Transit user fares paid 17% of the cost of transit operations in Washington State (109,880,000 /631,248,000). Nationwide, transit user fares covered 39.6% (7076.641 Million/17.833.694 million). If you just look at the other 49 states, the AVERAGE farebox recovery is 40.5%. (6966.761 million/ 17202.446 million) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs98/tables/mt2b.pdf

Farebox recovery is SO LOW in Washington it drags the national average for the other 49 states down almost a full percent. It's time for the Washington state transit riders to start paying their own way.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 15, 2000

Answers

And rural transit is much worse. Clallam Transit (www.clallamtransit.com Statistics)reports 10% fare box recovery.

Liberate the taxis and jitneys, and build (or rebuild) the needed roads.

-- Terry Jackson (Terryj@olypen.com), January 15, 2000.

Ferry fares could rise 50% By Ed Friedrich, Sun Staff

Voters would have to pass a referendum to authorize the higher rates. Ferry riders and other state voters face a tough decision next fall  one that could impact them more than who moves into the White House.

They'll be asked to pass a referendum authorizing ferry fares to increase by 40 percent to 50 percent or risk losing more service, possibly entire routes.

The Tariff Review Committee will recommend the fare increase Thursday to the state Transportation Commission.

"We don't want to raise rates, but the fact is we have to make up for I-695 cuts," said Scott Rhodes of Southworth, one of 25 tariff committee members.

"From an equity standpoint, PAYING $6 TO GET A CAR ACROSS THE SOUND IS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY."

Current cross-Sound rates are $6.50 one-way for car and driver, $3.70 round-trip for passengers.

Initiative 695 repealed the state motor vehicle excise tax, costing the ferry system $52 million in operating revenues.

To make ends meet, the state ferry system is pitching in $30 million from its reserves. On July 1, it will cut service by $22 million, or 13 percent, including eliminating the passenger-only program. It also laid off or didn't replace 92 management and support workers.

After 18 months, the agency's reserves will be gone, leaving another $30.6 million hole. If the shortfall can't be recouped through higher fares, another service cut would be necessary.

Fare increases of between 40 percent and 50 percent would keep the system running at the reduced level it will take this summer.

Many tariff committee members, particularly those from Kitsap County, pushed for larger fare increases, hoping to restore service, said Alice Tawresey of Bainbridge Island, the group's chairwoman.

However, other members feared a higher rate would scare off so many riders that it wouldn't work.

Kitsap County is represented on the committee by Tawresey, Rhodes, Forrest Six of Bainbridge Island, state Sen. Bob Oke of Port Orchard, Kitsap Transit Executive Director Dick Hayes and Ross Wood of Kingston. Former state Rep. Karen Schmidt of Bainbridge Island has resigned.

With the increase, fares would make up 75 percent of operating revenues, up from just over 60 percent now. THE REST IS PAID MOSTLY BY THE STATE GAS TAX.

Some committee members kicked around the idea of funding operations entirely through fares and using the gas tax to build passenger-only terminals. Again, the law of elastic demand kicks in  if fares are too high, people will find other ways to cross the Sound, or they won't cross at all.

Rhodes is among those who think fares should go even higher. The PASSENGER FARE IS ONLY $1.85 EACH WAY, even less with a commuter pass.

"IT'S ALMOST FREE. It really is," he said. "WHEN PEOPLE WHO RIDE A BUS PAY LESS than us, it's really terrible."

Car-and-driver rates of $6.50 are less than parking in Seattle, Rhodes said.

Until this year, the ferry system had a waiver from Initiative 601, which restricts rate increases to inflation and population growth. That's less than 3 percent now.

The waiver was taken away this year, in part because legislators don't think the fare system is fair. To salve both the lawmakers and voters, the tariff committee devised a route equalization formula based on the cost of providing service, based primarily on the number of minutes it takes to cross.

"We're hoping that we can resolve the legislators' concern about route equity enough that they could support the referendum, which would be the 695 and 601 waiver," Tawresey said.

Bremerton-Seattle, Bainbridge-Seattle and Kingston-Edmonds are in the same group and would experience an equal fare increase, despite the length of their routes. Otherwise, nobody would use the Bremerton run, which would cost twice as much.

Fare increases on other routes would differ. The San Juan Island routes would see the greatest increase, while the Keystone-Port Townsend run would have the smallest fare hike.

Fare increases also would be lower on the Southworth-Vashon- Fauntleroy, Mukilteo-Clinton and Point Defiance-Talequah routes.

The Transportation Commission will determine a rate in the 40 percent to 50 percent range. The proposal will go out to the public in March, then back to the commission in June for a formal public hearing.

Fare increases are never popular, particularly not now. I-695's overwhelming approval showed that. As agencies raise fees to cover funds lost to I-695, many citizens feel they're being punished for voting for the initiative. That's not the case, Tawresey said.

"The reality is, there just is no money," she said. "There's just no way to get it.

"If the Legislature doesn't put that referendum on the ballot or come up with other funding sources, they're talking about taking out whole runs."

Ferry system spokesman Ray Deardorf confirmed that entire routes could be in jeopardy.

"We're at the point where it's not reasonable to pursue additional service cuts beyond what has already been proposed (for July 1) because you start getting into revenue-producing trips," he said.

"You start cutting revenues so heavily you can never meet that (savings) target. The next set of cuts would have to be extremely Draconian and likely involve shutting down some routes.

"There are no more easy cuts, not that the other ones were easy," he said.

Fares don't even address the state ferry system's larger problem. Its capital fund runs dry in 18 months, with no replacement revenue in sight. That will fall on the Legislature.

"We're not making up for cuts in capital," Rhodes said of the fare increases. "We're just praying to the good Lord on that stuff."

Published in The Sun: 01/14/2000

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 15, 2000.

Let's see now "The Tariff Review Committee will recommend the fare increase Thursday to the state Transportation Commission." "The Transportation Commission will determine a rate in the 40 percent to 50 percent range. The proposal will go out to the public in March, then back to the commission in June for a formal public hearing" The review committe will expend X amount of dollars to calculate a fare. The commission will spend ******thousands of dollars scratching their nether regions and babbling about whether it is acceptable or not. Then the public will 'vote' on it??

Then the commission will spend thousands of more dollars belching and assuming positions of grandeur in a public forum on it.

Let's see $6.50 to $9.75...OH MIGOD MARTHA we won't be able to eat for the next six weeks if we take the ferry.!!!!!!!

$3.70 to $5.55??? Well you just better shut em all down cause nobody is ever going to take a ferry anywhere again!!! And they are not going to go to movies or restaurants or football games. They will never drive their cars again because it costs way too much money to put gas in them. Everybody is going to eat their pets because they can't afford to buy them food anymore. All the children in Washington State are going to run around naked without any shoes.

Gary Locke is going to sell his hair to be made into bad wigs.. Please save us!!!

But WAIT!!! nAHHHHHHH We could rent them surfboards!!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 15, 2000.

"Let's see $6.50 to $9.75...OH MIGOD MARTHA we won't be able to eat for the next six weeks if we take the ferry.!!!!!!!"

I see. It's highway robbery when property taxes go up 3%, but a 50% increase in fares is chump change. Actually, if someone drives to work using the ferry 5 times a week 50 weeks out of the year, the increase is $812.50.

But I'm sure those ferry riders can just give themselves raises to cover the increase.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 15, 2000.

Would demand based pricing help?

We have 1 to 2 miles of "Ferry Traffic Only" lanes at many terminals. These represent 1 to 3 or more sailings. If demand is that heavy at times, the fares could be raised considerably. The usual rule is that a price or cost increase of 10% reduces demand by 1% to 2%. There are obvious limitations to this rule, but people still spend $2 for a Coke in the airport, when it is available for 50 cents or so in the grocery (2 Liter @ $1.79 to as low as $.89). The Ferry System needs the freedom to experiment with the price level, including down to the individual sailing or trip. A market clearing price is ideally one that fills it to capacity. This might be $20 per vehicle and $5 per passenger or more on Sunday afternoon or evening returning East, and may be Zero on runs after 9pm.

Transportation is a time-and-space utility. Being there at the right time and the right place has a very high value (appointments). Being there at the right place "sometime" has a much lower value. People will pay money for value.

The fallacy of the regulatory mind-set is that one price is generally the right price all the time. This begat gas-lines in the 80's, and ferry lines for a long time.

Competition matters. Housing prices and relative quality, quality of life, schools, commute time, commute schedule, commute pricing, parking costs, and other considerations drive residence decisions. If people choose to commute from Kitsap to King, the Ferry price isn't a big issue in their decision, though they surely will howl loudly over a 10 cent increase, let alone doubling the cost.

If and when all modes of transportation and transit are able to price their products (or sevices) for full cost recovery of their direct costs (operating and capital), we citizens will be able to make an informed decision. Today, full cost pricing is constructively only available for the personal automobile and airlines. The rest of the modes are severely distorted by social engineering subsidies.

-- Terry Jackson (Terryj@olypen.com), January 15, 2000.

Oh I'm sorry Patrick. I forgot that you get EVERYTHING subsidized. When are you blithering idiots going to grow some brains in that moss that lives inside your skulls.

It's even an insult to address your comparison of property tax and ferry fares.. You have absolutely no comprehension of your own navel let alone life or freedom..

I bet you could get on I WANNA BE A MILLUNAIR!! give you enough multiple coice question to amazing simple questions and you might go away rich.. still dumb as a stump but a rich dumb stump

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 15, 2000.

""I see. It's highway robbery when property taxes go up 3%, but a 50% increase in fares is chump change. Actually, if someone drives to work using the ferry 5 times a week 50 weeks out of the year, the increase is $812.50."

The average cost of a trip in 1998 (including capitalization expenses) was $15.30 meaning we taxpayers are subsidizing your commuter $1387.50 per year, EVEN AT THE HIGHER RATES. At current rates, the subsidy is $2200 for your mythical commuter. Operating costs alone are $1.02 per passenger mile and $8.76 per passenger trip.

What public good is served by paying your commuter $2200 a year to live on the Kitsap peninsula and yacht back and forth on a heavily polluting diesel ferr

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 16, 2000.

Patrick,

I receive services from my property taxes. Most are services I want, and am willing pay a "reasonable" amount for. I have more control over how my "Local" funds are used, than I do with WSF, Sound Transit, Metro etc.

What did I personally get from Transit subsidies? Nothing. No one in my household rides transit. It does not alleviate congestion here, there is no congestion.

What did I personally get from Ferry subsidies? Nothing. I haven't ridden a Ferry in several years. (I tried though. On the day a truck put a hole in the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.)

"But I'm sure those ferry riders can just give themselves raises to cover the increase." Maybe they will have to cut out a Latte or pack a bag lunch.

Patrick, your so full of sh**. I suppose everytime any of my taxes go up, I can give myself a raise?

Hey, My neighbors and I want a new Community Hall Patrick. We know you'll never use it, but we still need for you to kick in $50.00. Did I mention we will only use it two days a year? Or that it will only benefit twenty people or so?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 16, 2000.

Patrick-

I ask again. What public good is served by paying your commuter $2200 a year to live on the Kitsap peninsula and yacht back and forth on a heavily polluting diesel ferry?

The craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 16, 2000.

Patrick- I ask again. What public good is served by paying your commuter $2200 a year to live on the Kitsap peninsula and yacht back and forth on a heavily polluting diesel ferry?

The craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), January 17, 2000.

Transit user fares paid 17% of the cost of transit operations in Washington State (109,880,000 /631,248,000). Nationwide, transit user fares covered 39.6% (7076.641 Million/17.833.694 million). If you just look at the other 49 states, the AVERAGE farebox recovery is 40.5%. (6966.761 million/ 17202.446 million) http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hs98/tables/mt2b.pdf Farebox recovery is SO LOW in Washington it drags the national average for the other 49 states down almost a full percent. It's time for the Washington state transit riders to start paying their own way.

Have you sent this to your legislative representative yet? I sent it to all three of mine, and have received favorable responses from two, so far. Your representatives e-mail is listed on the legislatures homepage which can be gotten to from the Access Washington homepage.

Do it early in the session. Even good ideas neet time to percolate.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

Thanks Mark, as a matter of fact I have. To make it a little easier, here are the links to those email addresses

http://www.leg.wa.gov/senate/sadm/senate_email.htm

http://www.leg.wa.gov/house/hadm/e-mail.htm

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

I think if the politicians are going to dip into the surplus to help out transit, then the transit agencies should agree to terminate routes with low ridership. Similarly, they should terminate weekend and late evening service. This will help bring up the percentage of the farebox revenue.

In the case of the ferries, the DOT never should have been running them in the first place. This is a regional issue, not a state concern. There should be a Vashon Ferry District; a Kitsap Ferry District; a Bainbridge Ferry District; etc. They are welcome to coordinate their activities through some type of Puget Sound council, but it is not absolutely necessary.

The communities can choose to subsidize the ferries through voter approved sales, gas, and/or property taxes. Or, they can lease facilities and boats to a private company, and let the private company charge whatever the market will bear. There may be some caveats, such as the private company cannot raise rates without providing commuters 30-day notice. Likewise, if the service deteriorates, there should be some way for the ferry distict to terminate the contract.

But, the most important thing is to get the DOT off our backs and out of our lives. They are the most arrogant, corrupt, unresponsive, and incompetent beauracracy I've ever encountered.

Finally, for those who want additional roads built, they need to rely on private business. You believe in the "bed" of free enterprise, now sleep in it. No more publicly financed roads. All future roads will be privately owned. The existing gas tax will only be used to maintain the existing roadways.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 18, 2000.

"The existing gas tax will only be used to maintain the existing roadways. " You mean not diverted to ferries and transit? Wouldn't that be great.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

To Mark Stilson: Under the Washington State Constitution, the gas tax cannot be used for transit. So, you're blowing hot air on that one.

The state constitution does allow for the gas tax to be used for the ferries, under the guise of a "marine highway".

But, yes, no more state subsidies of the ferry system. Let the communities that depend on the ferries tax themselves. If the voters approve a local gas tax, that's ok.

But, keep in mind, no more government involvement in new road construction. If you believe in free enterprise, then walk the talk, brother.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 18, 2000.

"To Mark Stilson: Under the Washington State Constitution, the gas tax cannot be used for transit. So, you're blowing hot air on that one. " What does transit run on? And when you have a 3+ HOV lane, you virtually have a busway. That's what the TRAC figures showed, anyway.

According to Sen. Benton, the DOT was unable to tell the legislature precisely where gas tax revenues went, because they go into too many accounts that have overlapping funding sources and overlapping (including non road) recipients. So you may like to think these are segregated funds, but it appears that the government agencies are using them interchangeably.

You appear to be blowing your own hot air.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

Yo-

Patrick!

Anybody seen Patrick? Here boy, ..............good Patrick! Come see the thread. That a boy Patrick. Roll over, I'll scratch your belly for you.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

to Mark Stilson: 3+ HOVs??? How many miles of these are we talking about?

Transit runs on sales tax revenues plus license tab fees (no longer relevant) plus federal money plus farebox revenues. Now, maybe you were referring to the federal gas tax monies. But, the US constitution doesn't prevent that.

So, let me clarify my position. No new roads funded by the state or local governments. The federal government is a different story. But, it is unlikely the feds will do anything without state contributions.

Again, you want new roads, let the private sector build them and run them as a business. Of course, if I get into an accident, I can sue the business under product liability laws. And, there will be a host of other regulations jacking up the expense of the project. But, hey, let those who use them pay for it.

Walk the talk, brother. Walk the talk.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 18, 2000.

"Transit runs on sales tax revenues plus license tab fees (no longer relevant) plus federal money plus farebox revenues. Now, maybe you were referring to the federal gas tax monies. But, the US constitution doesn't prevent that. " Transit runs on ROADS Matthew. And roads are bought and paid for with gas tax money.

And if transit is going to use these roads (30 ton buses), they ought to pay the equivalent of a 30 ton truck using the road as much.

And the gas tax provides more than enough to build additional roads, if you stop diverting it to non-road uses.

And I am not your brother (gag, retch).

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.

Again, I'm amazed at how people here hang on my every word, or waiting in anticipation. Kind of like those old E.F. Hutton ads.

Anyway, for future reference, if you're really THAT interested in getting me to respond to one of the many messages posted in a single day here, you COULD e-mail me. Am I the only one here that actually does stuff on the weekend OTHER than reading posts on this message board?

I digress. Well, first off those Kitsap County residents are tax payers too, so they're paying into that subsidy too. It's not like THEY aren't paying that average rate as well. Then of course you have to take into account that about 10% of every Puget Sound transportation tax dollar gets shipped elsewhere in the state.

I guess we could go into all those subsidies that people in non-urban and suburban get as well. You know, the rural phone line that actually costs about $150 a month to operate, but the resident pays the same amount I do, which is an inflated amount for me. The electricty that cost an arm and a leg to string out to the boonies but which costs are strung out to everyone. The cost of mail delivery to rural routes that gets passed on to everyone.

Honestly? You want to talk about how much various people are being subsidized to live where they live? That's fine with me, but unless you live in a fairly populated area you shouldn't be picking up any stones my friends in the glass houses.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 19, 2000.

Patrick,

The cost of providing power to my home was not born by you. I paid for the cable, transformer, meter, trenching, hook up and ALL labor costs associated with it. Over $7000. ($567 in sales tax) Was that a true cost? It was an inflated figure, because of the requirements to use their cable and equipment, not equipment from a competitor. And it was worth it, because my rates ARE MUCH LOWER than PSE rates. I would have paid for phone service if it were required.

Let me see. Does everyone require electricity? At least 99%. Do most require phones? Yes. Then do we all benefit from your supposed subsidy directly Patrick?

Do most require Transit? Uh, well, no, I guess not! Not even a sizable minority. I am not willing to subsidize your ride to wherever, unless you can make it more cost effective and get more people to use it. As usual, your position is not based in reality.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

to Mark: Roads may not be bought and paid 100% with gas tax monies. Roads are maintained with gas tax monies. We don't know what the true costs of roads, so we don't know the true source of the revenue.

For example, when it rains, the water that hits the road is then considered "waste water". Who actually pays for the processing of the "waste water"? Does the gas tax pay for the processing?

Now, you do have a valid point about the weight of a bus. But since our roadways aren't owned and operated by private businesses, your principles ring hollowly with me. When we turn over our roadways to the highest bidder, they can charge whatever the want. If they want to charge buses and large trucks a ridiculously high charge, so be it.

I'm not adverse to free enterprise. But as long as we subsidize the construction of roads, I have no problem in subsidizing other means of transportation, especially if the voters have the final word.

I-695 should result in the elimination of poor performing bus routes as well as increases in bus fares. This will address Craig's point that the farebox revenue, as a percentage of total revenue, is low.

As for your point of view, other than the weight of a bus, I-695 should minimize the DOT meddling of local and regional transit operations. Unfortunately, antiquated federal rules result in monies destined for transit going through the DOT. Now, there's a value added process. I suppose the federal government could give us a tax break if they stopped programs you felt were wasteful. But, that assumes the feds wouldn't waste the money somehwere else in some other state.

So, really, as long as the feds are throwing away money, we might as well have them throw away the money on transit in our state. With I-695, transit will hardly impact the budget of the state of Washington, anymore, with the exception of costs incurred due to the weight of the bus. I'm not sure I have any objection to requiring transit buses to pay fees commensurate with privately owned buses (i.e., Greyhound), since, with I-695, the middle class customers of transit can afford to pay fare increases of 30-50%.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 19, 2000.

We don't know what the true costs of roads, so we don't know the true source of the revenue.  Is this a ROYAL We, ..or do you have a tapeworm? If you are talking about the economic costs of roads, there is a pretty good track record on these costs. If you are talking philosophically, well yes, costs known but to God.

For example, when it rains, the water that hits the road is then considered "waste water". Who actually pays for the processing of the "waste water"? Does the gas tax pay for the processing?  Oh, I see. Absent the road, this rain would have not fallen? Or would it have fallen and hit good clean dirt?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

To Mark: I'm as confused as you are when it comes to "waste water". Apparently, society incurs a cost processing the drainage of water from roads. I guess the oils and solvents on the road are "dirtier" than old-fashioned dirt. Go figure.

In any case, the cost exists. Does the gas tax pay for it? If not, then the gas tax does not cover the true cost of the roads.

There's also the accompanying pollution of the air. This results in increased health problems. Does the gas tax pay for the mitigation of the health problems? If not, then the gas tax does not cover the true cost of the roads.

Like I said, turn the roads over to a private company, and let them pay for all of the hidden costs (after years of litigation in the courts). Walk the talk, fellow citizen (i.e., "brother"; check a dictionary for all possible definitions of the word, "brother").

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 19, 2000.

Can we be a little more obscure? If one is injured or killed on that road, are the costs associated with that occurance paid for from gas taxes?

Do I not pay sewer fees to mitigate the runoff? Do I not pay for medical insurance, and associated medical costs for my own health complications?

True costs are hard to measure for anything these days. I would say when you start to obscure the picture to this extent, then you wind up saying things like roads are responsible for most crime, poverty, infidelity and all other societies problems. Let's not get carried away with the theme.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Matt and Mark,

Another subsidy that drivers don't bear the cost of is wrecks. For example, you're driving down I-5 near southcenter and you crash into somebody in front of you. Since you're in Tukwila, their fire department comes and cuts you out of the car. But you live in Tacoma. Therefore you've been subsidized by the citizens of Tukwila, who paid for those guys and gals to come help you.

Change the location and the result is the same, unless you happen to live in the city where you crash while on the freeway. But the chances of that are pretty slim. You get out to rural areas in eastern Washington, and it's pretty tough for local governments to find the funding to pay for helping people who crash on I-90 or I-82 or US 395. But they can't just let people die who get into crashes, so local residents are forced to pay for it, and therefore subsidize highway travelers who get into trouble when they're just passing through.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

Oh BB and don't forget that all the poor people in Taiwan are subsidizing our children's expensive tennis shoes with their hard labor and their blood, sweat and tears...

gimme a break

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

I was right the first time. You ARE talking philosophically. OK. Offset all those costs against FREEDOM (used to take six months to come out here by Conestoga wagon on the Oregon Trail, HEALTH (how quick would you get to the hospital with your heart attack if the EMTs had to jog out to where you were, defib you, and litter you back to wherever they wished to take care of you?), NUTRITION (how many people in Seattle can be fed by food raised from within walking distance?), HOUSING (did someone build your house from logs hewn locally, or is it possible that the materials were trucked in?), and so forth.

Since we are talking philosophically here, I say it is not only a wash, but the quality of life (and CERTAINLY the duration of life) of the inhabitant of the Puget Sound basin has increased in DIRECT proportion to the paved roads. Don't see VERY many people touring the sound by canoe these days. A few, but damn few.

And BB- regarding the wrecks. Lifetime mortality has stayed just what it always was, 1.000 ('cept for Lazarus who presumably was 2.000, since we are being religious/philosophical). Aren't you the one that was always saying that EMT services weren't essential, people just wanted them? I guess these people just WANT to pay for scraping the occasional MVA victim up off the road.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

To Mark (and Marsha): That is why people voted for Sound Transit. When you start factoring in environmental concerns, suddenly rail looks pretty good. Because, for all intensive purposes, most incremental generation of electricty come from natural gas, which does not add as many particulates to the air in the Puget Sound (especially if the power plant is located hundreds of miles away) as would gasoline or diesel powered vehicles.

Likewise, Pierce Transit utilized natural gas powered buses, but I believe Sound Transit has failed to carry on the good works.

So, you can claim it is philosophical, but a lot of people vote on what they see and breathe in the air.

Now, this does not excuse Sound Transit from mismanagement. If they continue to bungle their opportunities, then the voters may choose to sympathize with you rather than the environment.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 19, 2000.

"To Mark (and Marsha): That is why people voted for Sound Transit. When you start factoring in environmental concerns, suddenly rail looks pretty good. Because, for all intensive purposes, most incremental generation of electricty come from natural gas, which does not add as many particulates to the air in the Puget Sound (especially if the power plant is located hundreds of miles away) as would gasoline or diesel powered vehicles. "

Do you perhaps mean for all intents and purposes? Or are you related to Yogi Berra (No, the baseball player, not the cartoon bear).

People started voting for Sound Transit in desperation, because the local government officials allowed growth without increasing road capacity to the point of desperation.

And particulates are down, WAY DOWN from the 70s. Once you pay off the energy costs of building light rail (which are huge), you will then only have to worry about the way you generate electricity. Contrary to what you say, the bulk of incremental increase in electrical generating capacity in the US today is COAL fired, see this cite from Pacific Corp in Centralia (http://www.pacificorp.com/news/newsrlse/r980722.html). As you can tell, there's no shortage of pollution associated with electricity generation. Actually, the anti-auto people are the victims of their own successes. Between the better fuel efficiency and the lower pollution per passenger mile required by federal regs, they have MORE THAN OFFSET the increased vehicle miles.

Some excerpts from this cite, in case your too lazy to look it up:

The 1340 megawatt Centralia plant is capable of supplying the electricity needs of a city the size of Seattle.

CENTRALIA, Wash. -- The Centralia Power Plant will seek a nine-month delay in meeting terms of a February 1998 clean-air order from the Vancouver, Wash.-based Southwest Air Pollution Control Authority (SWAPCA). A Seattle-area individual has appealed the order to the state of Washington Pollution Control Hearing Board (PCHB).

Without the stay of compliance, owners would risk spending large sums of money designing sulfur dioxide scrubber systems that may not meet final air-quality requirements after the appeal is settled.

Centralia, which meets all current air quality standards, was ordered by SWAPCA in 1995 to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 50 percent to meet new Clean Air Act requirements. Because of concern for visibility at Mt. Rainier National Park, the National Park Service asked the plant to reduce emissions beyond those ordered. A voluntary agreement to scrub to 90 percent was reached in December 1996 and it was turned into a regulatory order in February 1998. So get some FACTS and come on back.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.

To Mark: I suppose there might be unused capacity at existing coal plants, especially during off-peak hours. But, I'd be a little surprised to find out that utilities are investing in NEW coal plants. Although, with the strong economy, I suppose it makes sense that there is finally a case for investing in a large megawatt-producing station.

Coal plants can have excellent performance ratings, and depending on the quality of the coal burned, as well as the anti-pollution equipment, the dirtiness of the air will vary. But, natural gas will probably appeal to most voters with environmental concerns. Of course, like any fossil fuel, it will still contribute to the greenhouse effect (if there is such a thing).

But, even coal may be preferred over oil, if you take into account our military expenditures in defending the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf.

I am not against new road construction. I'm just skeptical that it will provide me any short-term relief. My experience has been that it takes a "long time" to complete, and while they're expanding the road system, the traffic congestion gets worse.

I guess if we could speed up the process of expanding our roadways, then I'd be more gung-ho. But, again, we have the DOT calling the shots, and they should be shut down. I think the counties would make better decisions as to new road construction.

Look at what's happening to the ferries. Because we don't have local ferry districts, the whole state is going to have to vote on raising the rates on the ferries. What a waste of people's time and money. All because of the arrogance of the DOT.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 20, 2000.

"But, I'd be a little surprised to find out that utilities are investing in NEW coal plants. " Well be prepared to be surprised, because the figures show a 20% increase in coal burned to generate electricity in the last 10 years.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/energy.overview/aer98/txt/aer0808.txt

"But, natural gas will probably appeal to most voters with environmental concerns. " Like they had a choice. It all goes into the same grid. The utilities will burn whatever is cheapest.

"But, even coal may be preferred over oil, if you take into account our military expenditures in defending the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf. " Do you mean Iraq (who wants to produce MORE oil) or Iran? In either case, the bulk of that oil goes to Europe and Japan.

"But, again, we have the DOT calling the shots, and they should be shut down. ...... All because of the arrogance of the DOT" Here, we agree!

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

to Mark: Well, at least we agree on something.

But, I think you're inaccurate about new coal power plants being built. It is conceivable that more coal is being burned, as large power plants, in the past, tended to have huge amounts of unused capacity during off-peak hours. And, a growing economy may imply more demand during the off-peak hours.

But, the hot topic in the electric industry is (or was) the independent power producing (IPP). And, I believe that almost all IPPs are building natural gas powered plants. The web site you referred me to does not appear to include IPPs in the numbers. So, see how you mislead people.

And, for you to say that the oil in the Middle East goes to Europe and Japan is also misleading. Since, if that supply suddenly disappeared, the Europeans and Japanese would be competing with us to buy oil from Mexico and Venezuela (presumably they're the ones who supply us with any of the oil we import).

The consumption of natural gas means investment and jobs in the USA, since drilling offshore in the Gulf of Mexico is economically feasible while being relatively benign, environmentally speaking. While, consumption of oil means jobs and investment in Venezuela, Mexico, etc.

In any case, I'll support a philosophy of building roads, if it means that I don't have to pay a toll on the new Narrows Bridge. But, if I have to pay a toll, then I support privatization of all new roads.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 20, 2000.

"But, I think you're inaccurate about new coal power plants being built. It is conceivable that more coal is being burned, as large power plants, in the past, tended to have huge amounts of unused capacity during off-peak hours. And, a growing economy may imply more demand during the off-peak hours. " Could be and from a brief search, probably is. But the effect is the same. More coal burned.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

to Mark: No, the effect is not the same. During periods of peak electricity demand, which is when electric-driven transit or natural gas powered buses would run, electric utilities are not necessarily consuming more coal. The plants may be consuming more coal during off-peak hours. Thus, my original premise of electric-driven transit being potentially more benign to the environment than oil-dependent cars is probably correct.

In other words, the amount of coal being burned may not increase significantly if we use electricity instead of gasoline (or diesel) to move people during periods of peak congestion. But, transit provides the opportunity to shift some of our dependency from oil to natural gas.

So, in conclusion, you were misleading people, and I was right all along.

If you're going to refer people to data on electricity, you should include the independent power producers. Too bad you don't know what you're talking about.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 20, 2000.

"In other words, the amount of coal being burned may not increase significantly if we use electricity instead of gasoline (or diesel) to move people during periods of peak congestion. But, transit provides the opportunity to shift some of our dependency from oil to natural gas.

So, in conclusion, you were misleading people, and I was right all along.

If you're going to refer people to data on electricity, you should include the independent power producers. Too bad you don't know what you're talking about. "

Every time that I think there's hope for you, you kick in with the arrogance and ignorance (I hope it's ignorance, that's curable. Stupidity is forever.).

I deomonstrated that as we have used more electricity, the coal burned for electricity has increased.... by 20% .... over the last ten years. With one exception (evidently a warm winter), it increased continually throughout that period. Since all electricity basically goes into the same net, one would assume that the producers that used coal, used it because it was, for them, the cheapest way to produce it available. If we use more electricity, it's going to have to come from somewhere. Some of it might well come from natural gas, or biomass, or geothermal, or solar, or wind power, or whatever. But even in Washington state where hydroelectric generation is abundant, where we have one of the lowest electric rates in the nation, and where we are a NET EXPORTER of electric power, we have a major facility in Chehalis burning coal. Now they may be doing that because they're STUPID and don't KNOW about natural gas, but I'd bet that (since they want to maximize their profit) they've done a trade- off analysis and are burning coal because it's the most cost- effective for them. So my guess is that using more electricity, anywhere in the system, is likely to result in more coal being burned. And if we start knocking down dams for almon recovery, we might be burning a LOT more coal in this state.

So stop being such an idiot and accusing people of misleading other people and not knowing what they are talking about, based upon your own rather uninformed guesses.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

Mark-

I think the appropriate tack to use with Mattinsky is the one Martha has used successfully in the past when dealing with people too ignorant and obnoxious to waste her time with. Just give him "Hints from Heloise" type postings. Watch:

Matt: You can get discoloration from the bottom of copper bottom pots by making a paste of salt mixed with vinegar. Just rub it on with a dishcloth, and in a few seconds.... shiny clean!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

to Mark: You have yet to prove your conjecture that coal plants are under-utilized during periods of peak demand. In fact, according to you, the coal plants are quite profitable, so it is not unreasonable or STUPID for someone like me to assume that coal plants are already maxed out during periods of peak demand. Hence, any additional demand for electricity during periods of peak demand will most likely come from NEW capacity.

You have yet to prove that any NEW capacity during periods of peak demand has come from coal burning plants. Now, to be fair, I haven't proved that it comes from the IPPs. But, since you referred me to a website which exlcudes IPPs, we can conclude you are either deliberately misleading people, or are ignorant, or both!

In the early 1990s, electric utilities foresaw a deregulated market coming, and they were relunctant to invest in masive amounts of new capacity. Hence, my assertion that any new capacity would be based on natural gas because of the emergence of IPPs. Now, I admit I may be inaccurate, because my perceptions are based on information I gleaned from magazine articles in the early to mid nineties. But, typically, I'm rather lucky, and I usually turn out to be right.

If we're not going to privatize the roadways, we ought not to privatize transit. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'm sorry you were burned on the issue of coal versus gas. It happens. Deal with it.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 20, 2000.

Mattinsky-

You can make a handy soap solution for your kids by using just a little bit of glycerin in your home-made solution of hand soap. Your kids can blow big soap bubbles, just like the storebought soap solutions, for a fraction of the cost.

(Thanks zowie)

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

"Now, to be fair, I haven't proved that it comes from the IPPs. But, since you referred me to a website which exlcudes IPPs, we can conclude you are either deliberately misleading people, or are ignorant, or both! "

For what it's worth, Mark, the EPA agrees with YOUR assessment. And worst case (note tables 6&7) a LOT of coal gets burned.

http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/capi/frcsttbl.html#goto2

EPA's forecasts are based on using the Integrated Planning Model (IPM) of ICF Resources Incorporated in conjunction with the best available information on macro-energy and economic assumptions, electric generating technologies, air emissions under current and federal state regulatory requirements, and pollution control technologies. A full explanation of IPM and EPA's assumptions is provided in Analyzing Electric Power Generation under the CAAA (April 1996).

"Now, I admit I may be inaccurate, because my perceptions are based on information I gleaned from magazine articles in the early to mid nineties. But, typically, I'm rather lucky, and I usually turn out to be right. "

There is a name for this. It's called colossal arrogance. Something perhaps YOU should deal with.

It's too easy to get the facts, Matt. Nobody should be called a liar based upon your guess.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 20, 2000.

From the Anacortes Fishwrapper:http://www.goanacortes.com/html/news_4.html

Notice that no real attempt was made to bring in revenue from users of transit (might discourage them) and even post 695 they are suggesting fares only as a public relations gimmick.

The cuts are being made in anticipation of lost revenue caused by the passage of Initiative 695, which cut vehicle license tabs to a flat $30, eliminating millions of dollars in revenue for locally run bus systems and the state ferry system. The Legislature currently is meeting in Olympia and could approve some relief for transportation programs, but Lair said SKAT must plan as if no additional revenue will be available from the state.

The transit agency will have to consider other revenue sources, Lair said. It's possible the agency may turn to local voters to approve an increase to the sales tax. And Lair, who has argued against fare boxes in the past, now says they may be a political necessity.

Lair has said in the past that adding fare boxes to buses would generate little additional revenue because of the cost of installing the boxes and the additional administrative costs. But if the agency hopes to pass a tax increase later this year or next, it may be necessary to install the boxes to win over reluctant voters.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 27, 2000.

To Mark and Craig: You're both a couple of bozos. Although, thanks to Craig, I am proven to be correct (as I predicted). The website Craig so generously provided shows that virtually all new capaicty (through 2010) is expected to come from "combined cycle" plants, which is what the IPPs are building.

Unfortunately, Craig indicated on a different thread that the consumption of natural gas leads to locally increased concentrations of ozone. But, still, I can't stand diesel-powered vehicles, and I thought I preferred electric rail, instead. But, it doesn't sound like there is a strong economic case for rail, anyway.

I'm just thrilled I was proven right, for once. I was beginning to wonder if maybe I am arrogant. Now, I can go back to believing I'm incredibly lucky. Yahoo!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 28, 2000.

"Although, thanks to Craig, I am proven to be correct (as I predicted). The website Craig so generously provided shows that virtually all new capaicty (through 2010) is expected to come from "combined cycle" plants, which is what the IPPs are building. " It also shows that there will be SUBSTANTIAL increase in the burning of coal, and it all goes into the same net. But I'm glad you are starting to READ VALID DATA and educate yourself. Now all we have to do is get you over your tendency to pick out only those facts that support your argument and ignore the others. But at least we've made a start.

Someone who believes that public policy should be based upon his "lucky guesses" is as dangerous to the republic as someone who believes he can play Russian roulette with impunity is dangerous to themselves.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 28, 2000.

to Craig: No, the website DOES NOT show any increase in capacity due to coal through 2010. In fact, it shows a decline. Virtually ALL new capacity will come from natural gas. It does show a MODEST increase in consumption through 2010. Whereas the consumption of natural gas nearly triples!!!

Thanks for helping (even if it was inadvertent) to clear my "good" name.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 28, 2000.

Matt-

PRELIMINARY NATIONAL BASE CASE FORECAST OF POWER GENERATION BY FUEL TYPE (GWHs):

FOR COAL: 1995 1,647,867 2000 1,894,504 2005 2,026,685 2010 1,964,640

Add graphs and charts to the things you are incapable of reading (along with dictionaries). How very embarrassing for someone who maxed his SATS, was offered scholarships to everywhere up to an including Starfleet Academy, and has two degrees from Stanford ;-)

If your eyes arent brown, its only because youre a quart low today.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 28, 2000.

to Mark: From 2005-2010 your own posting shows a decline in the capacity of coal plants.

The fact remains is that I was correct, all along, when I implied that the bulk of new PEAK-TIME generation would come from natural gas.

Is it so hard to say, "OK, Matt, you were basically correct."????

I'll admit I was too aggressive in fighting back early on. But, at least you can now see where I was coming from. You didn't have all the facts.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 28, 2000.

"From 2005-2010 your own posting shows a decline in the capacity of coal plants. " Which is STILL above current coal useage.

Now this wouold seem to contradict your posting,"to Craig: No, the website DOES NOT show any increase in capacity due to coal through 2010"

It would seem that the website IN FACT shows an increase in capacity due to coal in EVERY SINGLE FIVE YEAR PERIOD compared to today, and an increase for today from 1995.

"Is it so hard to say, "OK, Matt, you were basically correct."???? " Wouldn't be hard AT ALL if you ever were. Are you SO EGO DRIVEN that you can't even admit to yourself that the numbers; 2,026,685 and 1,964,640 are larger than 1,894,504?

I give up. You're either too stupid or too arrogant to engage in meaningful dialogue with.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 28, 2000.

to Mark: I'm sorry. I think we're just miscommunicating, and I apologize for my inefficiency, in that regard. The link Craig (so generous of him to help me out) provided has several charts.

You must be referring to the CONSUMPTION chart(s). Whereas, I keep referring to the CAPACITY chart(s). If you look at the capacity chart(s), you will see tha the combined cycle plants are the only category showing any significant projected growth from 2000 - 2010.

So, we are both right. If that mollifies you any.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 28, 2000.