If proud new father Tim gets his way, his baby boy will spend the majority of his driving years parked solo in the far left lane choking on noxious fumes. He will have plenty of time to gaze around at his fellow citizens and reflect on what a social visionary his father wasn't. While gridlocked in the 20 lane I-5 corridoor, teenage Jackson will have time to wonder how things may have been different. What if daddy hadn't supported I-200?...would I be forced to attend college with minorities? What if daddy hadn't pushed I-695?...would I be parked here?, would mass transit have worked here the same as in all other great cities?, Would the state have enough funding for the "unessential" services such as parks and homeless shelters? No, my Daddy was real smart, after all he figured a way to fool working folks and the elderly into believing that for the first time in history they would actually benefit from government budget cuts...yeah that's it, he was real smart...after all he's the one who "sent a message" by forcing the legislators that he didn't trust to chose between their golf buddies and social progress when deciding how to spend less. Yeah, my daddy was real smart...one thing I still don't understand though...how come everybody uses the expression "eymanism" whenever a promissing venture fails miserably???

-- Hmmmm...No (XDELT@WAZZU.DUI), December 20, 1999

Answers

XDELT@WAZZU.DUI??

Are we listening to somebody who got thrown out of a frat at WSU for a DUI?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

Notice how the above response did nothing to address your point? Typical of the supporters of Eyman. They can't see past next year. Sure, they would love larger roads until they can't move on them in only a few years. Then, of course, the'll blame the state for not having a public transit system like other large cities. Pathetic.

-- (laughing@eyman.com), December 20, 1999.

weeping--Personally, I think zowie's response to obvious flamebait was appropriate.

I'm probably wasting my time as I write this, but I don't suppose you'll see the irony in your own post.

As far as anything in your post that contained a sliver of a point, we (KC) already have infrastructure for a quite functional public transportation system--the bus system.

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

xdelt@wazzu.dui & laughing@eyman.com;

Zowie would like to have a battle of wits with you, however, he realizes you are only half prepared!

-- Tony (eagleross@pioneernet.net), December 21, 1999.

and that's counting both of them!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Quite functional? In who's opinion? The bus system relies on the same non-reliable roads. Rail does not and never will and is far more reliable. Get a grip, the bus service is only as reliable as the road system and the roads never will be.

-- (laughing@eyman.com), December 21, 1999.

"Quite functional? In who's opinion? The bus system relies on the same non-reliable roads. Rail does not and never will and is far more reliable. Get a grip, the bus service is only as reliable as the road system and the roads never will be. " In the survival of the fittest, light rail lost decades ago:

http://www.historylink.org/features/valley.htm

I suppose the next thing you'll want is to clone dinosaurs and ride them.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 21, 1999.

weeping--"Quite functional? In who's opinion? The bus system relies on the same non-reliable roads. Rail does not and never will and is far more reliable. Get a grip, the bus service is only as reliable as the road system and the roads never will be."

Earlier, you didn't say anything about reliability. You complained strictly about functionality. I'd posit that the current bus system is far more functional than light rail ever can be. This is mainly because roads serve a dual purpose--autos *and* transit.

While I agree that light rail is more reliable, I find it unlikely that increased reliability will overcome most people's primary objection (IMO) to using mass transit--inconvenience. As far as I can tell, this is light rail's "big lie." Furthermore, I'd wager a nice bottle of single malt that a majority of light rail's ridership will result from cannibalization of current customers. Put another way, current riders will be stolen from comparatively efficient (currently) bus lines.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 22, 1999.

[While I agree that light rail is more reliable,] Actually, it's not. What's worse, if a bus breaks down or gets in an accident (where it travels above ground), all the other buses drive past it and another bus comes and picks up the pax. When a light rail train breaks down, you have the Mother of all messes, since it's very difficult to go around it.

[I find it unlikely that increased reliability will overcome most people's primary objection (IMO) to using mass transit-- inconvenience.] And that is the experience of most cities that have built light rail.

[As far as I can tell, this is light rail's "big lie." Furthermore, I'd wager a nice bottle of single malt that a majority of light rail's ridership will result from cannibalization of current customers. Put another way, current riders will be stolen from comparatively efficient (currently) bus lines.] Not only is this TRUE, it understates the case. Since light rail typically takes the place of some of the more productive bus routes, overall efficincy of WHAT's LEFT decreases. Then, as light rail fails to live up to expectations because people don't want to make all the intermodal transfers to use it effectively, the other bus routes get modified to FEED THE LIGHT RAIL. This typically makes them even less efficient, and increases total transit travel time. That drives customers out of the rest of the ssystem. And this too has happened repeatedly with new light rail systems.

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