Which would be better for the long-term for the Puget Sound area, more roads or rapid transit? It seems that ridership isn't that great anyway, so more/better roads may be the best solution.

If that is the case, I propose two things. Leave the $30 fee alone for 18 months to two years and watch our politicians closely to see if they are vindictive or wisely try to prioritize and cut unnecessary spending or programs. Have a report card published on how they handled 695.

If after that time frame they proved themselves vindictive, we oust them from office. If instead they were able to cut spending wisely great. If they tried to cut spending and couldn't, then we raise the tax to .75% of vehicle value. That way some of the money would be recouped but it would be cheaper than before. A $5000 beater car would bring in $37.50, a 25K sport ute would bring in $187.50, a 40K luxury car would garner $300. I personally could live with that, even though it's more than the $30.

-- Kevin McDowell (Kevinmcd@microsoft.com), January 10, 2000

Answers

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree. We cannot build enough roads to solve the problem. Alternative forms is the solution. Look around. It works just about everywhere. Portland with MAX. SF with BART. Anywhere in Europe (ever been to Paris?).

It is not only a financial impossibility to build more roads, but it is a physical one as well. This area is surrounded by water. That confines the areas to road building to a very narrow spectrum.

Do you really want to see EVERYONE using cars as their primary choice of transportation? Think about it.

-- Gregg (greggk@gte.net), January 21, 2000.

Gregg,

Do you believe in Santa too?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

"Do you really want to see EVERYONE using cars as their primary choice of transportation? Think about it. " As opposed to the 99.9% who do now. Even for the transit dependent who have no cars, who are physically incapable of driving cars, a friend or relative's car is their primary CHOICE for transportation (and if they aren't living in New York or Chicago, used MORE than transit). The National Personal Transportation Survey has revalidated this every 5 years for at least twenty years. There are times when something else works better than cars, which is why transit accounts for ALMOST 2% of the passenger miles, but it is rare that ANYONE indicates that anything but an auto is their PREFERENCE. (Had a friend who travelled about two miles by a combination of ejection seat and parachute once. His preferred mode was F-16C, but circumstances made the ejection seat preferable. After the circumstances changed, however, he fervently wished to never have occasion to use that mode again)

So under your scenario, what would change? A fraction of a percent, and a small fraction at that.

I coudn't care less if the 1/1000 of the population that don't regard a personal vehicle as their preferred choice of transportation suddenly changed their mind.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 21, 2000.

Transit works so great in those countries? Why don't you move there you like it so much?

I been there, In order to boost ridership they have no car days in France and Germany. You are not allowed on this one day a week to drive anywhere. You are forced to take the bus. They said this is to expose people and to get them in the habit of taking a bus. They have a 1000 different programs to boost ridership through dictating how people will commute or live.

When you talk to drivers over there they say they want to hit the wide open roads of America. They don't say they want to come here to take a bus.

I don't want to live in a country where the government takes your money and you don't have any say in how it is spent. I do not want to live in a country where your simple social habits are against the law. If this happens in the USA I will be moving to Alaska straight away to get as far away from government as possible.

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

Dan I suggest you move a little farther than Alaska because it is still in the USA.

If you really want to drive I suggest Mexico. There are some really nice roads on the Yucatan peninsula and there ain't no traffic cops. (yeah there are cops in the big cities but on the open road there ain't nothing but road and the occasional cow or pig)

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

"

Sorry, but I absolutely disagree. We cannot build enough roads to solve the problem." Why not?

"Alternative forms is (sic) the solution." Not so you'd notice.

"Look around. It works just about everywhere. Portland with MAX." MAX carries far few passenger miles than adjacent roadways, and it was proportionately more expensive to build. Maintenance costs are FAR higher. And ultimately you are going to have to pay the capitalization costs all over again for the rolling stock. This is only a good deal if you don't know basic economics.

"SF with BART." Look at LA Red Line recent experience with costs, cost over-runs, and lack of patronage for Heavy Rail.

"Anywhere in Europe (ever been to Paris?)" Transit is losing market share worldwide, Paris included.

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

Gee, did it ever occur to Transit advocates that any of the so called alternatives to private vehicles and roads is Labor intensive? Personnel costs to maintain a road, compared to transit or rail is laughably cheap.

Your society can function with roads only. Try functioning on Rail and Transit only. When you have a congestion problem, you put your money where it will do the most good. Not the least. Sheesh.

You all must get warm fuzzy feelings when you think you are doing society and the environment a big favor in supporting this nonsense. The reality is, you are just wasting my freakin money, so you can have that warm fuzzy feeling.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 23, 2000.

I have not commented much on this discussion, but I will just observe that the economics of the situation will always be against any form of transit for one basic reason:

Transit costs depend on providing the right-of-way, the "facility", the vehicle, fuel and maintenance of the vehicle, and the vehicle operator. Road costs provide the right-of-way and the facility, and leaves the vehicle and operator expenses to others.

The justification only begins to make sense if you include the cost savings of not using your own vehicle, and that analysis has two flaws: It requires many more riders to offset the costs of the much more expensive transit vehicles, and important savings are not realized unless people eliminate their vehicle entirely (purchase, insurance, etc.)

Conclusion: The justification for transit, if one is to be made, must be on some other basis than the economics. Perhaps some PUBLIC POLICY basis that is related to universal access to employment opportunities, and access to governmental faciilities and services. In the east, city living without a car is a little more common; but on the west coast just about everyone above the homeless level has access to some kind of vehicle. That makes the public policy basis for transit a harder sell. I understand even the ferry system was rated higher on a recent survey by a legislator, than is any form of transit.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 23, 2000.

"Perhaps some PUBLIC POLICY basis that is related to universal access to employment opportunities, and access to governmental facilities and services." And IUd basically agree with this. But the number of transit dependent, both in relative and in absolute numbers has been steadily DECREASING (unless, like one of our posters, you believe that children ought to have untrammeled geographic freedom without their parents). And with the exception of healthy people who cannot drive for non-economic reasons, the case can be made that the rest are better served by demand response vehicles, often with special boarding equipment and door to door service. But transit really never made economic sense for commuters outside of the CBD, and thatUs where it has been pushed as a remedy for congestion. ThatUs a terribly expensive alternative to the privately owned vehicle, and the increasingly poor economic performance just demonstrates how far out of its niche we are trying to push it.

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

Craig,

Your import of text seems to have some translation problems. Nice to be in agreement on something. You seem to be on a crusade with this transit issue. Big money to be saved by tax payers, and some big money to be lost by contractors.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 23, 2000.

To Kevin: It's not a question of the long-term. The real issue is people need relief, NOW!!! Road-building offers no immediate relief. In fact, the process of building the roads actually increases congestion!

The only method of providing timely mitigation of congestion is through ridesharing. Whether it be carpooling, vanpooling, buses with a high level of ridership, or, if possible, utilization of existing rail lines.

Whatever might motivate folks to rideshare is good. Whatever might motivate folks to utilize SOVs is bad.

The fundamental problem is we have no integrated approach to managing congestion. Everything we do is haphazard. But, now, with I-695 putting pressure on transit agencies to justify their existence, we may see more bang for our buck. The good news for transit is that the road-builders have no impetus to be efficient, since they will continue to receive funding regardless of their performance. Hence, the road-builders will squander tons of money, just as they have accused transit of doing for many years.

Building more roads does not result in the mitigation of congestion, especially when there are no specifics as to where the roads will be built; how long they will take to complete and; at what cost.

The only effective form of government is for communities to develop solutions on their own. If we look to Olympia for leadership, we will be sadly disappointed. The real problems with transit and roadbuilding are to be found in Olympia.

Fortunately for transit, the agencies are local, and if the DOT is dissolved, transit agencies can still survive. Unfortunately for the road-builders, they do not have the same luxury. If the DOT is dissolved, they'll be waiting a long time, indeed, for private enterprise to build the roads they so cherish. Except, of course, those of us in Gig Harbor, since we are the only true libertarians on the planet, paying for the construction of a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

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

Matthew,

Your latest theme calling us all "roadbuilders" who don't know "where", or "how much", or "how long" it may take is a bit inaccurate. I am aware of the DOT proposal in my neck of the woods for a new stretch of State Highway. While I can't qoute the exact cost, the information is available to me should I require it. I have studied the the map and it's two suggested locations. As far as how long it would take, the estimate is also available. It would not cause delays in travel, since there is no road there now. The current highway is inadequate and dangerous. When will this road get built? While the need is well publicized, (Even by State Patrol, who is tired of scraping up the bodies) the money was never available. I wonder where all that MVET went?

Will some of your gas tax pay for this road? Maybe. But I don't have a problem with that because it is heavily traveled by western Washingtonians for business and recreation. Maybe even you. Unless you would like us to close the area to tourists and industry, (can you say lumber?) I guess you will just have to pay. In the near future, or in the distant future, you will pay because....

A toll here is highly unlikely. Many local people who travel it frequently could not afford it, and would not approve it. They vote nearly every levy down here.

I want you to remember everytime you are stuck in congestion on the Narrows Bridge that it isn't the "Roadbuilders" who are at fault for your predicament. Or the "Anti-Transit" crowd. Or "Tim Eyman". Alot of the money we HAVE spent on Transit that few people willingly choose, could have been used to add capacity to that Bridge. The same could be said for the bottlenecks on I-5. And I don't mean yesterday, but 10-15-20 years ago, when it would have been easier.

Please don't tell me about vanpools and such. We already carpool, and receive NO subsidy what so ever for it. (Not even an HOV lane.) Nor do we want any. The shared cost is enough.

To me it boils down to personal responsibility. The more you involve government in my life, and reduce my reliance on my own resources, the closer we get to socialism. And spending a fortune on mass transit, and refusing to build any new capacity, means someday our State will force us to use that Transit. Socialized Transportation, for the good of all of us. I have the strong desire to protect my freedom from your "ideals."

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

To Marsha: We're all impressed with your grasp of the specifics (how long? don't know. how much? don't know).

But you're wrong (as usual?) about transit and congestion on the Narrows Bridge. The state's own data on the traffic growth shows the growth rate on the bridge to be quite low. Hence, there is no need for additional road capacity, when the new growth could easily be handled by expanded ridesharing options. Good try, but try again.

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

Matthew,

How much I may or may not know about a proposal that has no funding means what? It means that it was several years ago that the information was provided to me, and I chose not to make a mistake in qouting from memory. I suppose I could just say I read a brochure......and give false facts!

I know how much YOUR Transit costs and I know how little it benefits and everyone else.

You are subsidized to live far from your workplace. I am not. Take some personal responsibility and stop sucking subsidies, and get a new set of "ideals."

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

To Marsha: You appear to know very little when it comes to transit vs. road construction with regards to the Narrows Bridge. To increase capacity of Hwy 16 to I-5 will cost upwards of 1 BILLION dollars (1999 dollars?!). Whereas, it might cost approximately 1 MILLION dollars a year to subsidize ridesharing to handle the additional 500-1000 people the state's own data expect to additionally cross the Narrows bridge each year. Now, admittedly, the million dollars multiplies every year. So, the first year its 1 MILLION, the 2nd year 2 MILLION, etc.

It is also true that over 30 to 40 years, you may end up having spent several hundred million dollars subsidizing ridesharing. But, initially the cost is small and TIMELY.

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

Matthew,

That's nice. But unless the commuting public can be forced to use alternatives, it won't work. Boo-hoo-hoo. Do you think you can personally force them? If the majority want increased capacity of bridges and roads so they can live far from where they work and are willing to pay 1 Billion dollars....then I guess you won't get your way. It's the demographics stupid. (sorry Craig)

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

Marsha-

I've had go-rounds like this with Mattinsky. He never lets reality have any firm effect upon his opinions, and gets increasingly arrogant and obnoxious when you don't acknowledge the innate superiority of his ideas. The "Hints from Heloise" defense may be the most appropriate if it continues.

With regard to the Narrows Bridge: It was completed in 1950 as a hurry-up replacement to gallopin' Gerty, which went down about 10 years earlier. The bridge was scoped for 1940s traffic plus reasonable growth. It should come as NO surprise that, 60 years after it's original proposal, it is exceeding its capacity.

I believe Mattinsky's main gripe is that the state is conniving and finagling on the tolls. In theory, the toll was paid off, and no further tolls should be allowed on the EXIISTING bridge. What the state proposes is to make the existing bridge one-way, and charge a toll on the NEW bridge.

I personally don't have that much of a gripe with a new bridge, I think after 60 years it's due. My gripe is that after spending about $700 million to build it, the net gain will only be one HOV lane in either direction, plus a little wider lanes on the existing bridge. Don't think that's much for $700 million.

But Mattinsky and I explored his fantasy that vanpools are the answer to all problems on previous postings, and his irrationality on the subject is unshakeable. You are obviously more tolerant (and likely a better person) than I am. I don't give up on many people, but he's getting real close.

the craigster

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

To Marsha: It's not a question of forcing people to use alternatives. You see, it's the demographics, stupid!!! The demand for ridesharing alternatives far outstrips the supply. There are basically no useful bus routes from Gig Harbor to the I-5 corridor, which is the destination of most of the early rush hour traffic. There is only one modestly useful bus route, the so-called "express" from Gig Harbor to Seattle. The earliest express used to leave at 5:30 AM. The earliest bus now leaves at 5 AM.

In addition, there are additional ridesharing options in Tacoma and Federal Way, along the I-5 corridor. But, is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to the Tacoma Dome Park'N'Ride (whose parking spaces fill up by 6 AM; obviously there is demand problem, NOT!!!)? Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to Federal Way?

Hmmm, sounds like a capacity problem, doesn't it? It's the ridership levels, ass!

Seems to me you can dish it out, but you and Craig can't take it. Then, the best you can do is accuse me of "forum rage" or resort to "Hints from Heloise".

You don't have to force people to rideshare. People are desperate for ridesharing alternatives. Build useful bus routes, and they shall come.

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

To Craig: My opposition to the bridge is in proportion to how the tolls will go. Since I do not know high the tolls will go, excuse me for being suspicious and cynical.

Now, with the passage of I-695, my family will have more discretionary dollars to throw away on a tolled bridge. So, I may be less opposed to the bridge project than I was before.

I have no problem with privatizing the roads. Do you?

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

"I have no problem with privatizing the roads. Do you? " I'd sure privatize construction and maintenance. The existing roads, like the existing bridge, have long-since been paid off with user fees, and continue to be paid for with gas tax revenues. I could be seduced by the appropriate plan for privatization of new construction. Might even invest a few thou in it if the business plans looked viable.

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

matt--"The demand for ridesharing alternatives far outstrips the supply." Hmm, sounds like you've identified a business opportunity. Y'all better hurry before your competitors beat you to market. "There is only one modestly useful bus route, the so-called "express" from Gig Harbor to Seattle." 43.8 miles one way. How much is the government s'posed to do to support your extreme choice of lifestyle? In any case, you forgot the words "in my opinion." "Hmmm, sounds like a capacity problem, doesn't it? It's the ridership levels, ass!" I'm beginning to like your business plan more and more. "You don't have to force people to rideshare. People are desperate for ridesharing alternatives. Build useful bus routes, and they shall come." For several reasons, this is a truly remarkable statement. First, an abundance of evidence has been presented on this forum indicating (more like a 2X4 over the head) the absurdity of the "build it and they will come" strategy. Furthermore, I've noticed there are many useful bus routes. Out of curiousity, why did you omit AMEN from your benediction?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 24, 2000.

Ouch. . .forgot that lynx, this forum, and linebreaks don't get along. Wonder if the
tag works?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 24, 2000.

To Craig: I have no problem privatizing the EXISTING roads. Do you?

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

"43.8 miles one way. " Let's see. Pierce Transit and Metro KC transit have costs of about $.48 per passenger mile. That'd be 43.8 times $.48 = $21.00 EACH WAY. $42.00 a day, $210.00 a week, $840 a month, $10,080 a year. This compared to the average transportation costs of auto owners of $6000 per year. Even vanpools at $.12 a mile would be $2570 for this distance. No wonder nobody will subsidize these runs for you.

What a BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY! Are you going to go public with an IPO? I'm sure everyone will just be jumping all over themselves to get on board this train.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 24, 2000.

To Brad: I do see some business opportunities, and I am certainly going to promote to my community, when I have the chance.

I don't understand why you think it's a great idea to subsidize a brdige to the tune of several hundred million dollars (this is the amount of money that the U.S. Treasury won't take in because the bonds for the project will receive tax-exempt status), but it's not okay to subsidize transit. Even though the transit provides immediate relief, and, if the buses are powered by natural gas, there are less unwanted particulates in the air.

I'm not asking you to subsidize any of my choices. Just be consistent. If it's wrong to subsidize transit, then it's wrong to subsidize the building of roads. Privatize the existing roads.

You claim ample evidence has been presented about the demand vs. capacity of transit. But, that it is only in your mind. It is not in fact. The fact remains that the express bus routes pioneered by Pierce Transit (now run by Sound Transit) experience heavy demand. You can deny it, but that's the way it is.

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

"To Craig: I have no problem privatizing the EXISTING roads. Do you? "

Same as privatizing existing bridges. They have already been paid for by the users. But I'd like to see their maintenance privatized, paid for with user fees (gas tax).

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

matt--"I don't understand why you think it's a great idea to subsidize a brdige to the tune of several hundred million dollars (this is the amount of money that the U.S. Treasury won't take in because the bonds for the project will receive tax-exempt status), but it's not okay to subsidize transit. Even though the transit provides immediate relief, and, if the buses are powered by natural gas, there are less unwanted particulates in the air."

Ummm, go find where I said I thought it was a good idea to build the bridge. . .a small favor for the future, don't assume you know what I do or do not think.

"I'm not asking you to subsidize any of my choices. Just be consistent. If it's wrong to subsidize transit, then it's wrong to subsidize the building of roads. Privatize the existing roads."

Again, find where I said it's wrong to subsidize transit. Personally, I think that a reasonable level of transit service is necessary. Furthermore, I understand that this will require a subsidy. That being said, it's my opinion that it's a ridiculous use of resources to provide bus service encouraging people living in gig harbor to commute to Seattle.

"You claim ample evidence has been presented about the demand vs. capacity of transit. But, that it is only in your mind. It is not in fact. The fact remains that the express bus rouets pioneered by Pierce Transit (now run by Sound Transit) experience heavy demand. You can deny it, but that's the way it is."

How do low ridership numbers compared to overall capacity indicate an undersupply of service? Finally, the fact that express bus service from Gig Harbor to Seattle is full only points to the need for increased service on that *particular corridor*. It certainly doesn't indicate the need for more bus service throughout the Puget Sound as a whole. Two words: hasty generalization.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 24, 2000.

"The fact remains that the express bus routes pioneered by Pierce Transit (now run by Sound Transit) experience heavy demand. You can deny it, but that's the way it is. " If you consider the fact that route number 595 is indeed 40+ miles (http://www.stexpress.org/timetables.htm#595) which, at $.48 a mile costs the $20 in operating expenses (one-way) and YOU are paying the princely sum of $2.50 (one-way) http://www.stexpress.org/fares.htm it shouldnt surprise anyone that there is an induced demand. Nor do I blame you for riding it since you are being subsidized $35.00 a day to do it. But for transit as a whole, the buses run with a lot of empty seats. Actually, yours do too. There is essentially no back- haul on the express routes. There high load factors in the direction of the commute are highly offset by running essentially empty coming back, then running empty again to go pick you up. The alternative is that the driver and ($435K) bus just sit there waiting for you to finish work. Isnt that a great use of personnel and vehicle capital resources?

So lets see the demand if you get farebox return to match expenses, or even if you just get it to the national average of 40%. Anything has a demand if you pay people enough to take it. Lets see your charter bus service make it in the REAL world.

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

Brad-

FYI: Sound Transit predicts that, once their light rail, commuter rail, and commuter express buses are all up and running, they will have annual fare revenue of: Annual fare revenue is projected to be $38 to $40 million (expressed in 1995 dollars) following the complete implementation of the regional transit system for all modes of transit. http://www.soundtransit.org/investor/Budget1998/Budgetdoc.html#propose dsummary

By comparison, they took in $44 million in 1998 form their local MVET alone, with another $165 million coming from sales tax. Their fare recovery for 1998 was all of $85 THOUSAND! They estimate that the farebox recovery from their express bus service will be the least of all their modes (and that's if their ridership meets projections).

If there truly is a VAST UNTAPPED DEMAND for express bus service out there (which I doubt), I'm not sure we can afford to meet it at these levels of subsidization.

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

Matthew,

If it is OK to subsidize your Vanpool then it should be OK to subsidize my carpool. I don't mind paying the operating costs, but because this vehicle is used only for commuting, it is only fair that the taxpayers contribute to the capital expenditure of the car. It is quite economical, nearly 40 miles to a gallon, and can seat 5 adults. How about it? Operating expenses are probably much lower than your Vanpool Van. Sound fair to you? Or absurd?

One of the biggest critics of Vanpools are Transit Operators who lose passengers. We could write volumns on that!

Since you have never actually come up with any verifiable numbers or other facts to support your position that there are more people wanting Vanpool/busses from Gag Harbor to Seattle I guess I should give up, per Craig's post. But so should you. There is no way you can convince me to pay for your extremely long commute, since we do the right thing in my household already, and pay for our commute ourselves. I have every right to try to keep you from being a subsidy sucker if I am helping to pay the subsidy. I am willing to support subsidies for people who can not drive or afford transportation. Are you low income or just a subsidy sucker?

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

To Marsha: I'm not asking you to help to pay for my long commute. I'm only pointing out that if we're willing to throw away money on road construction that does very little (i.e., the Narrows Bridge), then we ought to be willing to throw money on away on ridesharing options that do a lot more.

I'm all for privatizing the existing main arteries. At least that way we'd be consistent in our logic.

If I didn't have access to a Pierce Transit van, then I would go out and purchase a Chevy Astro van. Unfortunately for my passengers, I could only carry a fraction of the passengers I carry now.

I'm not asking for a handout, just consistency in your logic.

To be honest, with I-695, I don't think we're going to get much of roadbuilding or transit. The focus is going to be on tax relief. The more tax relief I get, the more I can afford the tolls on the Narrows Bridge.

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

To Craig: Now you change your tune. It used to be the demographics, stupid. Now, it's: Well of course there's heavy ridership, the people are paid to ride the buses.

Believe me, riding the bus is no joy. The fact remains you were wrong about claiming there is a lack of demand. Your basic thrust was that there was over-capacity. Proven wrong on that point, you now claim that the Sound Transit buses are excessively subsidized.

With the passage of I-695, the rates should be raised, since the riders (who I presume are generally middle class) can now afford to pay more.

Perhaps you're right, and the subsidies are excessive. And your point about the buses most likely being empty in the opposite direction is very likely to be correct.

So, there may be steps that Sound Transit can take to lessen the excessiveness of the subsidy or improve the benefits to the public. The benefits include mitigating congestion at known choke points, and, if the buses are powered by natural gas, reducing the amount of particulates in the air.

Perhaps we can have some type of community-based transit whereby the riders of the "bus" are qualified to drive it. This could reduce the cost of operation by eliminating a labor cost. This might also require the use of a smaller "bus", so it could be parked near the final destination.

In any case, if the citizens perceive the subsidies to be excessive, then they have every right to vote Sound Transit. But, if you want to convince the voters of your point of view, you'll have to start by admitting you were wrong about there being a demand problem. The voters admire honesty.

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

matt--"Now you change your tune. It used to be the demographics, stupid. Now, it's: Well of course there's heavy ridership, the people are paid to ride the buses."

He was talking about one particular line. Let me reiterate what I said before, the fact that one particular line (or n particular lines for that matter) is full says *nothing* about the capacity of the bus system in the Puget sound as a whole.

"Your basic thrust was that there was over-capacity. Proven wrong on that point"

Who proved him wrong? You??? We're supposed to consider the single anecdotal example you've provided proof. The common name for the logical fallacy you're using is hasty generalization. As a more concrete example, if I said "CriticalBill lives in Gig Harbor and he's a moron. Therefore, all Gig Harbor residents are morons", I would be guilty of the same thing.

In other words, express service from Gig Harbor to Seattle running at capacity *does not* imply anything about bus service anywhere else.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 25, 2000.

"Perhaps we can have some type of community-based transit whereby the riders of the "bus" are qualified to drive it. This could reduce the cost of operation by eliminating a labor cost. This might also require the use of a smaller "bus", so it could be parked near the final destination. " We have this mattinsky. It's called a "car."

"In any case, if the citizens perceive the subsidies to be excessive, then they have every right to vote Sound Transit." ?????

"But, if you want to convince the voters of your point of view, you'll have to start by admitting you were wrong about there being a demand problem. The voters admire honesty. " When you spend 100s of millions of dollars a year increasing subsidies to transit and get no increase in market share, when you are recovering at the farebox less than half what the REST OF THE COUNTRY is recoverin and the buses still average less than 25% occupancy, you better believe there is a demand problem. When worldwide demographics demonstrate a loss of market share for transit, there certainly is a demand problem. Even transit ADVOCATES admit there's a demand problem, and are trying to cope with it by building park n rides, decreasing employer subsidized parking, and deeply discounting monthly passes. Now that doesn't mean that there is NO DEMAND anywhere in the system, nor have I ever said that was the case. That also doesn't mean that no one would ride transit under any circumstances, I rode it quite frequently when I was going to school in Washington, DC.

But it's a niche market, and when you expand outside that niche you become non-cost-effective. Demand shrinks, and costs rise. That's just very basic economics, not rocket science. I would think even you would be able to understand that..... well maybe not.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 25, 2000.

If there is a huge demand and Transit capacity isn't available, then I guess we paid for alot of incompetance.

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

DSM-IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 301.81

Diagnostic Criteria A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following: 1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements) 2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love 3. believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions) 4. requires excessive admiration 5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations 6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends 7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others 8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her 9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

Why, I BELIEVE IT'S MATTHEW!!

Six of nine criteria met SO FAR! And you only need FIVE for the diagnosis.

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

DSM-IV 301.81

Give up?

It's Narcissistic Personality Disorder, of course.

Not worth institutionalizing someone for it, they're really pretty harmless, but you can't really fix him either.

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

Re: Matt

Looks like delusions of adequacy, working up toward delusions of grandeur.

Mikey

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 25, 2000.

To Zowie: Delusions of grandeur? Lack of accomplishments? Well, I hate to brag, as you can imagine, but let's list the lack of accomplishments: 1) Graduated in the top ten of his class from one of the top public high schools in the country; 2) scored 99% in Verbal and Math on the SATs; 3) offered scholarships from MIT, Johns Hopkins, Cal Tech, and Stanford; 4) Matriculated from Stanford with a B.S. in Mathematical Sciences and a M.S. in Operations Research; 5) Continually hard-working and reliable, dedicating significant portions of his salary to charitable causes and; 6) perhaps my greatest accomplishment, although no better than anyone else, I am a husband to a very special lady and a father of two boys, a 25-month old and a 2-month.

Narcissistic? Perhaps. It's rare that I come across anyone I should admire more than myself. I wonder why, since my lifetime accomplishments are so average and run-of-the-mill.

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

To Brad: I have no problem with eliminating bus routes with low riderships. In light of I-695, I have no problem with raising the fares for bus lines utilized primarily by the middle class.

If Sound Transit can do a better job in maximizing its effectiveness, perhaps we're not that far apart, after all.

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

"Narcissistic? Perhaps. It's rare that I come across anyone I should admire more than myself. " Make that seven for nine.

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

to Zowie: I guess I should be flattered that you have to resort to attacking the "messenger" rather than the "message".

I personally strive to "do the right thing". And, I am a firm believer in social policies which reward top-quartile performers. I'm sorry my performance-based philosophy comes across to you as narcissistic. Perhaps I am too unsympathetic and not forgiving enough. But, I really don't see the point of foregoing accountability. Not so much in the sense of focusing in on the punishment of wrong-doers. But, again, reward good deeds.

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

to Craig: I guess we'll continue to disagree. I'd like to give Sound Transit a chance to build up their network of non-stop express buses and see if they can reduce the excessive subsidization from $35/person/day. If not, then you're probably right, the cost far outweighs the benefits.

But, as I wait for more data on Sound Transit, I remain optimistic that they can mitigate congestion and pollution, and, at some level of cost, society might conclude it's worth it. I certainly don't mind paying taxes to fund the effort. Obviously, you and others do mind. We'll see what happens at the polls and in the courts.

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

"to Zowie: I guess I should be flattered that you have to resort to attacking the "messenger" rather than the "message". " I'm not attacking you! Look up above. Ispecifically said that you were pretty harmless. It's simply that you lack the insight to understand your own problems, are contemptuous of any ideas not your own, and are too arrogant to listen to others. I never said you weren't a nice guy.

But let's TEST your objectivity. How many of the nine criteria do YOU think you fulfill?

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

"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. "

We were just mentioning your lack of insight..............................

Rest assured. The REST of us consider arrogance a personality defect. Ignorance doesn't have to be, unless your arrogance is such that you become uneducable, but then ......... there you go!

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

to Zowie: I don't really identify with any the criteria for narcisissm. Maybe 1) and 7). In the case of 1), not so much that I am of grandiose importance, but, rather, no one is really more special than me. I mean, we're all equally special. In the case of 7), I think believing in a performance-based philosophy, whereby you hold people accountable for their actions, that might make one less sensitive to other people's feelings.

Really, I think your analysis is a stretch. It seems that if I believe I'm doing good deeds, you label me as narcissistic.

I can see labeling me as aloof and obnoxious.

As far as rejecting ideas not my own, this is not true. Or, at least I hope it's not true. It may be true that I reject any of your ideas. But, Zowie, respect is earned is not given. You'll just have to try harder. Oops, there I go again. Holding you accountable for your performance. Oh, poor little Zowie. Don't feel so bad. Poor, poor Zowie. There, is that better? Am I more sympathetic?

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

"I can see labeling me as aloof and obnoxious. " Not aloof enough, but at least we agree on the obnoxious.

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