Isn't this "the solution" to solve the traffic problem that you would like to see?

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

I posted this as a response in several posts dealing with transportation and had thought that those who have been the most vocal in voicing their anti-transit views would have jumped at the chance to comment. So far, I have only received a single response (from Zowie). So let's see what kind of response I can get by posting it here. Warning: Don't get too riled, since this is just speculation.

With Eyman's latest initiative aimed at directing funds to solve traffic problems...

Most of the people posting messages here seem to prefer reducing ferry and transit subsidies and prefer more funding be directed to highway construction. So adding additional highways and bridges to link the Puget Sound area sounds like the preferred solution.

So, to improve the link to and from the Olympic Peninsula, should there be an additional 8 lanes be added with a bridge built from Gig Harbor-to-Vashon and another bridge from Vashon-to-Seattle? And maybe another bridge across the sound connecting Bainbridge-to-Mukilteo to take care of the North end commuters. Now those people can commute like the rest of us.

To handle the North-South commuters, doubling (or tripling) the capacity of I-5 through the Seattle area should take care of things. Additional roadway could be built on to of the existing roadway in some areas. In other areas, it would probably need to be built along side displacing existing homes and businesses. Of course, you could dig down and build under the existing roadway, which is a more expensive option, but it looks much nicer.

There are also some North-South commuters that need to by-pass Seattle completely. So some similar projects need to happen with I-405 and Highway 167 all along the eastern side of Lake Washington and down through Tacoma. Maybe highway 167 could be extended to by-pass downtown Tacoma.

Of course, to handle the East-West commute, the 520 bridge really needs another 4 lanes each way. And I-90 could use a couple more lanes. In these cases, it doesn't seem reasonable to build on top of the existing floating bridges, so we probably will have to displace some homes and businesses to build along side the existing roadway.

And while we are at it, we need to make a 6-lane highway to by-pass King County to the East, starting from Olympia to I-90 and North up to Marysville.

That should solve the traffic problems in Western Washington for the next few years. And Western Washington residents should thank Eastern Washington residents who will help foot the bill.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), December 23, 1999

Answers

By the time this is posted a THIRD time, it really starts to look and smell like SPAM. The reason no one but me responded the first several times, is that it is much too ridiculous a strawman to warrant a response. And my response, if you'll recall, was that I thought you were on drugs.

You need to move on, Gene. This one silly proposal can't become the focus of your existence.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.


Zowie,

At least you were willing to commit to something other than "don't subsidize this" or "that doesn't work". Why are some others willing to criticize what doesn't work, but are unwilling to commit themselves to suggesting a solution?

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), December 23, 1999.


If the ferry system were privatized, what is the full cost charge for a ride across Puget Sound? What effect would full cost ferry rides have on property values? At what point would the need for residential areas within commute distance of Seattle and Tacoma make a bridge to Vashon Island or Bainbridge Island justified? These are the kinds of public policy discussions that occured in New York about 100 years ago, when they were considering building the bridges connecting the different parts of the city. In another 100 years, will the Puget Sound region look like New York, with parts of the "city" covering a five county area? With a long enough time line, the suggestions made by Gene may not be so unreasonable.

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

"Most of the people posting messages here seem to prefer reducing ferry and transit subsidies and prefer more funding be directed to highway construction. So adding additional highways and bridges to link the Puget Sound area sounds like the preferred solution."

I just hope everyone knows that the ferry funds come from the highways funds not the transit funds. The reason the ferry is being talked about for privatization and that it would lose because of I- 695 is because it is not considered transit but highways. A pro- highway and pro-road building Initiative will give a boost to ferries.

I still think they should still talk about privatization of ferries, though.

-- Dan Campbell (dila813@hotmail.com), December 24, 1999.


"I just hope everyone knows that the ferry funds come from the highways funds not the transit funds. The reason the ferry is being talked about for privatization and that it would lose because of I- 695 is because it is not considered transit but highways. A pro- highway and pro-road building Initiative will give a boost to ferries." Not necessarily. Ferries don't get a fixed or dedicated amount of the highway budget. They are funded from that account, but the amount they are funded is still subject to change with the annual budget.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 25, 1999.


My point being that the cuts in highways is cutting the ferries and not cuts in transit. They have shifted more money away from highways to transit thereby cutting ferry service.

-- Dan Campbell (dila813@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

"My point being that the cuts in highways is cutting the ferries and not cuts in transit. They have shifted more money away from highways to transit thereby cutting ferry service."

If you look at the historical budget lines for ferries they were, prior to 695, growing by leaps and bounds, despite fares that had not even come close to keeping up with inflation. In the meantime, money was being poured into capital improvements in terminals and in passenger ferries while the vehicle carrying ferries, the only part considered "highways" by the court, continued to age. If you subtract out the passenger ferries, the average age is over thirty years.

695 ACCELERATED the fiscal problems for the ferries, but they were being run into the ground and would have had serious fiscal problems in a few years anyway, just from poor management. They were being run for political optimization, not as a business.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 23, 2000.


To Gene: It's the same old problem with the road-builders. When you ask them for specifics on where the roads will be built; how much money it will cost and; how long will it take; then there is no response.

I'm all for roadbuilding as long as it benefits me and mine, and it is paid for with the gas tax dollars of others. But, when the project benefits other communities with my tax dollars, then I'm less enthusiastic. And, in fact, if there's a chance to tax the Mercedes and Jaguar crowd to fund light rail, it sounds pretty good to me. Although, a monorail or subway is preferable, but we'll take what we can get.

There's nothing sweeter in life than revenge.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 24, 2000.


d-

"At what point would the need for residential areas within commute distance of Seattle and Tacoma make a bridge to Vashon Island or Bainbridge Island justified?" I know we have had these discussions before, but why would someone want to have a "SmartGrowth" policy that is artificially constraining gontiguous development in the name of controlling sprawl, and then highly subsidize a ferry service to help to spread Seattle bedrooms to areas outside the urban growth management area, such as Bainbridge, Southworth, and Kingston? Government has inherent problems with cost efficiency, even when it is pursuing a coherent policy. Here it looks like we are subsidizing people to overcome a policy we are spending time, energy, and money on. Does this make sense to you? Am I missing something here?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 24, 2000.


Just who is Matthew upset with anyway? Tim Eyman? It is becoming quite clear here that Matthew is lashing out. A forum rage as opposed to road rage. But why?

First he is upset over changing HOV lanes to general use. At least for the Tacoma Narrows.

Then he appears upset on the increase in Ferry Fares, because it may make people drive over the Narrows bridge.

Next he gets testy over taking Transit dollars away and building more roads. He suggests we build Toll roads instead, and let Transit keep our tax dollars. (For little benefit. This has been pointed out repeatedly by Craig's figures.)

Next he alludes to the toll that will be charged on the Tacoma Narrows. Why? It will not personally affect him much if he is spreading the cost among many ride sharing individuals, right? Or is he secretly coveting an SOV trip to work?

He states "I'm all for roadbuilding as long as it benefits me and mine, and it is paid for with the gas tax dollars of others. But, when the project benefits other communities with my tax dollars, then I'm less enthusiastic."

Well, it is my contention that Matthew has transportation problems that were never adequatly addressed by DOT. He has suffered neglect at their hands for so long, he no longer knows who to attack. If he really felt Transit was meeting his needs, he would have limited himself to debating the need for continuation of Transit subsidies. Instead, we read posts full of sarcasm regarding every conceivable transportation issue, with little regard to the facts.

Matthew, having been stuck on Highway 16 waiting to cross the Narrows for six hours, I feel your pain. I remember thinking to myself, why do these people tolerate this?

So if Matthew wants to use "forum rage" instead of "road rage" I will be sympathetic. He is a victim of "Transportation neglect" even if he will not acknowledge it. I hope you all keep this in mind in your replies to him. We may actually save a motorist the indignity of being honked at or flipped off by Matthew by treating him with tolerance.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.



Craig,

I don't know that I can give you a coherent answer either. It does seem inconsistent to object to growth in Duval, Carnation and Enumclaw because of the cost of providing service and transportation routes; and then encourage development that must get to Seattle on a ferry.

Which policy is wrong, or are both wrong, or are they wrong only where they conflict? I believe that some reasonable level of growth management is needed, but some of the current rules are excessive. I also believe that some level of subsidy of the ferry system is reasonable and fair, but the current amount may be higher than needed. Beyond that, I would let market forces determine where people live, as long as the actual costs of providing public services and facilities are built into the purchase price of the homes.

Conclusion: I don't have a lot of problem with the policies as they exist, but I believe the level of development control and ferry subsidy should be cut back to what I would call more reasonable levels.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 24, 2000.


PS:

Regarding a bridge to Vashon Island, etc.; it seems to me that eventually even with growth management the available local land will be occupied. My point was that New York City now is in 5 counties, and that happened because bridges were built across major rivers. Wiii it become public policy at some point, that bridges are needed to replace some of the short ferry routes and expand the metro area? In 100 years? 200? If it may be within 100 years, should some planning be done now to reserve the landing points?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 24, 2000.


"First he is upset over changing HOV lanes to general use. At least for the Tacoma Narrows. " There are NO HOV LANES on the Narrows or 16 currently. Not sure what he's fuming about.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 24, 2000.

Craig,

From the following thread, "Why Get Rid Of ALL Carpool Lanes, All the Time?"

Matthew stated "For example, when I carpool, I am able to use the carpool entrance to the Tacoma Narrows Bridge in the westbound direction, during the evening commute. Opening up the entrance to all traffic, will not speed up anyone's commute. It will only shaft people who carpool. What business is it of anyone besides the residents of Pierce and Kitsap counties? I don't follow the logic of this. Please explain."

I should have been more specific, sorry.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.


To Marsha & Craig: When you keep your facts straight, we'll be impressed. If I come across as practicing "forum rage", I apologize. I must say, for the record, that Marsha & Craig are fairly civil, even if they're incorrect.

As Marsha corrected Craig (in other words, he was WRONG), there is a carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge in the westbound direction of Hwy 16.

I believe Marsha is worng when she says I'm upset over ferry fare increases because it may make people drive over the Narrows Bridge. If I did express such a view, then I was wrong (see, is that so hard to do - admit you're wrong). But I don't believe I ever expressed such an opinion. I did express the opinion that the DOT should get out of the business of running the ferries, and there should be LOCAL ferry districts. I welcome additional drivers over the bridge, because this will increase the demand for ridesharing. Remember, "it's the demographics, stupid" (not my words; no forum rage on my part). More people driving around means more people desperate for alternatives. Hence, DEMAND for ridesharing INCREASES, filling up the so-called excess capacity Craig & Marsha believe exists.

Then, Marsha claims I support toll roads while letting transit keep our tax dollars. Again, perhaps I did not express my point of view more succinctly, and I would admit I was wrong, if, in fact, that is what I said. I believed I expressed the opinion that if we are going to privatize transit, we should privatize the roads.

Then, Marsha goes on to say that tolls will not affect me if, in fact, I am ridesharing and spreading the cost amongst many riders. Here, is an example of how Marsha knows nothing of what she says. First of all, she must never have organized a vanpool, or she would realize the ludicrousness of her statements. A vanpool is comprised of people who pay for a seat on the van, some of whom LIVE in TACOMA. The riders from Gig Harbor do not necessarily utilize the van, everyday, so it is not clear how much the toll would impact my family. The other problem with Marsha's comments, is we don't know how high the toll would climb. If the toll is at a level of no more than $3, then even a modest amount of passengers in the van would adequately thin out the cost. But, if the toll climbs above ten dollars, well, you get the picture. Finally, the people of my community use the bridge during periods besides peak demand. If the toll were based on the time of day, then it might have less effect on households where the commuter rideshares. But it's not. The toll will be constant, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Hence, the toll will effectively cut off Gig Harbor from Tacoma during periods of off-peak demand.

Marsha then says she waited 6 hours to cross the Narrows Bridge, and she feels my pain. My pain is felt up the Southcenter Hill, where it is not uncommon for the carpool lane to average less than 20 MPH!!! On average, it takes me 15 minutes (because I'm able to use the carpool entrance) to travel from I-5 to Gig Harbor during the evening rush hour. So, I experience no pain from the Narrows Bridge. But, thanks for the misplaced sympathy.

You claim I have transportation problems not adequately addressed by the DOT. You may be right. One transportation solution I've gotten from the DOT is a toll bridge with an unlimited toll which won't improve my commute at all. In fact, it may make it worse, since I will have difficulty in retaining riders from Gig Harbor who pay for a seat, but hardly use the service. The toll will become a source of divisiveness amongst the members from Gig Harbor, as I will be forced to collect certain fees in advance, in order to protect my financial interests.

When you and Craig get your facts straight about demand vs. capacity when it comes to ridesharing, then maybe I won't come across as practicing "forum rage".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 24, 2000.



Mattinsky baby you say "I believed I expressed the opinion that if we are going to privatize transit, we should privatize the roads."

Wel the major portion of transit IS PRIVATE. I own my vehicle, millions of other people own their own vehicles and the use them to tranposrt themselves, their families and all the goodies they purchase and are given. SO THEY MUST BE TRANSIT.

And the ROADS??? Well since the are ALL built with OUR money then they must be partially privatized already. Of course they are built with our money which is distributed in the most inefficient manner that can be devised......so we don't get a whole lotta bang for our buck.

Of course there is a large segment of PUBLIC transit that is NOT privatized and it is SUbSIDIZED by us and funded in the same inefficient manner that is used to build the roads.

I know, I know. I'm arguing symantics. But haven't sunken to arguing HYSTERICS like some people on this forum. I wouldn't point any fingers though. I might use the wrong one.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.


to maddjak: There's nothing preventing society from choosing to lease the existing roads out to the highest bidder, and letting the "new owners" charge whatever they want, since it's their investment.

With the money society gets from leasing out the roads, society can choose to eliminate the sales tax or the property tax or both, depending on how much revenue is collected.

All new roads will be built by private industry without the use of eminent domain.

Just practice what you preach, for once in your life, maddjak, and you can finally use that finger that you've got stuck in your you-know-what.

WALK THE TALK!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 24, 2000.


"To Marsha & Craig: When you keep your facts straight, we'll be impressed."

This a ROYAL "we" or do you have a tapeworm?

"When you and Craig get your facts straight about demand vs. capacity when it comes to ridesharing, then maybe I won't come across as practicing "forum rage"."

Perhaps, perhaps not. But you'll still be wrong more often than not, and as arrogant as you are ignorant.

Well...... maybe not quite THAT arrogant. (you're right, it isn't hard to admit you were wrong!)

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.


"When you and Craig get your facts straight about demand vs. capacity when it comes to ridesharing, then maybe I won't come across as practicing "forum rage".

Ridesharing. Let me see here. Are you telling me that there are more people willing to carpool than there are people willing to carpool with them? LOL. Demand? Capacity? Facts? I think you blew that one.

I expect you will not only want more subsidies, you will ask us to pay a reward to those who rideshare. Earth to Matthew, come in Matthew!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.


To Zowie: Thank you for value-added comments. I may very well be ignorant of my arrogance, or perhaps I believe my ignorance is superior to yours. When you have something useful to say, the world (we) will be duly impressed.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2000.

To Marsha: I don't know why you think it's so easy to snap your fingers and find a carpooling partner. But, with the advent of the web, perhaps I or others can facilitate the effort.

You've given me some good ideas on how to facilitate the ridesharing process. As for rewarding people who rideshare, we already have carpool lanes in South King County and a carpool entrance to the Narrows Bridge. Thank you for the rewards.

I'm not opposed to building new roads. I'd certainly prefer seeing new roads built than, say, giving able-bodied people money not to work (e.g., welfare, SSI disability).

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2000.


Matthew,

Have you learned nothing here about me? I happen to know carpool matching exists in your community. I don't see why you have a problem with finding carpool partners now, unless perhaps it is because there is no real demand.

In case you do not have it, Pierce Transit Rideshare Coordinator's phone number is 253-581-8112.

And for your information, If Pierce Transit thought there was a demand not met for a specific corridor, it would have already added capacity. If you feel they are not meeting your transportation needs, might I suggest you attend board meetings? Backing your request with a petition is always helpful.

As for your earlier comments about Vanpooling, I think there is very little you can tell me that I don't already know about how MOST systems work. It would appear that your system make not be doing the best job.

Don't preach to me about transit Matthew, I didn't just drive a bus. I represented drivers in the bargaining unit. I attended meetings of the Transit Board, read associated material and negotiated on behalf of Drivers. Those experiences have led me to my views today. One of the biggest reasons I participate here are because of those previous daily reminders of waste.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.


"Thank you for value-added comments. I may very well be ignorant of my arrogance, or perhaps I believe my ignorance is superior to yours. "

That may or may not be correct, but your arrogance is immensely superior to mine. zowie

PS: Some Vermox would kill the tapeworm.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.


to Marsha: As far as the needs of my transportation corridor, I have contacted Pierce Transit, but I've met with little success. I didn't think about organizing a petition, so, thank you for the advice. But, for some of my other proposals, I would need to contact Sound Transit, and I've made some efforts via e-mail, but, so far, I remain unimpressed with their responsiveness.

I'm also familiar with the database matching people who are interested in ridesharing, but it does require people to exercise some initiative, and, amazingly, this represents an obstacle. A case in point is the vanpool van that I organized. Initially, the people in the vanpool were the same ones in the private vanpool, but, if it weren't for me, the vanpool would've dissolved. So, the demand was there, but the initiative wasn't there besides me. So, I don't agree with your analysis of demand or lack of demand.

But, your thoughts on demand-response have given me some ideas. And, maybe, I'll show some more initiative and pursue some of those ideas. I'd like to facilitate people into ridesharing, with or without the government's help.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2000.


to Zowie: Sorry. Yes, I left that one out. Perhaps my arrogance is superior to yours.

Immensely superior? You're too kind!

What can I say? I don't consider personality defects to be relevant to a dicussion forum. I'm not even sure I consider arrogance or ignorance to be personality defects.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2000.


Matthew,

More advice. You have to be in their face. If you believe there is a demand not being met, they will want proof. Hence my petition comment. Even without a petition, attending meetings with a few vocal pals will go a long way. This is one instance where the squeaky wheel gets greased. It is also the reason non cost effective routes don't often get cut, because a few riders who are vocal can get attention.

If I were a Transit rider, I would be making inquiries as to future service changes. Curb to curb service by prior scheduling would probably lure more riders into the system. Transit has had considerable difficulty attracting new riders, yet they are well aware of the success of demand response for elderly/disabled. I think they are stuck on the notion you would not be willing to pay a bit more. If you really want cost effective and successful transportation, privatizing is still the best way to go. Craig has pointed out the high wages/salaries of Transit Staff, but the benefits.....those can kill you. Full medical including all family members with very small copay, full family dental, 20 days general leave, and 10-11 paid holidays. Disability insurance, (I made more from disability after surgery than what I made driving) safety and performance bonuses, (it was possible to get $4000 a year, for senior drivers with good records. Paid right before Christmas) and let's not forget State PERS retirement. This is a secure career government job. Don't think driver's won't resort to dropping a few bucks in the farebox when no one is around to up the passenger count either. If they have a low ridership route to protect, it is worth a few bucks a day.

One other little item. The most important meeting to attend is the budget meeting. You should be able to receive a copy of an agenda and a budget proposal by mail or view them at a public Library. It must be made available to you. Until I-695, I never saw Kitsap Transit Board Members deny the General Manager a dime of his requested budget. I think the best way to protect your transportation choices in your Community is to pressure them into running a cost efficient organization.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 25, 2000.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ