be important when area is available to handle growth, but it becomes extremely important when area is limited. You're right in that there has not been any major improvements to the transportation infrastructure since the 60's. Almost everyone agrees that traffic in the Puget Sound region needs solutions. I also agree that transit solutions may not be as cost efficient as roadways. I agree that we COULD build our way out of congestion.

How do we expand the existing highway system? Add a single additional lane? Two? Three? More? In certain stretches, it would be extremely difficult to widen existing freeways. Could we add an upper level or maybe a lower level? What are the costs relative to quality of life? (These questions are rhetorical and don't need to be answered. We both tend to be a bit verbose!)

You have brought forth many studies indicating the demographic trend away from transit, even in areas with a high population density. And maybe transit is not the answer. How do we find an answer that fits the region if we don't study possible solutions? When we find an answer, how is it paid for? Based upon some of the messages posted to this site, there are some that will not pay for anything that does not benefit them directly.

Specifically, I mis-spoke and called this fery project a study when it is actually a proposed pilot sponsored by Sound Transit. Again, I am sorry if you have felt that I was accusing you of anything, least of all of being uninformed. However, you asked for an opinion, which I provided (I think that Sound Transit was given authority to find solutions to the current traffic problems in the region. Based upon that authority, I believe that this project is valid.)

As for Dome Light Rail, I indicated that I would like to see where it stands relative to a broader rail plan. In the LONG term, it could sit as part of a system that ran from Everett through Tacoma, with a segment covering the entire Eastside. If light rail were planned for the region, then I would like to see it cover the region. You would be right in questioning the time frame. A completely linked system may not occur for decades, but that doesn't mean that portions of it could not be done early (look at those overpasses at I-5 & I-90 which went to no where for decades before they were finally used). In this case, I think Dome Light Rail is acceptable.

Next, please do not confuse my faith in the democratic system with a trust of the current government. I agree that for many years, elected officials from both parties have voted along with big business and other special interest groups and have ignored the wishes of the people who voted them in. With the passage of I-695, the people got the government's attention. But I-695 did not direct our representatives how they should prioritize issues. Now that the people have the government's attention, they need to follow it up with direct input.

With the passage of I-695, I have been trying to get people to realize the necessity to take follow-up action. The government is making decisions that may affect everyone. Even if the people do not trust the government, they still need to make their voices heard beyond passing I-695.

Lastly, at least we both agree that the overthrow of the government is not desirable and Yes, I worry that such an action may still occur.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), November 22, 1999.

Gene-

You continue to quibble. I have told you what research I have done on these issues, and what my findings were. This was my justification for my opinions. You admitted that you were uninformed, admitted that you had not read even what was posted in the thread above your own initial posting. You then preach fluff about us needing to be informed participants and to be engaged, without even having read the thread you were allegedly responding to.

You then waffle all over the place in non-response to the issue that YOU initially opposed me about, and presuppose facts not in evidence (and not accurate, either, since some of us have ACTUALLY RESEARCHED THE ISSUE that you merely pontificate about) to say that based upon your lack of knowledge to the contrary, these things are likely acceptable. The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife, Gene.

Either you are an apologist for all things government, you have no concept of business case analysis, you are too lazy to do the research to either confirm or rebut things posted here, or you truly believe that no such thing as government waste can ever exist.

Bring me facts, if you want to prove or disprove something. Not cogitations about what the facts might be. You'd flunk logic 100, beginning debate, and elementary grant-writing with a performance like this. If this truly is the best you can do, you probably ought to be quietly reading and learning, rather than offering advice.

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

Hi, I'm back; did you all miss me? My answers to Craig's questions:

"Do YOU support this proposal? Can YOU justify it?"

Support what proposal? No-one's specified a dollar amount for public subsidy yet, or named a budget from which that subsidy will come. If they do specify a dollar amount, they will have to justify it. Once they do that, you can argue about whether it's too much or too little; but so far, there's not much to argue about.

Do I support the government simply entering into *discussions* with a private company about the *possibility* of Kirkland-UW passenger ferries? Absolutely. Why? Simple: the Trans-Lake Committee recommended that such ferries be studied further, as you yourself quoted above. And that's exactly what the govt. is doing by talking to Argosy Cruises and Seattle Ferry: studying such ferries further, with "emphasis on private operation." I'd be willing to listen to a well-researched argument that the Trans-Lake Committee members were wrong to make even that recommendation, but so far, you haven't made much of a case to show that they were wrong.

I think your main point is that, based on the figures you quoted, you think that this idea is so obviously harebrained that the government shouldn't even *talk* to Argosy et al. about it. But in that case, they would be blowing off the recommendation of a committee representing many sections of the public who are affected by Trans- Lake Washington travel. Wasn't it you who was complaining, not so long ago, about the government being arrogant and refusing to listen to public input?

There. Have I supplied enough fodder for another indignant outburst?

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

"In what way did I misrepresent what you [said?]" Answer: I didn't say that THEY didn't believe they were overtaxed. I said that *I* had a hard time *accepting* their complaint that they are overtaxed.

(I also stated why I had a hard time accepting it, and indicated that I'd be open to an explanation of why they felt that way. And you offered me one explanation, having to do with the national psyche. Thank you. I may respond to that explanation later.)

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

"There. Have I supplied enough fodder for another indignant outburst? " No. Merely convinced me that your love of big government was philosophical rather than logical. I try not to get in arguments with people over their religions, and belief in government infallibility appears to be exactly that in your case.

So long Anirudh (who never found a government program he didn't like (or at least have an excuse for).

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

"No Craig, you are the one suggesting that the people who proposed the ferries "need a reality check," so the onus is on YOU to prove that they do. If YOU cannot justify that their recommendation is wrong, why should I be willing to believe that it's wrong?" Anirudh-

A blast from the past!

You ready to admit this was a bad idea yet?

Report sinks idea of Lake Washington ferry 


by Peyton Whitely 
Seattle Times Eastside bureau 

Plans for ferry service across Lake Washington got a setback 
yesterday as a long-awaited report on the feasibility of cross-lake 
service indicated that running a ferry would cost too much 
money, carry too few people and have too little impact on traffic 
congestion to be worth the sizeable investment required. 

"The facts this morning indicated it's dead in the water," said 
Jack Crawford, Kenmore deputy mayor and a board member at 
Sound Transit, the regional transit agency that commissioned 
the study. 

Ferries would cost from $900,000 to $2.8 million each and 
another $1.8 to $3.6 million a year to operate, said the report. 
Under the best conditions, daily ridership would reach about 840 
boardings, or 420 individuals making round trips during peak 
commuting times. 

The report estimated the ferry service could recover from 9 to 15 
percent of its operating costs, but would require a subsidy of as 
much as $44 for each passenger if lower ridership occurred. 
Present Sound Transit subsidies for bus riders are estimated at 
$5.20 for each boarding. 

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 10, 2000.

I remember this conversation well, Craig. I NEVER said I supported the ferries. I said I supported the STUDY.

I also said that if the study recommended spending a bunch of public money on the ferries, it would be the study's problem to come up with a justification. See my Nov. 22 posting.

I see that the outcome of the study vindicates your contention that the ferry was way too expensive.

I hope you also see that the study has accomplished something that you yourself have pushed for several times on this forum?

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 12, 2000.

"I remember this conversation well, Craig. I NEVER said I supported the ferries. I said I supported the STUDY. "

And how much did the study COST to come to this self apparent answer?

And who PAID this cost?

And what came out of the study that was not immediately apparent from the initial proposal, WAAY UPPP THERRRE in the November posting?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 13, 2000.

What came out of the study that was worthwhile? The following:

The study can now be used to effectively silence any "vocal activist groups" or "special interests" who might otherwise have continued to pressure the state to provide the ferries, without considering the economics.

That is what I meant by something that you yourself have called for several times on this forum.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 13, 2000.

"The study can now be used to effectively silence any "vocal activist groups" or "special interests" who might otherwise have continued to pressure the state to provide the ferries, without considering the economics. "

No it won't. This "study" could have been done with one 8 and a half by 11 inch piece of scrap paper on your kitchen table without spending $20,000 in consultants, and you'd have gotten the same result. That won't stop anyone. We are already providing other ferry service without considering the economics, and the proposed subsidies were actually LESS than we are subsidizing per Amtrak passenger trip, and the PI editorial board was pushing for another $10 billion subsidy for them recently.

These people want what they want because of what's in it for them, and will manipulate the system anyway they can to get it. They"ll STILL continue "to pressure the state to provide the ferries, without considering the economics. "

The only thing that's changed will be we paid ADDITIONAL taxpayer money to consultants so they could tell us the bloomin' obvious.


the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 13, 2000.

"These people want what they want because of what's in it for them, and will manipulate the system anyway they can to get it. They"ll STILL continue "to pressure the state to provide the ferries, without considering the economics. "

Craig called that one. From today's Eastside Journal:

Lake Washington water taxi plan on hold for now
2000-06-13
by Venice Buhain



Journal Reporter



KIRKLAND -- A water taxi across Lake Washington is stalled for now -- 
but not dead, a key backer of the idea said last night.



``I'm not ready to write this off yet, but there may be some things 
that need to occur before it can get off the ground,'' King County 
Councilwoman and Sound Transit Trustee Jane Hague told about 30 
people who gathered to discuss the cross-lake ferry proposal at the 
University Heights Center in Seattle.



Hague said she won't recommend putting a pilot ferry project in Sound 
Transit's next budget because its ridership and the expected revenues 
would be too low.



A consulting firm has estimated that the water taxi would have 200 to 
675 boardings daily, increasing to 840 boardings if a new Kirkland 
Park& Ride lot and a transit shuttle are provided.



But the study shows revenues covering only 9 to 15 percent of annual 
costs -- as little as one-third as much as average Sound Transit 
systems cover.



``However, this does not mean the idea is dead,'' Hague added.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), June 13, 2000.

Amazing. I wonder why they are so married to the idea. It does seem to undermine their credibility.

I'd like to know what she said after, "However, this does not mean the idea is dead." I couldn't find anything about it on her web page.

BTW, I think you (Craig) were misled somewhat by the original report. The report made it sound like there was a "proposal" to spend $10M + $2.5M/yr. In fact those figures were just preliminary findings of a study, not a proposal.

As you know by now, the Trans-Lake WA Study Committee was formed to try and get consensus among the many conflicting interests that wanted different solutions to the Trans-Lake WA traffic problem. I suspect that the interests who wanted the UW-Kirkland ferry insisted on further study of the ferries, as a condition of their signing the committee's final recommendations; which is probably why the TLWS committee came up with the self-contradictory recommendation, "passenger-only ferries would not substantially enhance people-moving capacity... but should be studied further." It was the "further study" that came up with the figures you quoted.

Now that the "further study" has been completed, and has conclusively shown those ferries to not be cost-effective, they ought to quit, IMHO. But they aren't...

All of which does fit your characterization that "they will manipulate the system anyway they can to get [what they want]."

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), June 13, 2000.

Anirudh- RE:

"I'd like to know what she said after, "However, this does not mean the idea is dead." I couldn't find anything about it on her web page. "

Try:

http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/21817

Craig

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 13, 2000.

"All of which does fit your characterization that "they will manipulate the system anyway they can to get [what they want].""

Any bets on whether or not UDUB starts building dorms in Kirkland ;-).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), June 13, 2000.

Citizen opinions mixed on water taxi proposal
2000-06-15
by Venice Buhain
Journal Reporter
KIRKLAND -- Supporters and opponents offered opinions about a water 
taxi across Lake Washington last night at a public meeting sponsored 
by Sound Transit.
The meeting at Lake Washington High School came several days after 
King County Councilwoman and Sound Transit Trustee Jane Hague said 
she will not recommend that Sound Transit budget for the ferry this 
year.
A few downtown residents and business owners protested the impact of 
the ferry between Marina Park and Seattle on Marina Park and downtown 
Kirkland parking.
``I'm from New York and the reason why we have a Central Park is 
because we keep other things out of it,'' downtown resident Phyllis 
Feinstein said. ``You're twisting the use of the (Marina) Park.''
``Most people like downtown the way it is. I think this would change 
the complexion of downtown completely,'' downtown business owner Bob 
Lightfeldt said. ``And I think this would impact our parking.''
Not all comments were negative. Some out of the audience of about 30 
defended the ferry idea.
``Let's look down the line. Can this ferry system be worked into the 
future?'' Dick Beazell, Kirkland Downtown on the Lake president and 
downtown business owner said. 
Referring to Kirkland's changing plan for downtown, Beazell added, 
``How can we work this in? It's going to be needed.''
Juanita resident Daniel Dolson was also supportive.
``We're going to have to get into this habit, learn now and get the 
experience,'' Dolson said.
Hague, who did not attend last night's meeting, said earlier it's not 
fiscally responsible to pursue the ferry idea at this time because of 
projected low ridership and low revenues.
Greater Kirkland Chamber of Commerce Executive Director Kent Campbell 
questioned Hague's announcement.
``Why have the process -- this public meeting -- if the decision has 
already been made?'' he said.
``Jane Hague is just one person. She is not the deciding body,'' 
Sound Transit project manager Tony Fuentes responded. He said Sound 
Transit Board of Trustees will make their decision on the water taxi 
idea at their July 13 meeting in Seattle.
Sound Transit could either kill the idea, go forward with a pilot 
project, or fund an additional study.

Which again demonstrates, Anirudh, that people want what they want (as long as it is mostly paid for by someone else). The only way to restore reason to the system is to have those who want "transportation choices" fully fund those choices with their own fares. That gives them complete freedom to fund any crackpot scheme they wish, without penalizing the rest of us. And my guess is that when they have to personally pay to fund a non cost-effective scheme, they are going to desire to fund a lot fewer of them...
the craigster


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 15, 2000.

"THEY ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO ME FOR THEIR ACTIONS, whether or not I was able to be present, because IT WAS MY MONEY and THEY WORK FOR CITIZENS LIKE ME."

Who is your rep.? your State rep.? Can you name anyone on your city or county council? When was the last time you emailed/snail-mailed any of these people with your concerns?

-- Evan (fireballearth@yahoo.com), June 21, 2000.

"Who is your rep.? your State rep.? Can you name anyone on your city or county council? When was the last time you emailed/snail-mailed any of these people with your concerns? "

County council -- Dwight Pelz State Senate -- Adam Klein State Reps -- Sharon Tomiko-Santos -- Kip Tokuda City Council -- Seattlites aren't really assigned council members (a terrible idea IMO), but Pageler lives in my neighborhood federal rep -- Jim McDermott

The last one I contacted was McDermott or, rather, his office. It was sometime in mid-April.

I did that from memory. Now go away you petulant child or attempt to contribute something of substance.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), June 21, 2000.