Why dont we have the transportation infrastructure we need? Because the priorities have been screwed up by DOT for a long time. Despite AMTRAK losing money and about to go bankrupt, and despite people staying away from passenger trains in droves because they are both slower AND more expensive than air travel, DOT (pre-695) wanted to spend $46 million of YOUR money to develop a passenger rail service that could go between Seattle and Vancouver BC in four hours. (a distance of 140 miles, so were looking at 35mph here) Currently, AMTRAK has one train per day that does this in 3hr 55min and three buses that do it in 3hr 30 minutes (http://reservations.amtrak.com/novus/process-form). AMTRAK is going out of business in 2002, according to the GAO. Why are we doing this? Why would we spend $46 million to do something that a bus can do better (and certainly cheaper)?

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/budget99/bills/z-0351_1.pdf

The appropriations in this section are subject to the following conditions and limitations and specified amounts are provided solely for that activity: (1) Up to $46,180,000 of the transportation fund--state appropriation is provided for intercity rail passenger service including up to $8,000,000 for lease purchase of two advanced technology train sets with total purchase costs not to exceed $20,000,000; up to $1,000,000 for one spare advanced technology train power-car and other spare parts, subsidies for operating costs not to exceed $12,000,000, to maintain service of two state contracted round trips between Seattle and Portland and one state contracted round trip between Seattle and Vancouver, British Columbia, and capital projects necessary to provide Seattle-Vancouver, British Columbia, train operating times of under 4 hours.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 03, 2000

Answers

I just have one question for all you people who voted for 695. Did you do it so that when you are all stuck on the Olympic peninsula because of reduced ferry traffic this summer (as if the ferry lines are not long enough now) you can be together in one big happy group to pat each other on the back?

-- jim curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 03, 2000.

Jim-

It was not only a majority that passed I-695, but a sizable majority. Get over it!

PS: If you want to take a boat ride, pay market rates. Take as many boat rides as you want......paying market rates. Don't expect me to subsidize you.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

Jim,

You would be able to gain their support if your commute across the sound was over a bridge. They are willing to subsidize commutes by car, but not by ferry.

-- Gene (Gene@Gene.com), January 04, 2000.

Gene- If you wish to DISCUSS an issue, rather than just snipe and run, why don't you start a thread. Otherwise, you're just another whiner like jim.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

"I just have one question for all you people who voted for 695. Did you do it so that when you are all stuck on the Olympic peninsula because of reduced ferry traffic this summer (as if the ferry lines are not long enough now) you can be together in one big happy group to pat each other on the back?" Aren't most of these ferry line back ups because a bunch of 'mainlanders' want to go bother the people who moved to the islands because they didn't like the mainland to begin with??

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

"You would be able to gain their support if your commute across the sound was over a bridge. They are willing to subsidize commutes by car, but not by ferry. " Actually, some of us aren't really fond of bridges either, at least not the DOT plan to spend $700 million for a net gain of one HOV lane each way on the Narrows. Not fundamentally opposed to a toll bridge, but if the only net gain is an HOV lane, only the HOV people ought to be paying the tolls.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 04, 2000.

Zowie,

What makes you think that my comment was just a snipe and run? Many who are Pro-695, especially those who have been active in this forum, have opposed transit & ferry subsidies and have supported road construction. Isn't roadway construction the primary solution that many Pro-695 people seem to come up with to resolve commuting problems? Is it such a stretch to say that Pro-695 people would also be willing to support bridge construction over ferries? Isn't this the solution for the I-90 / Hwy-520 commuting problems across Lake Washington?

Okay, a Seattle/Bremerton bridge is stretching it a bit, but isn't "cars are the best/cheapest commuting solution" the basic logic used to support the Pro-695 view on transportation? So how would you solve this commuting problem?

Craig,

I heard about the Narrows Bridge issue (I'm not sure of the outcome), but if a decision was made before 695, then it needs to be revisited as the impact to the ferry system becomes evident. If ferry use is financially discouraged (e.g. ferry subsidies reduced/eliminated) and driving becomes the prefered commuting option for people in Bremerton, then you have to assume that the number of commuters crossing the Narrows will increase significantly.

-- Gene (Gene@Gene.com), January 04, 2000.

Zowie, I think people like you should live on his own island where you won't be bothered by govt or other people. We actually live in a society with millions of other people. You don't accept that do you? I'll bet I'm subsidizing some of your needs and wants through my taxes but I'll bet you won't admit it. The whole of republican or libertarian politics comes from selfishness, nothing but.

-- jim curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 04, 2000.

Jim-

At least I EARNED the money I'm being selfish with. I didn't rip it away from the guy who did earn it under threat of law. If you're so damn generous, start being generous with YOUR OWN money.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 05, 2000.

Jim Curtin wrote "The whole of republican or libertarian politics comes from selfishness, nothing but." Libertarian politics is almost a contradiction in terms. Libertarians are so mired in philosophy as to be completely ineffective in politics. Libertarian philosophy comes in several flavors. The Rand/Rothbard flavor believes that the initiation of force is always wrong. Government is the monopoly of force. Therefore government should be eliminated altogether. Few Libertarians are actually this extreme.

As the name suggests, most Libertarians are in favor of liberty; i.e. individual freedom, personal responsibility, rule of law, rights of man, property rights, free markets, The Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights and other selfish stuff like that. I wonder what Jim Curtin stands for? Is it the right to do good with other people's money?

Here is a generalization as sweeping but hopefully not quite as stupid as Jim Curtin's. (Can you say "flame bait"?) The whole of republican or democratic politics is: 1) To get and stay in office; 2) To reward their friends; and 3) To punish their enemies.

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

Frank,

If "most" Libertarians support the Constitution and the Constitution gives the government the authority to tax us for the common defence and general welfare, can we assume that "most" Libertarians support government taxation?

Or do "most" Libertarians only support Constitutional amendments that identify their personal rights, and ignore those amendments that might infringe on those same rights?

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), January 05, 2000.

Gary -

See Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution for the supposedly limited duties of the Federal Government. The Federalist Party thought these were so explicit that the Bill of Rights was not needed. Thank God, the Anti-Federalists insisted on those first ten ammendments. See also the last part of Amendment V. "[N]or shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation."

I apologise if I have offended you by creating an impression that I speak for "most" Libertarians. I did "waste my vote" on Harry Browne in 1996, but that doesn't make me a party spokesman.

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

Sorry, I meant Gene, not Gary.

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

Frank--Referring to the constitution on Amendment V and observing that I imagine most pro-695ers are for transportation by car not by public means and also that the govt should not waste your money is it ok if that govt bulldozes your house to build more roads?

-- James T. Curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 05, 2000.

James T. Curtin asks, "...is it ok if that govt bulldozes your house to build more roads?" Yes, it's ok as long as my property is taken for a legitimate "public use" and I receive "just compensation" as promised by the V amendment. It used to be a practice under common law to pay 10% more than the market price for property taken. These days, unfortunately, the government cheats. It pays as little as possible and it does not pay legitimate expenses such as moving expenses or loss of business goodwill. Furthermore, the standard for "public use" is not as well defined as it once was. Paying more actually helps avoid abuse of "public use" because the public better be very sure it will really benefit before undertaking a costly project.

-- FH (pvtc@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

It has always been OK for the government to bulldoze your house to allow the building of roads or schools or reservoirs or landfills or anything considered to be of sufficient benefit to the public. It's called the "Right of Emminent Domain", and has been around forever. But, the gov't is required to give you "just compensation".

-- Albert Fosha (AFosha@aol.com), January 05, 2000.

The use of "Eminent Domain" has changed over the years. When the initial interstate highway system was set up, the path of the system was laid out and everything in its way was appropriated with little heed to those being displaced. This was a very efficient process. Nowadays, Eminent Domain is still used, but the government goes through considerable effort in achieving consensus. The process costs more and takes more time, but more people agree with the outcome.

If cost efficiency were the only concern to resolving our transportation problems, shouldn't we revert back to the old process? Frankly, I hope not!

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), January 06, 2000.

Craig,

Seattle and Boston have many transportation problems in common. Here's how Boston is dealing with it. <>

This is a $10.8 billion dollar project (70% federally funded). Is this the sort of thing that you would like to see?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Sorry, the web address got dropped.

www.bigdig.com

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

I'd like to see the feds get out of the business of matching grants altogether, it distorts the market realities. The early Portland MAX stuff was 80% federally funded, tempting the locals to make decisions that made sense only because of this arbitrary subsidization. The feds progressively decreased their participation in later projects, and will fund nothing approaching 80% of Sound Transit. Actually, their current coming thing appears to be dedicated busways (which actually are much cheaper and higher capacity than trains), so they may be phasing out of supporting fixed guideway stuff altogether (about time, too). But for the transit systems that jumped on the bandwagon while it was still rolling, they wind up left with a capital intensive system thatwill milk their budget for decades. Federal funding all comes from......us. They add only overhead, and additional restrictions. The effect is usually disastrous. See this GAO report on the Boston Central Artery project: http://www.bts.gov/ntl/data/rc97170.pdf

I don't know why Seattle, of all places, keeps getting snookered by the feds. They have seen that federal funding is unreliable and irrational for decades, even in the private sector. For those old enough to remember, recall the TFX project (Triservices fighter experimental, a 60s version of the current JTF). Boeing had the best design, best price, best performance record, and invested a lot of work in the project, only to lose to General Dynamics who went on to build an inordinately expensive, maintenance intensive, poorly performing aircraft that two of the three services simply refused to take (F-111). Even in the non-military world, Boeing got suckered into the SST, which made sense only with massive government subsidies. The feds backed out over concern over the ozone (as if they weren't flying SR-71s at the time) and Boeing went into a massive slump. The European consortium went on to build the Concorde, which has been a consistent money loser. Not enough rich playboys willing to spend the extra money to save a few hours going across the Atlantic, high operations and fuel costs.

I realize that politicians like PORK, it's all that keeps many of them in office, but by it's very nature it suboptimizes the process, adds to costs, decreases eventual payouts. The world would be a far better place if we could get out of the subsidy business except to provide a safety net of transitional benefits to people and business. But it ought to be TRANSITIONAL, to smooth the bumps in the market. It should NEVER be profitable to take a subsidy. And in the LONG TERM, it rarely is now since it distorts the market and sets you up for devastating problems when somebody else's congressperson winds up being senior.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 06, 2000.

FH-Why would the govt pay more than mkt price? That would not be an efficient use of taxpayer monies. I thought the idea was to give the govt less of our money. I don't get you pro-695ers. Road-building does not happen overnight. With more people moving into the area they can't possibly build roads fast enough. They fill up as soon as they are finished. The only way traffic is going to get better is if people start moving out of the area. And if that is the case...why build more roads?

-- jim curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 06, 2000.

"I don't get you pro-695ers. " A pretty PATHETIC statement. The man doesn't understand the majority of his fellow citizens. Now that could be the fault of...... all of THEM, or........... one of him! Let's apply Occam's razor to that argument and see what happens.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

Craig,

The question I posed concerning the Boston Central Artery project was whether this was the type of traffic improvement project that you would approve of. The cost and the percentage of federal funds was meant to gain the attention of other interested parties. I mean 10.8 BILLION DOLLARS should grab the interest of most people (Bill Gates being one of the exceptions.) The GAO report that you cited, raised valid concerns that the project was under estimated.

Boston has an aging transportation infrastructure problem, designed and built in the 50's and 60's winding through their downtown district. The old infrastructure did not support the current traffic volume (75,000 cars per day design capacity versus 190,000 cars per day - current actual. Boston was addressing the same transportation issues that Seattle is facing today.

So the question remains, is this what you would like to see? Anyone else willing to comment?

The use of federal funds is a separate, but important issue. I do not recall any transportation project NOT having federal funds paying for a large percentage of the total project cost. Anyone else out there who would like to see road improvement projects paid for entirely by the state? Anyone feel any guilt funding state projects with tax monies from other states?

On a more general note, I would not dispute that politics in the our current system of government results in some bias decisions. I would not dispute that PORK can be hidden in our current system of government. In theory, all systems of government will work. In reality, all systems of government can be and are often exploited. Governments will always be exploited because they are made up of people, each of which has their own imperfections. I believe that our current system of government is the best of what's out there. Is there something better?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 07, 2000.

jim curtin asks, "FH-Why would the govt pay more than mkt price?"

I'd like you fully appreciate the beauty of the last clause of the V ammendment: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." When we abide by this rule the public is better off and the person whose property was taken is no worse off. In other words government actually increased the size of the pie without decreasing any one person's share. I wish that every government transaction could withstand this kind of scrutiny.

As for 10%, there are always disagreements about the valuation process. If paying an extra 10% reduces overall transaction costs then it might be justified. Furthermore, if paying an extra 10% ruins the cost/benefit ratio to the public for undertaking the project in the first place, then the project probably isn't worth doing.

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), January 07, 2000.

"The use of federal funds is a separate, but important issue. I do not recall any transportation project NOT having federal funds paying for a large percentage of the total project cost. " Try Sound Transit.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

"Boston has an aging transportation infrastructure problem, designed and built in the 50's and 60's winding through their downtown district. The old infrastructure did not support the current traffic volume (75,000 cars per day design capacity versus 190,000 cars per day - current actual. Boston was addressing the same transportation issues that Seattle is facing today. " Boston has a number of problems differing from Seattle, including topography, a large number of buildings on the historical registry, and a city that really came of age in the pre-automotive era. But YES, as a matter of fact, I DO believe we need more widening of arterials and widening or double-decking of freeways. I don't think it'll cost what it is costing in Boston, but YOU ARE PERFECTLY CORRECT WHEN YOU SAY IT WON'T BE CHEAP. That's the price you pay for moving in the wrong direction for 20 years, pouring operating funds and capital investment into a transit system that can't even hold it's market share. It won't be cheap and it won't be easy, but it is certainly do-able and it would solve the problem. If the people of Seattle and King County ELECT to do nothing, that's fine by me. Revenue producing activities will simply go to some place with a more reasonable transportation policy. But don't keep asking for tax money from me to support self-defeating policies. As for MY transportation taxes, I want them spent effectively, and that ain't more transit.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 07, 2000.

Actually, I'd also like to add to the 'emininent domain' discussion here as it relates to Boston. I think that if you look at the history of Boston politics, Boston was guilty of one of the most horrendous breaches of personal rights when it went and forced a bunch of people out of their homes, paid them close to nothing, and let the people fight it all later in court battles. I remember seeing the newsreels. The government should *never* take peoples property, as far as I'm concerned, except in one *possible* case: War Time.

They should acquire property from people the same way the people do: Offer them a price. If the people don't want to sell? Well then, the government can go somewhere else and try.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 07, 2000.

Paul you are right. Frank, that "just compensation" clause sounds so good on paper. When has it happened in real time? I cannot recall any govt taking of property where the people were satisfied with what they got. Besides the "other" issues of actually liking where you live and the neighbors, etc. and having the govt destroy it and the headaches associated with moving when you didn't want to in the first place. And Frank if you are interested in the public good why are you for 695? It does not serve the public good; it serves the individual. If you think traffic is going to get better because of 695 you are out of your mind.

-- jim curtin (jcurtin@dellmail.com), January 07, 2000.

I can't speak for Frank, but don't get me started on the 'public good'. The 'public good' is what has caused more murder, mayhem, and breaches of human rights than any other concept perpetrated on mankind. The 'public good' persecuted the jews, kept slavery going, killed millions in the soviet union, killed millions in china. I loathe the 'public good'. It always ends up being a small group of elite 'leaders' persecuting the rest of us based upon whatever social 'whims' of the moment strike their fancy.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 09, 2000.

Paul Oss says "The government should *never* take peoples property..." and Jim Curtain agrees. Well boys, Uncle. I surrender. You're right; therefore, I must have been wrong. I apologise for all my silly words and bad behavior.

Since all taxes are a taking of private property, welcome to the non-initiation of force wing of the Libertarian party.

-- Frank Hemingway (pvtc@aol.com), January 09, 2000.

So how do you expect major projects like higway construction to be accomplished? Should they design around the property owner that has refused to sell, even if through that property is the best and safest route?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 09, 2000.

"So how do you expect major projects like higway construction to be accomplished? Should they design around the property owner that has refused to sell, even if through that property is the best and safest route? "

I sort of have to agree with d on this one. Although I think someone should get fair market value and moving costs, it seems unreasonable that one or two individuals refusing to sell could either stop or dramatically force up the price for the "last link in the chain" of a large public project. ON THE OTHER HAND, I've recently seen a trend where imminent domain is used by a local government to buy property cheaply that can later be turned over to a private corporation under a public-private partnership for economic development. This looks to me like just raw political power, used to lower the expenses (read that: increase the profits) of a favored private enterprise. That I think is tantamount to highway robbery. Imminent domain was for the purpose of taking that which was REQUIRED by the public, not to be used for profit by anybody. I think we'll see this issue in court for the Tacoma Narrows Bridge, if I-695 didn't defund it to the point that it won't be built.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 10, 2000.

To Craig: I'm not familiar with "imminent domain". How does this differ from "eminent domain"?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 10, 2000.

Franky boy's beginning to get it. Yes, Frank, that's what we're working towards: A society that can run without the use of force-- especially without the arbitrary use of force against one group so that another may be subsidized. See my previous post on voluntary taxation systems. Will this ever happen completely? No, but we won't have a perfect justice system either-- that doesn't stop us from trying, though. Well, it may stop you, but it doesn't stop me.

However, I do accept your apology. And one day, maybe we can live in a world that doesn't drum up racial tension, wars or whine about the jewish banking conspiracy, or subsidize stupidity when some idiot decides to make toast in the bathtub, or get hooked on crack because 'all the cool people were doing it'.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 10, 2000.

"To Craig: I'm not familiar with "imminent domain". How does this differ from "eminent domain"? "

One click on the wrong button of the spell checker when you originally typoed emminent, and the spell checker gave you three options and you accepted the wrong one! But thanks for noticing. It gratifies me that people pay attention, and it keeps me on my toes. Thanks, Matt

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