Zowie writes:

>>Giving the people what they want, increased mobility through the use of autos, should not be held hostage to first buying off the passenger rail, light rail, and transit special interest groups.<<

And of course R-49 had none of the above. But you did away with the $ for it anyway.

So basically because you're angry about transit subsidies, you stop road construction dead at the same time. Less transit combined with little to no new road construction, what a brilliant way to solve congestion problems.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), June 26, 2000.

"And of course R-49 had none of the above. But you did away with the $ for it anyway."

Actually, no. The Legislature did away with the MVET by passing a bill, which the governor then signed. I-695, if you recall, was tossed out by the court.

"So basically because you're angry about transit subsidies, you stop road construction dead at the same time. Less transit combined with little to no new road construction, what a brilliant way to solve congestion problems."

Well BB, let me tell you. After 40+ years of working with the liberals who hold the poor and physically handicapped as hostages for transit while subsidizing their own "transportation choices", while taking money away from roads to try their social engineering schemes on transit, rail, and ferries, I have reluctantly decided THAT A SCORCHED EARTH POLICY ISN'T THAT UNREASONABLE and that I should vote down every single transportation package that contains one lousy dime for transit or HOV lanes and that I should put a fair amount of organizing effort into seeing that others do the same.

When the DOT and the politicians stop being arrogant idiots, I may reconsider that policy, but I'm certailny not going to hold my breath waiting.

In the meantime, I'll just continue to avoid the eastside of the sound up here in Pt. Townsend. And if the Hood Canal bridge sinks, gee I guess I've got 101. And if that goes down, I can take a boat to Victoria or Vancouver once a month for groceries.

Maybe when the congestion gets sufficiently bad, all the newcomers will move back to California.

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), June 26, 2000.

>>Giving the people what they want, increased mobility through the use of autos, should not be held hostage to first buying off the passenger rail, light rail, and transit special interest groups.<<

What criteria is being used to make the assumption 'what people want' ?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), June 26, 2000.

While I don't necessarily think a "scorched earth" policy is the way to go, there is little doubt that the majority of the people (auto users) are getting frustrated at a WA DOT that appears clearly hostile to their priorities. It is not so much that I would object to ferries, transit, and rail, getting their pro-rata share of funding, but they clearly exceed this now.

Decisions like building a $800 million (and rising) Narrows bridge that will add a net of one HOV lane each way (to support an area where the demographics against transit and HOV use couldn't be much worse, to be paid for by the auto users, further strengthen the majority conviction that DOT dislikes people using autos. If you look at their website, you're certain of it.

Re: "What criteria is being used to make the assumption 'what people want' ? "

Gee, I guess you'd have to say the NPTS every five years since they started doing them ought to give you some clue.
I guess the fact that the overwhelming number of people who traditionally have voted for transit have not in fact used it themselves, and frankly admit when surveyed that they voted for it in hopes that it'd get other people off the road so they could drive easier.
Criteria like that, I guess.


-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), June 26, 2000.

I merely question the idea that a blanket assumption that anyone can determine 'what people want'. We can only relate based on our personal experiences. Developers will build where it's easiest and cheapest to build. If access to that site is essentially FREE for those users, regardless of distance, then that's what the public will choose. Along with that, the way things are set up now, those who live 'downstream' on my now congested route, who pay both real estate and fuel taxes (where 80% of their trips are NOT commute related), accommodate me by widening the roads in their neighborhood.

When my trip is being SUBSIDIZED like that, I suppose that's what I want. I stand corrected.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), June 27, 2000.

Jim asks, "Does I-745 assign any money to specific road projects, or does it merely attempt to gut transit?"

All the info I've found about this initiative so far indicates that its main purpose is, in fact, to gut transit. "Traffic Improvement" appears to be just a ruse to divert attention from the main purpose. It is backed by several special interest groups whose businesses stand to profit greatly from having more cars on the road. Transit takes away their markets, and they are trying to eliminate transit from the areas where it is most heavily used, by means of whatever diversionary and deceptive tactics will work on the majority of the state. Eyman, with his slick used-car-salesman promises of "Better Roads", seems to have mesmerized some fraction of the population into believing that I-745 will improve traffic, while in fact I-745 has as little to do with "Traffic Improvement" as I-695 had to do with "tax relief for the little guy".

That's quite different from the motivations of "the anti-transit crowd" on this forum, as far as I can tell. I think I have a pretty good idea what their objections to transit are by now. They are not opposed to transit per se; they are opposed to SUBSIDIES for transit. It's fine by them to subsidize the transportation needs of people such as the elderly or physically disabled, who through no fault of their own are unable to drive; but other than that, why should some people should be forced to pay for other able-bodied people's transportation? Car owners pay their own way through gas taxes (they think), so why can't others pay their own way? The fact that transit subsidies come through compulsory contributions, not voluntary ones, makes them all the more angry when the money is not spent cost-effectively.

IMHO these questions are all perfectly legitimate, reasonable ones, and ones that deserve well-reasoned answers. One is justified in questioning things that one pays for. Unfortunately, many transit advocates, instead of answering the questions, change the subject to "guilt" issues about harm to the elderly, the poor, the disabled, the environment, etc., which really don't address the concerns. They come across as lame copouts, or as using the needy as "hostages" to extort money from others for their own transportation freebies, and only make Eyman's snake oil more alluring.

Even Craig, who is the most vocal critic of transit on this forum, does not blindly chant, "Screw transit! Build roads!" He himself states that transit has a "niche" where it is both desirable and cost- effective. He objects to it being pushed OUTSIDE what he perceives that niche to be, and wants it cut from the places where it is LEAST used. Based on the other discussions we've been having, I believe he is genuinely concerned with doing what's right for the community, and if somebody can address his concerns, and show him why transit is the right thing to support, he will support it. It hasn't happened so far.

I think you (Jim) are on the way to a more rational argument, with your points about subsidies for road users.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 01, 2000.

"All the info I've found about this initiative so far indicates that its main purpose is, in fact, to gut transit."

I would STILL recommend you read the book, Straight and Crooked Thinking, Anirudh.

It discusses how non-helpful emotionally charged expressions (gut transit) are in discussions such as this.

The reality, as I see it, is that for the sake of equity, transit should not be funded from general funds at any rate higher than the passenger miles it generates.

Users may certainly fund it at any level they wish, and they have a great mechanism to do this, fares.

But currently, users fund through fares less than 20% of transit operating costs in this state, and none of the capital costs (at least not in the larger systems).
I don't think a requirement that transit not be publicly funded at more than 10% of transportation revenues is unreasonable, given that it accounts for less than 5% of the passenger miles travelled.

The only ones that I believe ought to be exempted from the requirement to pay a substantial portion of their true costs is the transit dependent, a relatively small (and shrinking) subset of the transit users.

Otherwise their is no discipline of the marketplace and transit must inevitably expand beyond its niche of cost-effectiveness.

If the government subsidized 80% of the operating costs of automobiles, they'd be used well outside of their niche too.

And if the government subsidized auto users with a tax that was disproportionately levied against non-auto users, there'd be rioting in the streets.

While perhaps a little ham-handed (as was I-695), I-745 attempts to do address concerns that the politicians had more than ample time to address. In that respect, it is very much like 695.

My guess is legions of politicians knew they couldn't keep feeding transit at the expense of the auto users, but hoped they could keep it going a few years longer (like they tried with 695) so they didn't have to address the problems on their watch.

Similarly, most transit advocates and urban planners could tell you that more transit wasn't going to solve the congestion problem. But congestion was a handy tool to use to expand the transit system by claiming that transit could solve the problem easier and cheaper. It hasn't, and (like the politicians with 695) it has convinced a certain amount of people that the politicians and transit advocates at a minimum don't have the answers and conceivably have been lying to the public.

I have serious doubts that 745 will pass ............this time.

But I think it (or something like it) will ultimately pass, because those who benefitted from congestion have ridden that horse too long.

Even with a massive catch-up program in mitigating congestion, things will (barring a local recession and everyone going back to California) get worse for the next 10 years.

Rage will grow with each passing year, both road rage and rage at the politicians who let it get this way.

Betcha a case of Diet Pepsi that 745 or something like it passes in the next 4 years, unless the politicians see the proverbial writing on the wall and take care of it legislatively like they did with the MVET this year.

Politicians are not necessarily the best or the brightest, but they can recognize a sinking ship, as well as any rat.

If 745 even gets on the ballot, the transit crowd loses political clout. If it gets 45% of the vote, few politicians will fear the transit crowd any longer. If it wins, the politicians will get in line just like they did on 695, no matter what the courts say.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 01, 2000.

to Craig: You write: "I don't think a requirement that transit not be publicly funded at more than 10% of transportation revenues is unreasonable..."

Please define what you mean by "transportation revenues". Transit agencies are funded by sales taxes. Are sales taxes transaportation revenues?

I recently read in the newspaper, President Clinton said he would not object to Congress eliminating the gasoline excise tax. Sounds like the world is finally seeing things my way.

What is your argument going to be when there is no gasoline tax? 90% of zero is zero.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 03, 2000.

"to Craig: You write: "I don't think a requirement that transit not be publicly funded at more than 10% of transportation revenues is unreasonable..." "
"Please define what you mean by "transportation revenues". "

Matt, it's this way. You have $10 you are going to spend on transportation (that's called transportation revenues) the maximum you can spend of that is $1 (that's called 10%).

Any other questions?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 03, 2000.

"I would STILL recommend you read the book, Straight and Crooked Thinking, Anirudh."

I did look up the book when you first recommended it (thank you for the recommendation) and have a search order pending on it (it's out of print). Incidentally, it looks like it would be a very good book for people who buy into Eyman's propaganda to read (and I know you're not one of them).

I see nothing wrong with using emotionally charged words *after* first presenting concrete data to back them up. (I notice you use a lot of them yourself, at times.) I haven't presented data to back up Jim Cusick's and my use of the word "gut" above, but once you see the details of what I-745 is trying to do to transit, I think you'll agree that "gut" is a very appropriate word.

"If the government subsidized 80% of the operating costs of automobiles, they'd be used well outside of their niche too."

I'm curious to see your response to Jim's points of June 27. In all of the transit-vs.-roads discussions, you have consistently ignored the cost of the SPACE that a car takes up. In a rural area, it is valid to neglect the space, but in a congested area, the space occupied by a vehicle is by far its biggest cost.

-- Anirudh Sahni (anirudhsahni@hotmail.com), July 04, 2000.

to Craig: You rhetorically ask: "Any other questions?"

Yes, you still have not identified the source of "transportation revenues". Once again, you are at a loss for words.

Pretty soon, at the rate things are going, there will be no gasoline tax. Apparently, I'm a visionary.

What logic will you employ when there's no gasoline tax?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

"Pretty soon, at the rate things are going, there will be no gasoline tax. Apparently, I'm a visionary"

No, hallucinating perhaps, but not a visionary.

zowie

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

"In all of the transit-vs.-roads discussions, you have consistently ignored the cost of the SPACE that a car takes up. In a rural area, it is valid to neglect the space, but in a congested area, the space occupied by a vehicle is by far its biggest cost. "

I never said that operation of an automobile was cheap, but the issue is "who pays?"

The COST of that space is being borne almost entirely by users of thee automobile while the cost of transit is being borne ......almost entirely by users of the automobile.

That's some degree of hyperbole, but not much. the 5% who routinely use transit pay 20% of their own operating costs (in King County) which constitute perhaps 13% of their total costs while using the roads that are largely paid for with gas taxes.

In the mean time, they are using up just as much fossil fuel (in King County anyway) and contributing just as much to CO₂ emissions as anyone else.

If you are making the case that transit users are spending less for their transportation, that's not even generally valid on a per mile basis. They are merely spending less of their own money.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 05, 2000.

to zowie: You write: "No, hallucinating perhaps, but not a visionary."

Perhaps the United States Senate is hallucinating, too. As they have recently voted to eliminate the eighteen-cents of federal excise tax on gasoline.

Eliminating the gasoline tax is something I've been advocating for the past couple of months. Apparently, when I speak, the U.S. Senate listens.

Too bad they don't listen to you, zowie.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

"Apparently, when I speak, the U.S. Senate listens. " This is called delusions of grandeur.

Goes with the narcissistic personality disorder.

Actually, Matt doesn't need to have delusions of grandeur, he can probably get by quite nicely with his delusions of adequacy.

zowie

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

to zowie: You write: "This is called delusions of grandeur."

Actually, I was being silly. As I know, like you, that the U.S. Senate doesn't even know I exist.

But, I am amazed that my points of view, which I post on these threads, somehow become real, important, and tangible.

I'm sure it's a bizarre coincidence, but....

Pretty soon, you and Craig won't have a leg left to stand on. You've painted yourselves in a corner by claiming that transit doesn't pay for itself, whereas people who drive their own cars do. As each penny is chipped off of the gas tax, your arguments grow weaker and weaker.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 05, 2000.

"As each penny is chipped off of the gas tax, your arguments grow weaker and weaker." And excepting time limited roll backs of STATE gas taxes in Illinois and Indiana, where has this happened?



-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), July 06, 2000.

to Craig: You ask: "...excepting time limited roll backs of STATE gas taxes in Illinois and Indiana, where has this happened?"

Well, for now, you are correct. I remain hopeful (although, not overly optimistic) that the Republicans in the House of Representative will deliver on their rhetoric. If I read the newspapers correctly, the Senate has already passed legislation eliminating a gas tax of 18 cents. The President has already said he won't object if Congress eliminates the gas tax.

I feel like I'm living in a dream. Who would've thunk it? My recommendations are being enacted by the U.S. Senate. It's hard to believe.

If the Republicans do eliminate the 18-cent tax, my estimation of them will rise significantly. It seems they only advocate tax cuts which disproportionately benefit the very wealthy. This will be a major event, whereby the Republicans actually do something that benefits the little guy more significantly than millionaires. That's why I'm not overly optimistic. Republicans rarely help the little guy without helping the millionaires, even more.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 07, 2000.

Observations on psychopathology:

"Well, for now, you are correct." the narcissistic individual has difficulty even acknowledging facts that differ with their opinions, hence the "for now." And they really don't believe they are mistaken (wouldn't want to accuse anyone of lying), merely that reality has not yet caught up with their opinion.

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

to zowie: I said, "for now", because the issue is being considered by the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.

You might want to read ALL of my postings, once in a while, before criticizing them.

Again, I'm not optimistic the Republicans wil do the right thing. So, you and Craig will be able to continue hiding behind the gas tax as proof that people who don't rideshare subsidize those who do.

Kind of funny, though, isn't it? The House Republicans have a chance to lower taxes, and they're dragging their feet.

Maybe it makes them sick to their stomachs to have me be right! And, yes, I am fully aware, they don't even know I exist.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), July 07, 2000.

"You might want to read ALL of my postings, once in a while, "

Not bloody likely, mate!

One can overdose on stupidity, and your writings certainly have more than their fair share of it.

-- Mikey (alworth_m@olympusnet.com), July 07, 2000.