This article appeared in the Eastside Journal: http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/37076

I-405 wish list tops $11.8 billion 2000-12-19 by Jeff Switzer Journal Reporter

Adding six new lanes to ease congestion on Interstate 405 would cost $11.8 billion, according to new cost estimates from the state.

State planners warn that the estimate is very early, and reflects only 1 percent of the design work on 267 possible projects for the freeway corridor between Lynnwood and Tukwila. Costs would be more accurate if 15 percent to 20 percent of the design work was done.

But the early figure is needed now so state legislators in January can start considering how much they want to spend on the 30-mile-long freeway, considered one of the most congested in the state.

``If there's any interest in beginning work on these projects, they're going to need a number to put in the budget,'' said Mike Cummings, project manager on the I-405 Corridor Program.

``But whenever you trot numbers out this early in the process, you get held to them and it makes people nervous.''

Next month, local officials likely will choose a smaller combination of projects, one expected to cost roughly $7 billion and including at least one new freeway lane in each direction.

Environmental study and technical scrutiny have been ongoing since May.

Some say the cost estimates are on the high side. Cummings said they are putting in a cost cushion because costs are always higher than estimated by the time projects are built.

The pitfalls of low cost estimates were apparent last week: Sound Transit's Seattle light-rail project jumped $1 billion -- to $3.6 billion -- after the 21-mile light-rail project was re-examined.

Four alternatives for I-405 are under consideration, and once chosen, further design work would follow.

Building more roads -- one freeway lane in each direction and four express lanes -- is the most costly and most effective at solving congestion, said Ron Anderson, a consultant working on the I-405 Corridor Program.

But more roads bring the most worry to neighborhoods and the environment, he added.

The cheapest package, at $5.5 billion, would build high-capacity transit -- anything from rail to fast buses -- but no new freeway lanes would be built.

An $8.7 billion package would build one new lane in each direction, build a high-capacity transit project and expand bus service.

Even if the state chooses to do nothing new, the state's current carpool lane and maintenance plans would cost $676 million.

Jeff Switzer can be reached at jeff.switzer@eastsidejournal.com or 425-453-4234.

PUBLIC WORKS HIGHWAYS WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION TRAFFIC

Who should pay? Should it be put up for a vote? What if there are cost overruns?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 20, 2000

Answers

Maybe there will not be a need for it. We are going into a recession or a depression. All those Californians will probably go home and ease congestion.

-- Rolex Hoffmann (rolex@innw.net), December 21, 2000.

Using the Eyman method where everything is voted upon by the people who pay for it, here is what needs to occur:

1. A funding plan would need to be developed for each package. That funding plan would determine who votes on the package. Note: if a package has more than one funding plan, then they need to be proposed as separate packages.

2. Each package is put up for a vote by the people who would pay for it. If only county money is involved, then only the county would need to vote on it. If state money is also involved, then it would also have to be voted on in a state election. Federal funds would require a different step.

3. If federal funds are required, then the project is placed on hold until those federal funds have been approved by the US Government. (We shouldn't expect a nation-wide vote on a local transportation project).

While this might be the best process for gaining voter approval for a project, if sure looks like a lot of wasted time.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 21, 2000.

to Jim: You ask: "Who should pay? Should it be put up for a vote? What if there are cost overruns?"

The interstate system is the primary responsibility of the U.S. government. George Bush ran on a campaign platform of tax cuts. He said nothing about investing in our transportation infrastructure.

The state of Washington should focus on state highways. The most obviously cost-effetcive project would be to build a new bridge across Lake Washington. The new bridge would only be used by those vehicles paying a toll. Thus, the project would pay for itself. Hence, no vote is needed from the taxpayer. Furthermore, no money need be borrowed on the open market, since the state has TENS OF BILLIONS of excess funds in a variety of accounts, including employee pension accounts and the Workers' Compensation Fund.

After building a new bridge across Lake Washington, the most cost- effective solution is to "privatize" the HOV system, requiring ALL vehicles (buses and vanpools included) to pay a fee to use the HOV system. The money collected could be used to pay for expansion of the system.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 22, 2000.

Wow, at roughly 30 miles, that means we're talking almost $400 million per mile! And people were complaining about the light rail line costing about $100 million a mile.

By the way Matthew, a third bridge across Lake Washington wouldn't have that big of an impact on 405. You're probably thinking about 520, which is also going to have a giganto price tag to address.

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), December 22, 2000.

>>After building a new bridge across Lake Washington, the most cost- effective solution is to "privatize" the HOV system, requiring ALL vehicles (buses and vanpools included) to pay a fee to use the HOV system. The money collected could be used to pay for expansion of the system.<<

Since you constantly advocate this as a solution, a few questions for you.

1. Has this been done before?

2. If it has been done before, has it worked?

3. If it has been done before, how much $ is charged?

4. If it has been done before, has there been enough money left over to fund additional roads?

5. If no to all of the above, what makes you think that it would work here?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), December 22, 2000.

There is a previous article that gives a little more insight to why some of the alignments were chosen.

http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/35950

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 22, 2000.

Matt, Your idea: "After building a new bridge across Lake Washington, the most cost- effective solution is to "privatize" the HOV system, requiring ALL vehicles (buses and vanpools included) to pay a fee to use the HOV system. The money collected could be used to pay for expansion of the system. " sounds interesting.

Since the advantage of HOV lanes is a higher speed during the Peak Hours, which would be the most congested, then Buses and HOVers could leave those lanes and travel in the general purpose lanes in the off hours, saving money. You also makes a good argument for HOT lanes. The only costly part would be when commute buses would have to deadhead back to pick up another load. Of course, if the commute route has directional congestion, that might not be a big issue. However, what if not enough people use these lanes to pay them off? Tear them up, and sell them for scrap?

Hey, maybe GW is going to eliminate the gas tax!! I'm with you on that one, Matt.

Put it all up for a vote.

Choose a transportation plan, then choose funding source for plan.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 22, 2000.

to BB: You write: "Since you constantly advocate this as a solution, a few questions for you."

"1. Has this been done before?"

The concept of HOT lanes has been discussed all over the country. My concept offers no special treatment for buses or vanpools, since these already receive generous subsidies. HOT lanes are in place in the Washington D.C. area.

"2. If it has been done before, has it worked?"

Apparently, it is working just fine in the Washington, D.C. area. Of course, admittedly, the D.C. area has a very intensive light rail network.

"3. If it has been done before, how much $ is charged?"

I don't know. My concept is to charge a flat annual fee, based on the vehicle's weight, mileage, and fuel type.

"4. If it has been done before, has there been enough money left over to fund additional roads?"

I don't know, and the question is irrelevant. The point isn't to fund additional roads. The point is to give people a choice: sit in traffic or; pay an annual fee to move at a faster rate.

"5. If no to all of the above, what makes you think that it would work here?"

I don't know if it would work here. But, if we never try, then we'll never know. The point is that the idea towers above all other in terms of cost benefit analysis. If you can present an alternative idea that generates more revenue for society, then, fine, let's hear it. Privatizing the HOV system requires very little investment, and generates a revenue stream for expanding the system. Please offer a superior alternative.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 2000.

to Jim: You ask: "However, what if not enough people use these lanes to pay them off? Tear them up, and sell them for scrap?"

I don't know what you're talking about. The HOV lanes already exist. What economic purpose would be served by tearing them up. You would not expand the system, unless the funds generated were sufficient.

You write: "Hey, maybe GW is going to eliminate the gas tax!! I'm with you on that one, Matt."

Unfortunately, GW has no plans to eliminate the gas tax.

You also write: "Put it all up for a vote."

No objection, here.

You write: "Choose a transportation plan, then choose funding source for plan."

I disagree. My idea combines a transportation plan with a funding source. If you separate the topics, then you may never arrive at the idea of privatizing the HOV system.

The best approach is to require the government to perform cost benefit analysis on ALL proposals. Once this requirement is in place, the only viable alternative is to privatize the HOV system.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 2000.

"I don't know what you're talking about. The HOV lanes already exist. What economic purpose would be served by tearing them up. You would not expand the system, unless the funds generated were sufficient. "

Matt, I suppose I was relating to how the railroads originally built their systems in the last century. Usually, investors put up the money, and if the railroad or the segment failed, the line was abandoned and the rail and any other recyclables were sent to a scrapper to pay back the investors. I attempted to compare the new 'investment' of HOV lanes in the same way. Why should I be taxed extra for something now, to pay for something in the future, unless I CHOSE to. There were 2 ideas I was trying get across.

1) If you build a toll road parallel to another non-fee road, and you never get enough people to use the one with the fee, how do you pay back the 'investors' ? (Bridges, too) 2) If you want to have people pay for current HOV, then they should have to pay for current General Purpose, to be fair.

Jim

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 23, 2000.

to Jim; You ask: "1) If you build a toll road parallel to another non- fee road, and you never get enough people to use the one with the fee, how do you pay back the 'investors' ? (Bridges, too)"

The "investors" could do whatever they want to do, I suppose. But, in reality, the investors are the taxpayers. So, if the toll road doesn't cut it, then society would probably opt for a fall-back plan, whereby higher gasoline taxes pay the tab.

You also ask: " 2) If you want to have people pay for current HOV, then they should have to pay for current General Purpose, to be fair."

No, your logic is not clear at all. The HOV lanes are, by definition, different from the General Purpose (GP) lanes. Therefore, there is no concept of "fairness" when comparing HOV lanes to GP lanes. The bottom line is cost benefit to society. Is the benefit of the HOV lanes worth their cost? By charging an annual fee to use the system, the HOV lanes will, obviously, cost less. The remaining issue, then, is how much benefit will society continue to realize in terms of the overall number of vehicles in the GP lanes during periods of peak congestion. Until we try my proposal, we'll never know.

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

to Matt; "The 'investors' could do whatever they want to do, I suppose. But, in reality, the investors are the taxpayers. So, if the toll road doesn't cut it, then society would probably opt for a fall- back plan, whereby higher gasoline taxes pay the tab."

So as a taxpayer, I am an "unwilling" investor in a project that will be set up next to a free service, and if that project fails (i.e. not enough customers), I have to bail it out with more tax dollars.

"No, your logic is not clear at all. The HOV lanes are, by definition, different from the General Purpose (GP) lanes. Therefore, there is no concept of "fairness" when comparing HOV lanes to GP lanes. The bottom line is cost benefit to society. Is the benefit of the HOV lanes worth their cost? By charging an annual fee to use the system, the HOV lanes will, obviously, cost less. The remaining issue, then, is how much benefit will society continue to realize in terms of the overall number of vehicles in the GP lanes during periods of peak congestion. Until we try my proposal, we'll never know."

How do you measure "Cost Benefit to Society"?

(Actually, the FHWA does have a computer program you can download that does have all those calculations. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/steam/index.htm )

My point is, why should a cost be assigned to only the HOV system to be paid back by users, when the General Purpose lanes also have a cost, and yet you don't think the users should pay for that use.

Assuming you have a vehicle that gets about 20 mpg or so, you pay 1 1/2 cents per mile in state and federal taxes. For any given road segment, the users might pay about 30% of the cost if you assign that portion of the gas tax to each mile of whatever facility they drive on.

For instance, let's say we build a new arterial, and it costs $4 million for each lane for each mile. That's $8 million. 60,000 people per day cough up $900 for that mile. That road would have to see that load of 60,000 people every day of the year for 30 years for them to pay it off. In 30 years that road would probably need to be resurfaced, too. Country roads are underutilized (subsidized), and the costs for urban roads (elevated and tunnels), are much higher, non-users subsidize those roads also.

I drive a major portion on local roads, at uncongested times, and yet my gas and property tax dollars go towards improvments to either:

1) make my local roads wider for through travellers, since municpalities don't want to have bad LOS for their roads and intersections,

OR

2)it goes towards increasing the capacity of the larger facilities such as the interstates and major state routes.

The issue here is that the public has in it's mind that the roads are FREE, when in fact they are perpetually subsidized via the gas tax. Just as 'Transit users' and HOVers are expected to pay their way, so should those using General Purpose lanes.

Hey wait a minute Matt, isn't this where we agree?

Get rid of the gas tax!

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 28, 2000.

to Jim: You write: "My point is, why should a cost be assigned to only the HOV system to be paid back by users, when the General Purpose lanes also have a cost, and yet you don't think the users should pay for that use."

I have no objection to the users of the GP lanes paying for their costs. But, keep in mind, that we all pay federal income taxes, state sales tax on the purchase of a vehicle, excise taxes on tires, and, of course, the gasoline tax. You have not thoroughly convinced me that people in the GP lanes are underpaying.

I know from personal observation that the the HOV lanes are under- utilized. Most of the vehicles in the HOV lane only have two people in them. By charging a fee to use the HOV system, you may provide drivers with a stronger financial incentive to recruit paying customers. Hence, the effectiveness of the HOV system could be greatly improved, and the taxpayer would be paying less for it.

If you're proposing that we sell all of our roads to corporations which bid the highest, then say it. However, I don't believe the consumer will be well served, since monopolies usually provide a lousy product. It is only competition that serves the consumer well.

All I advocate is a choice for owners/drivers of cars. Let people decide what is important to them - their time or their money.

I'm willing to consider alternatives to my proposals. What do you recommend? How does it give people a real choice? Charging people a fee to use ALL roads is corrupt, since the road system is effectively a monopoly. My proposal offers people a choice, creates new financial incentives, leading to more efficient use of the HOV system.

I have no objection to letting the voters decide the issue. If the voters (of the Puget Sound Region) don't want to build a new bridge across Lake Washington because they think they'll be stuck with higher gasoline taxes, then the plan is no good.

If the voters don't think charging an annual fee for using the HOV system is a good idea, then I accept their decision.

What do you propose? And, are you willing to let the voters decide?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 30, 2000.

To Matt,

Actually, my ideas can be really radical, so no I don't think the voters would go for it.

#1) Have commercial trucks build and maintain their own road system. This would eliminate the issue of who pays for what facility and who does the most damage to a given facility. If this idea is unpalatable because 'we must provide a way for the economy to move goods' then we should be subsidizing all forms of transport, including the railroads.

#2) Personal Mobility issues must only be addressed with defined projects that can be voted on regionally. In other words, roads just don't automatically get enlarged because of traffic counts, and certainly not in piecemeal fashion as they are now. It must be a plan that has a coherent, well defined structure with all the costs and benefits defined clearly.

#3) Since the larger high speed facilities have a higher cost than local roadways, users of that facility should be charged a higher rate. I.E. TOLLS on any facility that goes beyond, let's say, HWY 99 in terms of speed and access. (Anything larger than 4 lanes w/ no traffic lights and business access)

#4) Remove the gas tax. In fact, I don't agree with most of the public when they vote for sales tax increases to pay for things. It just masks how much you end up paying. I personally think that the Property Tax is the way that adjacent municipalities would get better results, since those that live within a particular boundary would be getting the benefit for the taxes they pay. All would have to agree that a property tax increase for their respective cities/towns/county is offset by the benefits that a given freeway/rail line/airport? would bring.

"I have no objection to the users of the GP lanes paying for their costs. But, keep in mind, that we all pay federal income taxes, state sales tax on the purchase of a vehicle, excise taxes on tires, and, of course, the gasoline tax. You have not thoroughly convinced me that people in the GP lanes are underpaying."

So, sales tax on anything automotive should only go towards things automotive. By that reasoning, we should assign the sales tax on any given commodity only towards things that can be associated with it. Sales tax on shoes should only go towards sidewalks. Sales tax on prepared food should subsidize farmers. Sales tax on Gas Ovens should pay for natural gas pipelines. I'm curious how this idea got started that just because cars are taxed more because they cost more that it all belongs to roads.

The Sound Move plan did specify that sales and exise tax were to be used to pay for it. If you don't like paying excise tax (if you live in the taxing district) for something you don't need, then my equally valid point is that I don't like paying property tax to enlarge roads that I don't need, but that through auto commuters do.

In one of the road projects near my house (capacity increase) approximately 40% of it's cost is coming from the 'general fund' or 'non fuel' taxes. I don't remember voting for that.

"I know from personal observation that the the HOV lanes are under- utilized. Most of the vehicles in the HOV lane only have two people in them. By charging a fee to use the HOV system, you may provide drivers with a stronger financial incentive to recruit paying customers. Hence, the effectiveness of the HOV system could be greatly improved, and the taxpayer would be paying less for it."

Are your personal observations accurate? Have you done the traffic/person counts.

What criteria to you base your values on? Amount of pavement used or number of persons moved? The HOV lanes, during rush hour, move 40% of the people in 19% of the vehicles. In the off hours, WHAT'S THE POINT of opening them up, you don't need the lane anyway! Well, maybe you do if the GP lanes are filled up with VOLVO drivers. The only other benefit is to have a 90mph lane. It would also be a benefit when the guy in front of you is on his cell phone, not paying attention, slowing down while going uphill, SLOWER than the Class A motorhome in the right lane next to him. The only reason this didn't become a case of road rage (fully justified mind you, and he would have had to deal with a whole bunch of us), was that the motorhome was OUTDISTANCING him!! I was able to pass him on the right. (There wasn't an HOV lane on that highway).

If the HOV lanes are underutilized, then why build more GP lanes for PEAK demand, when in the off hours, those too are underutilized?

"If you're proposing that we sell all of our roads to corporations which bid the highest, then say it. However, I don't believe the consumer will be well served, since monopolies usually provide a lousy product. It is only competition that serves the consumer well. "

What's good for Bill Gates and the Northwest should be good for the travelling public, don't you think?

"All I advocate is a choice for owners/drivers of cars. Let people decide what is important to them - their time or their money."

That's why TOLLS are the real USER FEE, NOT the GAS TAX.

"What do you propose? And, are you willing to let the voters decide? "

When you and I PROPOSE something here, THAT'S EASY!! We have no authority, we have no benefit of quantitative studies, we just think up fun things and say them. Oh, maybe the few diehards like us on this board give their vote, but we don't count.

The closest thing to a vote on 'the (transportation) mood' of the people I can see is I-745.

There was nothing simpler in it's message: "BETTER ROADS - Without raising taxes".

60% voted NO. Including counties outside of the PUGET SOUND Region.

Some of your ideas are good, so maybe YOU should do the legwork like Tim Eyeman did, and go for it.

Get out there and make that sausage!!!

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), December 30, 2000.

to Jim: Let me try to respond to your postings.

"#1) Have commercial trucks build and maintain their own road system. This would eliminate the issue of who pays for what facility and who does the most damage to a given facility. If this idea is unpalatable because 'we must provide a way for the economy to move goods' then we should be subsidizing all forms of transport, including the railroads."

Commercial trucks already pay some special taxes, as it is. So, are you really saying that society should raise taxes on trucks commensurate with their actual wear & tear on the roads?

"#2) Personal Mobility issues must only be addressed with defined projects that can be voted on regionally. In other words, roads just don't automatically get enlarged because of traffic counts, and certainly not in piecemeal fashion as they are now. It must be a plan that has a coherent, well defined structure with all the costs and benefits defined clearly."

I have no problem with this. I have specifically proposed a means to extend the HOV system without raising taxes or FORCING drivers to pay a toll. The toll would be completely voluntary.

"#3) Since the larger high speed facilities have a higher cost than local roadways, users of that facility should be charged a higher rate. I.E. TOLLS on any facility that goes beyond, let's say, HWY 99 in terms of speed and access. (Anything larger than 4 lanes w/ no traffic lights and business access)."

I have no problem with charging a toll for NEW capacity. But, there is no guarantee that the toll collected will be sufficient to pay off debt. There must be some guaranteed way of paying the debt, or the project will never be financed. How do you address the issue?

"#4) Remove the gas tax. In fact, I don't agree with most of the public when they vote for sales tax increases to pay for things. It just masks how much you end up paying. I personally think that the Property Tax is the way that adjacent municipalities would get better results, since those that live within a particular boundary would be getting the benefit for the taxes they pay. All would have to agree that a property tax increase for their respective cities/towns/county is offset by the benefits that a given freeway/rail line/airport? would bring."

I don't agree with your assessment. Federal highways should be funded from our incomes taxes, the same as other government programs. Sales taxes are a sensible way to raise revenue, specifically when the item being purchased is an option, not a necessity. Sales taxes promote savings and thriftiness.

You also seem confused about sales taxes on vehicles, as you write: "So, sales tax on anything automotive should only go towards things automotive. By that reasoning, we should assign the sales tax on any given commodity only towards things that can be associated with it. Sales tax on shoes should only go towards sidewalks. Sales tax on prepared food should subsidize farmers. Sales tax on Gas Ovens should pay for natural gas pipelines. I'm curious how this idea got started that just because cars are taxed more because they cost more that it all belongs to roads."

No, I'm not suggesting ALL automotive-related sales taxes go to roads. But, as long as vehicles are taxed differently than any other product, I think it is disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. If I buy exercise equipment, I pay sales tax. Three years later, when I sell the USED exercise equipment, the buyer does not pay sales tax. The fact remains that vehicles generate a tremendous stream of sales tax revenue. We don't charge the buyer of a home sales tax. Therefore, it is not unreasonable to expect that some of the vehicle- related sales tax revenue be dedicated to extending the road system.

In response to my objection to tolls on ALL roads, you rhetorically ask: "What's good for Bill Gates and the Northwest should be good for the travelling public, don't you think?"

Even with Microsoft, the consumer has choices. The consumer can by a Mac, and now Linux machines are becoming more available. In any case, comparing roads to computer operating systems is a non sequitur. Perhaps, in 50 years, your tongue-in-cheek humor would be more relevant.

You also write: "The closest thing to a vote on 'the (transportation) mood' of the people I can see is I-745...There was nothing simpler in it's message: "BETTER ROADS - Without raising taxes"...60% voted NO. Including counties outside of the PUGET SOUND Region.

I agree. I-745 was resoundingly defeated. However, I wonder how an initiative might do if it were more generally worded, compelling the government to eliminate wasteful pratices and to perform detailed cost-benefit analyses of various transportation plans. The fact remains that there are bus routes out there which hardly have any passengers. So, what's the point of that? The nearly empty buses should cease operation. It ought to be the moral, ethical, and legal thing to do.

I-745 was vague. It was never clear how it would directly benefit people. I-745 should've said something like: "Use the Sound Transit taxes to build a toll bridge across Lake Washington, instead of light rail." Maybe, then, people could've applied their own values and logic to make a decision as to which is the wiser course - toll roads or toll rail.

You also write: "Some of your ideas are good, so maybe YOU should do the legwork like Tim Eyeman did, and go for it...Get out there and make that sausage!!!"

I've thought about it, but I don't really have the time or fire for it. I feel I'm making a difference by contributing to postings like these, as well as calling up on the radio, or e-mailing radio personalities.

If I ran for office, no one would vote for me, anyway, since my ideas are kind of way out there - end the war on drugs; privatize the HOV system; etc.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 31, 2000.

Jeff/Matt,

Even if a new roadway was built privately and paid for by tolls, wouldn't that private organization still have to go through the government to acquire the land to build that roadway (eminent domain)?

Why should that private organization prove that they have paid off their debt?

Is that organization supposed to give the roadway to the state/county/city when the initial project costs are paid? Aren't they allowed to make a profit? If they can make a profit, how much of a profit?

If different private organizations are building and changing for different roadways, would you expect to be charged a toll each time you transition from one roadway to another and from one jurisdiction to another?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 02, 2001.

>>Jeff/Matt,<<

I know who Matt is, but Jeff is Jeff Switzer, the Eastside Journal reporter who wrote the story.

If you're talking to me, Jim, I'll bite.

>>Even if a new roadway was built privately and paid for by tolls, wouldn't that private organization still have to go through the government to acquire the land to build that roadway (eminent domain)? <<

That's an interesting point. It's my understanding that the west was settled by the railroads when the government GAVE them the land for free (or close to it). It was considered an investment.

Okay here's something that would get me elected. Let's GIVE the contiguous land that the government owns now to the trucking companies. How about all those bike trails. Whoopeeeeeeee!!!!

>>Why should that private organization prove that they have paid off their debt? <<

They wouldn't. However it's been the history of most transportation modes that are run by one or just a few owners that some sort of regulation is needed to keep the public from being gouged. Look at the airline industry now. If price isn't the issue, service certainly is.

>>Is that organization supposed to give the roadway to the state/county/city when the initial project costs are paid? Aren't they allowed to make a profit? If they can make a profit, how much of a profit? <<

Depends if you are a socialist or a capitalist.

>>If different private organizations are building and changing for different roadways, would you expect to be charged a toll each time you transition from one roadway to another and from one jurisdiction to another? <<

Like the IRT, the BMT, and the IND subways of New York did earlier in the century. (In fact, IND and BMT cars can't run on the old IRT lines. It might be the MTA now, but it lives with the legacy of the private enterprise solutions of yesteryear.

This all gets pretty wild, doesn't it? When one digs in on one philosophy eventually it circles back. When I can, I try to fit the expectations of one mode on to the competing mode, and see if things look the same. Sometimes it leads to some real interesting ideas. My opinion is that there are no real competing modes in the Puget Sound region.

Jim

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 02, 2001.

to Questioning: I'm not advocating private companies build and own new roads, although I have no objection if they do this. I do not believe it is practical for private companies to do this, since investors will (rationally) expect a decent rate of return on their investment. One way of ensuring a decent rate of return is to grant the private company some type of exclusivity clause (i.e., a monopoly). However, this violates the Washington State Constitution, and I'm not a fan of coercion, as well.

So, I don't understand your posting. I advocate the government giving people choices based on rigorous cost benefit analyses. One way the government can do this is to offer both a free road system and a fee-for-use road system. People will then choose what is more important - their money or their time.

If you are aware of a more cost-effective means of giving people choices, please post your point of view.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 03, 2001.

Jim,

The questions that I asked were obviously loaded against privatization. I believe that the government would have to be involved with any major roadway construction, whether public or private. Don't you agree?

Your comment on government regulation being necessary is contrary to capitalistic philosophy. Deregulation has been the trend for the last few decades, allowing competition to keep costs down. Don't you think that privatization would be inhibited if government regulations are imposed?

Whether I am a socialist or capitalist doesn't really matter. I believe a government has responsibilities to the people it governs. In this case, the government needs to insure that an adequate transportation system is provided. Agreed?

I think that your comment on there not being any real competing modes in the Puget Sound region is accurate. However, the definition of competing modes need to be viewed beyond public and private roadways, but also need to include other transportation options (e.g. HOV, buses, light rail, monorail, ferries, telecommuting, etc.). Just because you or I may not use one or more of these options, does not mean that there is not a place for them in a Puget Sound region transportation system.

Matt,

I'm sorry for the confusion. The imbedded references in the posts between you and Jim confused me. I should have read them all closer.

A cost benefit analyses treats each congestion problem individually. This may be OK to address some problems like improving the I-405 & Hwy 167 interchange. But we need to be careful that the solution for one problem does not cause problems somewhere else in the system (e.g. a third Lake Washington bridge may increase the congestion problem in the I-5 corridor). Cost benefit analyses also ignores non-monetary issues such as regional planning goals, esthetics and environmental concerns.

I don't disagree that cost and benefits need to be examined, only that other issues also need to be considered. When all of the issues are reviewed, the final solution may not be the highest cost benefit ratio.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 03, 2001.

to Questioning: You write: "Cost benefit analyses also ignores non- monetary issues such as regional planning goals, esthetics and environmental concerns."

Not true. The word, "benefit", can encompass regional planning goals, etc.

You also write: "I don't disagree that cost and benefits need to be examined, only that other issues also need to be considered. When all of the issues are reviewed, the final solution may not be the highest cost benefit ratio."

The point is to find out how much a particular benefit is costing society. If meeting environmental concerns doubles the cost of building a road, maybe the money (for environmental purposes) would be more wisely spent if it were used to provide tax credits to people who install a higher grade insulation in their home.

You also write: "But we need to be careful that the solution for one problem does not cause problems somewhere else in the system (e.g. a third Lake Washington bridge may increase the congestion problem in the I-5 corridor)."

Under my scenario, the new bridge across Lake Washington would be part of a new fee-for-use system. The goal would be to primarily funnel the new traffic onto what is now the HOV lane. Furthermore, if the traffic created excessive problems for I-5, then the bridge toll could increase during periods of peak congestion, thus potentially mitigating any adverse effects.

Compare my approach to light rail. What will society be able to do with light rail in terms of recouping its investment versus mitigating congestion. Light rail appears to be totally inflexible.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 05, 2001.

It may be that Sound Transit got LINK because it included other transportation projects in the voting package, but it was voted upon and PASSED. Are you advocating that every time a project has a problem, that it has to be re-voted upon?

I never said that I was against a dedicated system of roads. I like roads. I also like buses. I like the monorail. I like HOV lanes, the ferry system, bridges, mountain passes, tunnels, bikes, walking, telecommuting AND light rail. I like the idea of a third Lake Washington bridge and for a second Tacoma Narrows bridge. Each has its place and needs to be considered within a regional transportation system.

Specifically, on the monorail, it should have been expanded right after the 1962 Worlds Fair, but it wasn't - too much opposition from the road construction lobby. Some people only started serious consideration for it only after Sound Transit started talking light rail. Where were these people in 1962?

By the way, tolls need to be considered as a separate issue. The need for a bridge or some other transportation improvement is one thing. How it is paid for is something else. It becomes important when it is voted upon, but not until it is determined that such an improvement is necessary. The state constitution will have to be amended to allow tolls because of the current opinion for decreased subsidies and increased user fees.

It is interesting that here you ask "Which gives you the biggest bang for you buck?", but in the other thread (Which would you pick?) you state "The word, "benefit", can encompass regional planning goals, etc. " Aren't these contrary to each other?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 05, 2001.

"Are you advocating that every time a project has a problem, that it has to be re-voted upon? "

Hell yes!

We have a Narrows Bridge project that got passed through a gerrymandered election for $300 million that now is looking like $800 million.

We have a light rail proposal that is ALREADY $1.2 Billion over budget (30%) and 3 years behind schedule (again, 30%) and the first spade of dirt hasn't even been turned yet!

The law has all sorts of provisions that prohibit bait and switch in everything from retail sales to motor vehicles, as well as consumer protection laws to give people a window of opportunity to reject life insurance and other contracts they've been coerced into signing.

If there is no requirement for elected officials to abide by the terms of the proposals that they submit for public vote, why submit them to public vote at all? They could do bait-and-switch full-time, low-balling every proposal and promising more than could reasonably be delivered.

In my humble opinion, these proposals are contracts. If I agree to let you tax me x amount for the purpose of building a $2.4 billion dollar project in 10 years, that's the contract. The bureaucrats should no more be unilaterally allowed to up the price 30% and delay the delivery for three years than an auto dealer you give a down payment to should be unilaterally allowed to charge you a higher price or delay delivery once he/she has your deposit on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.

That's only common sense where I come from.

What planet do you come from Q?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 05, 2001.

Come on Mark, tell us how you REALLY feel.

(and I couldn't agree more)

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 05, 2001.

"Are you advocating that every time a project has a problem, that it has to be re-voted upon? "

If a road project went over budget, I'd love to. In fact, I'd love the opportunity to vote on any road project.

Of course, road projects don't go through the same scrutiny reserved for major transit projects.

If the argument against voting on road projects is that it would be too cumbersome to vote on every little road widening project, then bundle them into a coherent package, with all the costs and benefits associated with them.

Hence, the original question, "Which would you pick?"

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 05, 2001.

to Questioning: You write: "It is interesting that here you ask "Which gives you the biggest bang for you buck?", but in the other thread (Which would you pick?) you state "The word, "benefit", can encompass regional planning goals, etc. " Aren't these contrary to each other?"

No, there are no contradictions. If the main goal is to reduce congestion, then that's the criteria one uses when performing the cost benefit analysis. If the criteria is helping the poor, disabled, and seniors, then one would compare different projects based on that.

The bottom line is that you have to state your priorities clearly. Then, you communicate how much you plan to spend to achieve your goals. If others can offer less expensive means of achieving YOUR goals, then you should go with the less expensive approach.

What are the goals of light rail? And, why won't you consider less expensive approaches to the issues?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 06, 2001.

to Matt, "If the main goal is to reduce congestion, then that's the criteria one uses when performing the cost benefit analysis. If the criteria is helping the poor, disabled, and seniors, then one would compare different projects based on that.

The bottom line is that you have to state your priorities clearly. Then, you communicate how much you plan to spend to achieve your goals. If others can offer less expensive means of achieving YOUR goals, then you should go with the less expensive approach. "

Being clear about what criteria is important is the key. Building roads will REDUCE congestion. This saves money for those caught in the congestion. The one cost that's not readily apparent is the cost borne by neighborhoods adjacent to the expanded facility, and any connecting facilities. While the overall effect is less when spread over the region, it's environmental effects are felt by those adjacent to the facility itself.

For instance, let's go back to the first part of this thread (the article in the Eastside Journal). If the cost benefit analysis shows that the $8.7 billion plan and the $11.8 billion dollar plan are relatively equal, which one would you pick? (For sake of this argument, let's assume they are the solutions that have the best long range performance for capacity)

For users of either system, it would probably be a wash. However, if I were living next to either type of facility, it might be a different story.

"What are the goals of light rail?"

Rail in general provides the ability to absorb future growth in travel without having to increase the footprint. Increased peak period demands can be met with longer trains, rather than wider freeways. It could be argued that light rail might be too 'light' and that a heavy rail system would better serve the area.

"And, why won't you consider less expensive approaches to the issues? "

That's where cost/benefit analysis comes in to play, to see if a particular approach is really less expensive.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 06, 2001.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 09, 2001.

"Rail in general provides the ability to absorb future growth in travel without having to increase the footprint. Increased peak period demands can be met with longer trains, rather than wider freeways. It could be argued that light rail might be too 'light' and that a heavy rail system would better serve the area. "

The problem, Jim, is that you overlook the inherent limitations of a linear transportation system.

You are limited with light rail by the frequency of stops for stations to about 14 mph, and that simply isn't fast enough for a regional system. One can bicycle from point A to point B that fast. Even if the light rail were provided with bypass rails (and it's not) that would allow express trains to bypass some of the stops, you are still only drawing customers from an area within 1/4 mile from the individual stations who also happen to have a destination within 1/4 mile of another station. That is, frankly, a pretty uncommon event. The only way to get around that is to feed the station with other modes of public transit (buses typically) which now involves time-consuming transfers of mode, and typically results in sub-optimizing the other mode to try to get the numbers up on the light rail to justify the most expensive (and often criticized) of the transit modes.

If you look in the older threads, this has been hashed and re-hashed ad infinitum and neither the geometry nor the technology has changed much.

The limiting factor is not just the average speed but the fact that the average speed decreases precipitously with increasing frequency of stations. If you try to increase the number of stations (to bring more people within walking distance of the station) you increase the number of times in a given distance that the vehicle has to decelerate, offload, onload, and accelerate, which decreases the travel speed far more than can be offset by increasing track speed of the vehicle. If you limit the number of stations, travel speed increases, but you decrease the population within reasonable walking distance of a station thereby limiting your customers. There aren't good solutions to this geometric problem, and attempts to get the American public to walk over a quarter mile to take transit have not met with any real success even in areas with fair skies and temperate weather.



-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 09, 2001.

to Jim: You write: "The one cost that's not readily apparent is the cost borne by neighborhoods adjacent to the expanded facility, and any connecting facilities. While the overall effect is less when spread over the region, it's environmental effects are felt by those adjacent to the facility itself."

Minimizing impact to a neighborhood or community is important, but how much should we be willing to spend to achieve it. If rail costs 2 to 3 times what a roadway costs, then it is probably not a good idea from a cost-benefit point of view. Roads accommodate trucks, buses, traveling salespeople, etc. Rail only accommodates commuters. Furthermore, rail impacts neighborhoods, too, because there has to be a rail station; there has to be a Park'n'Ride lot for all the people that use the rail; etc.

You also write: "Rail in general provides the ability to absorb future growth in travel without having to increase the footprint. Increased peak period demands can be met with longer trains, rather than wider freeways. It could be argued that light rail might be too 'light' and that a heavy rail system would better serve the area."

The same is true for roadways. Increased peak period demands can be met with more bus service. This is especially true if you "privatize" the HOV lane, using the funds to complete the "missing links" of the existing HOV system. Likewise, rail is limited, because the train is only going to be as long as the station at which it stops.

Your argument for rail is weak. Roads could have a smaller footprint if we designed the system for the addition of a double-decker. And, by charging people a fee to use uncongested capacity (which still needs to be built, as of today), you could defer the need for expanding the roads. Furthermore, in addition to a double decker, society could build government buildings above the roads (sort of a tunnel, if you will), as well. I believe this done in Seattle with the Convention Center.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 10, 2001.

to Craig,

"The problem, Jim, is that you overlook the inherent limitations of a linear transportation system."

The freeway itself is a linear transportation system. The more linear you make it(limited access express lanes), the better it performs. Conversely, the more accessable you make it(more exit ramps), the worse it performs.

>>You are limited with light rail by the frequency of stops for stations to about 14 mph, and that simply isn't fast enough for a regional system. One can bicycle from point A to point B that fast.<<

I looked at page S-7 in the Link FEIS. I added up all the times from the 'preferred' routes (I used the longer one for the Northgate segment), and I come up with 61 minutes. Adding up the total length and I come up with 23.25 miles. Off the top of my head, (without my calculator), that looks like it's about 23 mph. So, I'm not sure where the 14 mph figure comes from. If the whole system was a street running system, then that's probably correct. >> Even if the light rail were provided with bypass rails (and it's not) that would allow express trains to bypass some of the stops, you are still only drawing customers from an area within 1/4 mile from the individual stations who also happen to have a destination within 1/4 mile of another station. That is, frankly, a pretty uncommon event. The only way to get around that is to feed the station with other modes of public transit (buses typically) which now involves time-consuming transfers of mode, and typically results in sub- optimizing the other mode to try to get the numbers up on the light rail to justify the most expensive (and often criticized) of the transit modes. <<

Stations could either be served by transit, or by having a parking structure. Either way, it's an added cost. That should be a decision made by the local community.

>> If you look in the older threads, this has been hashed and re- hashed ad infinitum and neither the geometry nor the technology has changed much. <<

The geometry nor the technology of rail? The same could be said for highways. There have been refinements in concrete applicaton, and chemistry maybe.

>>The limiting factor is not just the average speed but the fact that the average speed decreases precipitously with increasing frequency of stations. If you try to increase the number of stations (to bring more people within walking distance of the station) you increase the number of times in a given distance that the vehicle has to decelerate, offload, onload, and accelerate, which decreases the travel speed far more than can be offset by increasing track speed of the vehicle. If you limit the number of stations, travel speed increases, but you decrease the population within reasonable walking distance of a station thereby limiting your customers. There aren't good solutions to this geometric problem, and attempts to get the American public to walk over a quarter mile to take transit have not met with any real success even in areas with fair skies and temperate weather. <<

Now here's an interesting plan to bring to the Rainier Valley, Widen MLKing Way by 2 more lanes. I wonder if that and the Save Our Valley group's opposition (they would come out in opposition, wouldn't they?) would get as much press.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 10, 2001.

to Warren:

>> Minimizing impact to a neighborhood or community is important, but how much should we be willing to spend to achieve it. <<

Heck, in the name of Economic Justice, AT LEAST as much at they spent for the people on Mercer Island.

>>If rail costs 2 to 3 times what a roadway costs, then it is probably not a good idea from a cost-benefit point of view.<<

Even if the cost was equal, with the rail system, your taxes buy the vehicles also. In the above article, the roadway only solution was over twice the cost of the rail only solution. My question would be, what if you spent twice as much on the rail only solution, what could you accomplish?

>> Roads accommodate trucks, buses, traveling salespeople, etc. <<

You are correct, trucks use the roadway also. If the free flow of freight is a concern, then these companies should band together and build themselves a facility that would not get clogged by those travellers who wish to surround themselves with 100 sq ft of sheetmetal. They would bear the cost, but also reap the benefits. This would eliminate the question of the general public subsidizing trucking companies versus subsidizing the rail companies. The market then would dictate whether 'just in time' inventory is really a cost saving for the consumer at large, or just a subsidized warehousing system.

With a rail system, you would no longer need a parallel bus system with large buses for the longer trips. Then communities could spend their transit tax dollars on smaller, more neighborhood friendly buses and routes, such as what Marsha suggests, and which I also agree with.

Did you hear the joke about the.... Never mind.

>>Rail only accommodates commuters. Furthermore, rail impacts neighborhoods, too, because there has to be a rail station; there has to be a Park'n'Ride lot for all the people that use the rail; etc. <<

Rail doesn't only accommodate commuters. In any area I've lived or visited, the weekend ridership rivaled the weekday commute. However, it was spread out over the day, so there wasn't the morning and evening crush. Of course that depends on the draw that the central city provides.

The P&R and station issue goes back to one of the previous questions. If the cost/benefit analysis shows that 2 solutions are close to being equal, what tips the balance? I would think that the 'neighbors' of the facility would be the deciding vote in an election.

>>The same is true for roadways. Increased peak period demands can be met with more bus service. This is especially true if you "privatize" the HOV lane, using the funds to complete the "missing links" of the existing HOV system. Likewise, rail is limited, because the train is only going to be as long as the station at which it stops. <<

Roadways already have the excess capacity. The comment has been made before that a freeway lane couplet handles approx 60,000 vehicles per day. 60,000/24hrs is 2500. Each lane can handle 2500 vph, so 2500 x 2 lanes x 24hrs = 120,000 vehicles per day total capacity. The freeway is essentially half full!! How can this be? What's the problem? Why are people complaining about congestion? Because the 'congestion' problem is happening during the 'commute' hours. It certainly isn't happening in the middle of the night. In any hour, any additional lane will only take 2500 vehicles off the adjacent lanes.

>>Roads could have a smaller footprint if we designed the system for the addition of a double-decker.<<

A previous ESJ article listed the cost at around $40 million per lane mile for an elevated freeway structure, or $80 million for a couplet, which takes up a bit more room than a rail line. Let's hope there ar no tunnels invovled, the roadway tunnels were somewhere around $100 million per lane mile. More for Mercer Island type construction.

>> And, by charging people a fee to use uncongested capacity (which still needs to be built, as of today), you could defer the need for expanding the roads.<<

Hence my argument for tolls for the GP lanes in addition to your HOV plan.

>> Furthermore, in addition to a double decker, society could build government buildings above the roads (sort of a tunnel, if you will), as well. I believe this done in Seattle with the Convention Center. <<

With an electric rail system, you don't have to provide the ventilation neccessary as for a roadway if the length of the tunnel gets too long.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 10, 2001.

To MATT.... NOT WARREN.

The previous response is to MATT. I knew I'd do that eventually.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 10, 2001.

to Jim: You can me Matt, Warren, or Matthew. I'll probably figure it out.

You write: "Heck, in the name of Economic Justice, AT LEAST as much at they spent for the people on Mercer Island."

I'm not sure I understand your point. I'm sure any community of millionaires in the Puget Sound area would receive similar treatment. We live in a capitalist society. Wealth is created by individuals. It does not exist "a priori". When people are denied the fruits of their labor, they tend to lose interest. Apparently, you don't remember the story of Thanksgiving. When people were allowed to keep what they grew, they grew a lot more. I'll make no apologies for capitalism. Our civilization is based on three pillars: choice (embodied via the U.S. Constitution); competition (embodied via an economic system known as capitalism) and; compassion (embodied via many religious documents, but primarily the New and Old Testaments).

You also write: "In the above article, the roadway only solution was over twice the cost of the rail only solution. My question would be, what if you spent twice as much on the rail only solution, what could you accomplish?"

I don't understand your point. In the above article, the roadways cost less than $75 million per lane-mile. The current proposal for light rail is approximately $150 million per track-mile. So, we are already proposing spending twice as much on rail as roads, and we'll have little to show for it. Except, perhaps, even higher electricity prices since light rail will add to the demand side without addressing the supply side of electrical production.

Again, you write: "You are correct, trucks use the roadway also. If the free flow of freight is a concern, then these companies should band together and build themselves a facility that would not get clogged by those travellers who wish to surround themselves with 100 sq ft of sheetmetal. They would bear the cost, but also reap the benefits. This would eliminate the question of the general public subsidizing trucking companies versus subsidizing the rail companies. The market then would dictate whether 'just in time' inventory is really a cost saving for the consumer at large, or just a subsidized warehousing system."

If you're saying that truckers shoudl pay higher fees and taxes, then say it. The point is that an investment in roads serves many needs. Whereas rail seems to provide no needs that could not be equally served by buses, and both buses and rail serve only a fraction of the transportation needs of society. Therefore, we must judge rail, buses, HOV lanes, etc. on the cost-benefit. You have yet to elaborate in detail what the cost-benefit of the current rail project might be.

You also write: "With a rail system, you would no longer need a parallel bus system with large buses for the longer trips. Then communities could spend their transit tax dollars on smaller, more neighborhood friendly buses and routes, such as what Marsha suggests, and which I also agree with."

Not true. The light rail primarily serves Seattle. The heavy rail is only useful to someone in Sumner or Auburn. Most of the Sound Transit buses on I-5 come from Tacoma, Lakewood, Gig Harbor. So, we would still have the buses on I-5. Also, you still haven't explained why rail is more cost-effective than a bus using a dedicated roadway. The best you've come up with is that it has a "smaller footprint" and less surface water waste. So far, I don't find the argument particularly compelling.

You write: "Rail doesn't only accommodate commuters. In any area I've lived or visited, the weekend ridership rivaled the weekday commute. However, it was spread out over the day, so there wasn't the morning and evening crush. Of course that depends on the draw that the central city provides."

OK. I was wrong about rail primarily serving commuters only. But, I would think the ridership is dependent on low fares. If the fare were $4-$5 per person (each way), then I don't think the ridership would be very high. But if the fare is low, then society is not getting a good rate of return on its investment. However, I'll give you credit for coming up with another benefit of rail. Of course, buses can provide a similar benefit. So, the cost-benefit of rail is still meager.

In response to my comment on charging a fee to use uncongested capacity, you write: "Hence my argument for tolls for the GP lanes in addition to your HOV plan."

Wrong. The GP lanes do not represent UNCONGESTED CAPACITY. Hence, there is no basis in charging people a fee for something that is currently covered by existing taxes. However, UNCONGESTED CAPACITY is a commodity which would reap great profits for society. The cost- benefit analysis of charging a fee for UNCONGESTED CAPACITY is overwhelmingly positive. No other solution offers such a great rate of return. However, I'm willing to read about alternatives. My mind is not closed.

In response to my concept of having a double-decker highway plus additional levels to house government offices, you write: With an electric rail system, you don't have to provide the ventilation neccessary as for a roadway if the length of the tunnel gets too long."

My point is that roadways have a "small footprint", too, if we consider building vertically, as opposed to just horizontally.

In short, you have presented no convincing argument for why rail is vastly superior to dedicated (and uncongested) roadways with low-fare buses. At best, rail is as good. At worst, rail is over-priced and inflexible. Furthermore, since we can choose to charge vehicles a fee to use the uncongested roadway, the potential rate of return for a dedicated roadway is vastly superior to light rail.

Again, I ask you, which would have a better rate of return in terms of revenue: building the currently proposed light rail system or; building a new bridge across Lake Washington with fees (fees which would go up as the demand for a faster commute continues to increase) to the user?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 11, 2001.

The latest: http://www.eastsidejournal.com/sited/story/html/42058

This Alternative is #3 as described here: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/I-405/eis_alternatives/eis_alternatives.html

One note about Cost/Benefit studies. The horizon is only 30 years. Thirty years from now, if we ask the same question, we'll get the same answer.

Now for the input from the neighborhood groups.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 20, 2001.