A logical way to decrease traffic conjestion and help the environment is to create well-organized public transportation systems in metropolitan areas, such as the Seattle area. This idea has worked well for many, many years in other cities both in the US and abroad. It is easy to compare the Seattle area and its suburbs to other cities with these public transportation systems and realize what a good idea it is. Indeed, the Seattle area used to have trolleys, etc. but not any more. These public transportation systems are very important to solve some of the major problems plauging the area, and I feel that I-695 and the other tax cuts are absolutely absurd. We have lost a lot of funding due to these tax cuts and will consequently lose many publicly funded programs. Everybody who wants to get somewhere should be able to, not only those who can afford to own and maintain an automobile; and those who can afford to buy a new, expensive car, should have to pay for what it is worth (after all, you only pay the license fee once a year, not once a month like the car payments). Thank you for reading this and perhaps understanding my point of view.

-- Sophia Western (sophiawestern@england.com), January 08, 2000

Answers

"A logical way to decrease traffic conjestion (sic) and help the environment is to create well-organized public transportation systems in metropolitan areas, such as the Seattle area." Sophia, this is superficially logical (just as Socialism is) but we
fve tried it and it doesn
ft work. Transit moves a relatively piddlin
f few people, less than 5% of commuters, less than 2% of total passenger miles and we have been lavishing about a third as much federal money on it as we do roads, two and one-half times the capital investment (in the King County 6 year CIP program) and it
fs operating expense is the single biggest line item in the King County budget. And the people have stayed away in droves. We
fve added capacity, nationwide, and lost ridership. There isn
ft a capacity problem, there
fs a demand problem. We built it (surplus capacity), and nobody came.

"This idea has worked well for many, many years in other cities both in the US and abroad." Actually, no. The demographic trends that are causing transit to lode market share, notwithstanding high levels of subsidization and increasingly excess capacity, are worldwide. Even in densely populated countries (Japan, Korea) and cities (Paris) transit continues to lose market share.

"It is easy to compare the Seattle area and its suburbs to other cities with these public transportation systems and realize what a good idea it is." Actually, Seattle transit has been even more highly subsidized than most, with passenger fares amounting to about 21% (Metro, less elsewhere in the state) of operating revenues versus a national 40% farebox recovery. Washington State transit is the cheapest in the country for it
fs users, and the load factors continue terrible. The average 65 passenger bus hauls about 15 people an hour. The South King County runs that they are proposing to cut average less than NINE people an hour. Since the average rider only rides for twenty minutes, that makes the average load at any given time on these routes THREE passengers. Do you really think driving a thirty ton bus over the roads for 3 passengers is a good idea? In fact, buses travel so far at such low load factors that buses actually take more energy (and generate more CO2 if you happen to believe in global warming) per passenger mile than cars do. In theory they are a lot more efficient, but in practice they have so few passengers they actually are less energy efficient than cars.

"Indeed, the Seattle area used to have trolleys, etc. but not any more." Indeed they did. There was an unsightly spider web of lines all over the city. The people beat up on Metro until they replaced the trolleys with more efficient and versatile diesel buses.

"These public transportation systems are very important to solve some of the major problems plauging (sic) the area," Which ones are those? Certainly not congestion. Transit doesn
ft carry enough passengers enough miles to make much difference. We
fre talking 2% here. Pollution pretty much parallels overall energy consumption. If you
fre using more energy per passenger mile than a car, you
fre probably polluting as much. So I guess I
fd have to ask what problem you THINK transit is solving. (Reminds me of the old joke, "If transit
fs the answer, it was a pretty stupid question)

"and I feel that I-695 and the other tax cuts are absolutely absurd." I rather think it is merely a humble first start at the cuts that really need to be made.

We have lost a lot of funding due to these tax cuts" If you call 2.4% a lot. Of course, if you think transit has a big effect on congestion, when it
fs really only 2%, you might think 2.4% is huge.

"and will consequently lose many publicly funded programs." Well, yeah. Somebody is going to have to trim the bottom 2.4% of programs, or use the surplus.

"Everybody who wants to get somewhere should be able to," That
fs a silly statement. What if I wanted you to pay taxes to send me to Hawaii for the weekend.

"not only those who can afford to own and maintain an automobile;" Actually, transit isn
ft the preferred mode even for those without a car of their own. They
fd rather bum a ride from a friend or relative who does have a car, according to several decades of National Personal Transportation Surveys. And the number of transit dependent continues to decline, both in relative terms and even in absolute numbers, according to the federal studies.

"and those who can afford to buy a new, expensive car, should have to pay for what it is worth (after all, you only pay the license fee once a year, not once a month like the car payments)." Actually, a lot of people who can
ft afford a new expensive car used to roll the licensing and MVET fees into the financing, and pay over 4-5 years on the original MVET. But why should we pay huge fees to subsidize transit at a higher level of service now then we did ten years ago, when there were more transit dependent people, and more use of transit?

"Thank you for reading this and perhaps understanding my point of view." Glad you dropped by. Read some of the many postings about transit, and perhaps you can educate yourself about the realities of transit. Marsha and I have both posted a number of good references from the US Department of Transportation that back up all the statements I have made which you will no doube find hard to believe at first blush. They
fre all available from official sources on the web. If you read them objectively, I
fm sure you
fll change your mind and support the transportation improvem

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 08, 2000.

Sophia,

"those who can afford to buy a new, expensive car, should have to pay for what it is worth (after all, you only pay the license fee once a year, not once a month like the car payments)."

The worth of a new vehicle is determined by the dealer/manufacturer. I pay that amount plus a generous sales tax and license/registration fees.

It is unfair of YOU to expect all of us to pay recurring MVET, that was based on an inflated value of said vehicle EVERY year so you can have cheap bus fare, or too many social causes.

These public transportation systems are NOT BEING USED ENOUGH to solve some of the major problems plauging the area, and I feel that I- 695 and the other tax cuts are absolutely NOT absurd.

You can waste your own money all you want. I voted for I-695 so you would not be able to waste MINE too. No, I do not understand your liberal, with my money, point of view. You are no better than a thief, no matter how polite you are.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 08, 2000.

"those who can afford to buy a new, expensive car, should have to pay for what it is worth"

They do - when they buy it. Does their their new, fuel-efficient, already taxed-to-the-max car cost the government more on the roads than some old, polluting beatermobile? Why should they pay a higher registration fee simply because they have an expensive car? Please answer that question, because it shows how you really feel about the role of government, property rights, a free market economy, etc.

-- Kevin McDowell (kevinrmcd@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

"Please answer that question, because it shows how you really feel about the role of government, property rights, a free market economy, etc. "

Wasting your time, Kevin. Sophia is obviously a member of the "I want what I want, and I want YOU to pay for it" crowd. Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 10, 2000.

Why is it immoral for you to desire, but moral for others to do so? Why is it immoral to produce a value and keep it, but moral to give it away? And if it is not moral for you to keep a value, why is it moral for others to accept it? If you are selfless and virtuous when you give it, are they not selfish and vicious when they take it?

Ayn Rand Atlas Shrugged, 1957

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.