Patrick, D and all you other anti car people.. a place for you

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

Going Without Wheels

Starting next month, key Italian cities will be car-free on Sundays. In all, 14 cities -- including Rome and Florence -- will ban cars in downtown centers on Sundays. The aim is to reduce the worsening smog that health officials say kills thousands of Italians each year. In Rome, according to the daily La Repubblica newspaper, an army of volunteer traffic guards will seal off city centers -- urging people to walk, bike or take public transportation. Environmental groups are praising the initiative -- especially considering Italy's noted love affair with cars. The country has one of the highest car ownership rates in the world, with 32 million cars for 57.5 million inhabitants. If you move there maybe you can boost this to the entire country!!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000

Answers

How did I become "anti car"? I own a car, van, truck, and 2 trailers. I have not written anything against the transit initiative, other than to question that as a method to bring about a rational change that considers minority views.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), January 17, 2000.

I never considered you anti-car, d. I rather thought you probably had an antique fire truck of your very own that you drove in parades. I'd probably have one too, if I had a garage to keep it in.

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

Actually, I'm not anti-car either. I've commuted ONCE in my life via the bus, and actually rack up quite a bit of mileage on my car every year. I think depending on one mode of transportation, whether it is single occupancy vehicles or mass transit, is both short sighted and counter-productive in the goal of reducing congestion. A) you're never going to make mass transit attractive enough to get even a majority of the people out of their cars, and B) it is both physically and economically impossible to build enough roads to fully meet our needs.

My main concern about the transportation initiative, as I've repeated multiple times, is that at the very core it's an attempt to overturn a local election. Eyman was on the losing side of the RTA initiative, so he wants to stack the deck in order for him to get on the winning side of the issue.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 17, 2000.


"A) you're never going to make mass transit attractive enough to get even a majority of the people out of their cars, and B) it is both physically and economically impossible to build enough roads to fully meet our needs. "

Hey Patrick

Your batting .500. Not bad for you. What physical laws have changed from the 60s, when we very much DID build our way out of congestion?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.


Well hopefully common sense has used transit extensively. I used transit for 3 years in Washington DC, prior to the METRO. Anytime the weather was too bad to motorcycle. (I could park a motorcycle for $20 a semester, cars were about $5 a DAY, way too much for a struggling grad student, even if the wife didn't need the car to get to her job).

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


"What physical laws have changed from the 60s, when we very much DID build our way out of congestion?"

Well I think first of all the question has to be WHAT congestion? The state's population has doubled since 1960. The population of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties is roughly equal to the state population in 1960. So the congestion didn't exist in the 1950's-60's TO solve.

Then again, the interstate highway construction that took place in the 1960's and 70's was pretty much a massive federal subsidy in the name of national security (uh-huh). Think we'll be seeing that kind of funding ever again?

You might want to stick with the really poor insults zowie. Sadly enough, you seem to be better at them than your attempts at rebuttles.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 17, 2000.


I remember going from Lincoln California to Everett on old 99. Don't believe there wasn't congestion then. There was plenty of congestion. But we built our way out of it. Federal money? Who the heck you think pays taxes to the federal government? We do. Utah builds more roads than we do. More population? More political clout? I don't think so. More cojones maybe. Or maybe just a transportation department that isn't totally inept.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 17, 2000.

I concur with Patrick's postings on this thread.

I never once said I was anti-car, either. Rather, I am PRO-TRANSIT! There's a difference.

BTW, I cannot use transit ALL the time, nor would I want to. There are certain occaisions when only a car will do. Such as visiting the in-laws out of town. Or making an in-person visit to one of my out-of-town clients. Stuff like that.

But do I rely on a CAR for EVERYTHING, FOR MY VERY LIVELIHOOD? No!

I can walk to work (or cycle, or take a bus if the weather's bad). I can walk to the grocery, and my kids walk to school, and I can walk to several restaurants, not to mention walk to all of my best neighbor's houses, I can walk to the shoreline, I can walk to two parks, and most all of life's other "daily" necessities are either a short walk away or a brief 10-min. bus ride across town.

What if we ALL lived like I do? What if only SOME of you lived in a neighborhood like I do? Ever think about that? How much less driving you'd have to do? How much money you'd save on auto bills? How much of a BETTER quality life you'd have actually LIVING instead of seeing life go by from a car window? How much better your neighborhood would be? How much of a NON-ISSUE traffic congestion would be, if we could all live like me?

Here's news for you: YOU CAN! And many ARE living like me! And this lifesyle choice is GROWING!

And that's really the point, isn't it? We all need to have choices. So if you choose not to fund transit because you never use it, than fine. But ask yourself: do you not use it because it's inconvienient, or is it inconvienient because you don't use it?

And is it fair to cut off funding for transit because you personally don't use it? Okay, fine. Than I wish to cut off funding for highways because I personally don't use IT!

Perhaps I should start my own intiative for the voters. If we cut off funding for transit, than we should cut off funding for roadways, too! Why prefer one over the other? Where's the fairness in that?

But I digress.

Bottom line: I "ditto" all of Patrick's postings, especially when it comes to my opposition to I-695, and all of Eyman's subsequent near-sighted initiatives.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.


No common sense,

If enough people used Transit, (for the sake of argument, say 15%) then I would have no problem with a reasonable amount of subsidy, at a level of 60% or so. Even IF I gained no personal benefit.

But it isn't working. And for you to propose that it does, and that we should keep throwing money at it shows a real lack of........I think you know what I mean.

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


"Perhaps I should start my own intiative for the voters. If we cut off funding for transit, than we should cut off funding for roadways, too! Why prefer one over the other? Where's the fairness in that? " Why prefer one over the other? In Washington, farebox revenue covers 17% of the operating costs of transit, and none of the capital costs. It runs on roadways paid for by gas taxes that are overwhelmingly paid for by non users. It gets the lions share of capital improvement funds in King County, and a disproporionate share from the state. And it provides 2% of the passenger miles.

So basically, it's getting FAR MORE than it's fair share of revenue that is disproportionately paid by non-users to contribute a TRIVIAL amount to the transportation requirements of the state.

Gee, why should we prefer one over the other? I would think it would be fairly obvious to anyone who looksed at value received for resources paid.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 18, 2000.



Marsha if enough people used transit there would be no need for a subsidy... It would be a functional proposition.

Common, If all government operations were done by telecommuting instead of in buildings....

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


"What physical laws have changed from the 60s, when we very much DID build our way out of congestion?"

Did we, Zowie?

Please show me the city planning evidence where "building our way out of congestion" has ever worked...WITHOUT THE INCLUSION OF PUBLIC TRANSIT in some form. We're talkin pure road-layin' here baby, nothing else.

-- George MacVane (macV@hotmail.com), January 18, 2000.


George- we did it in Seattle in the 60s. We didn't increase transit, hell, transit continued to decline. But we built our way out of congestion.

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

Did we really build our way out of congestion in the '60s, or was it just that there wasn't any congestion to begin with?

We all know that our state's population (esp. in the Seattle metro area) has EXPLODED since 1970. Before then, we were just an obscure state with low population of flannel-wearing coffee drinkers (unless you worked for Boeing, in which case you wore a tie). We didn't know the MEANING of congestion.

But since 1970, our population has boomed (again, esp. in the Seattle metro area), and we have truely found the MEANING of congestion.

And we can't build out of it like we used to, . . .if we ever did at all.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 19, 2000.


"Did we really build our way out of congestion in the '60s, or was it just that there wasn't any congestion to begin with? We all know that our state's population (esp. in the Seattle metro area) has EXPLODED since 1970. Before then, we were just an obscure state with low population of flannel-wearing coffee drinkers (unless you worked for Boeing, in which case you wore a tie). We didn't know the MEANING of congestion. " If you ever drove from Federal Way to Edmonds in the pre I-5 days on old 99, you knew the meaning of congestion. If you remember dancing at the Spanish Castle, you knew the meaning of congestion. If you drove here when Military Road was a MAJOR highway in the region, you knew the meaning of congestion.

"And we can't build out of it like we used to, . . .if we ever did at all. " This, I would assume, is revisionist history? Yesler just didn't NOTICE I-5, when he was building his mill?

You ain't been around much, have you laddie?

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



Moderation questions? read the FAQ