Given that the bulk of the current MVET goes for subsidizing ferries and transit services in the Puget Sound region, Eastern Washington stongly supports I-695. What small fraction of the MVET goes for the non-Puget Sound region could be better raised locally. If the people in Seattle wish to tax THEMSELVES into oblivion, they can go for it. Most of us in Eastern Washington are tired of paying for stadiums we'll never sit in, ferries we'll never ride on, transit that we'll never see, and light and commuter rail that serves only Seattle. The West-side liberals can do anything they want with their side of the mountains, but they can darn well pay for it themselves, too. Viva I-695!!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 26, 1999

Answers

Craig whines:

"Given that the bulk of the current MVET goes for subsidizing ferries and transit services in the Puget Sound region, Eastern Washington stongly supports I-695. What small fraction of the MVET goes for the non-Puget Sound region could be better raised locally. If the people in Seattle wish to tax THEMSELVES into oblivion, they can go for it. Most of us in Eastern Washington are tired of paying for stadiums we'll never sit in, ferries we'll never ride on, transit that we'll never see, and light and commuter rail that serves only Seattle. The West-side liberals can do anything they want with their side of the mountains, but they can darn well pay for it themselves, too. Viva I- 695!!"

Oh boo hoo. You know, the state's funding that new north/south freeway in Spokane that I'll never use. They also funded that new arena in downtown Spokane. Or that rebuilding of I-82 near Yakima. And a ton of other projects that are built on the other side of the state that I'll probably never see. But that's life in our system. That's what happens when you have states, countries, etc. Heck, I could even whine about parts of King County that I never go to getting county money to solve their traffic problems. But I won't, because it's pointless.

If you want to play this game, I'm sure the western side of the state would love to. We'll be a helluva lot better off, considering all the population and wealth over here subsidizes state projects in the east.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

Thanks for speaking on behalf of all citizens of Eastern Washington.

But I believe that if you look at the total amount of taxes that citizens east of the Cascades pay towards the Transportation Fund (gas, MVET, etc.) vs. the total amount of funding they get back in projects, with the exception of Spokane, the rest of E Washington actually comes out AHEAD. As BB points out, that freeway extention is awfully expensive (I may be mistaken, but it may be the largest single project in the R-49 list). You've also got a WHOLE lot more state roads compared to Western Washington which has more city and county roads. You've also got a lot fewer people living there as well to pay for them.

So before you put the roadblocks up in the passes, you may want to reconsider your rantings. YOU don't pay for the stadiums unless you live in King County, or stay in a hotel in King County, or buy a football lottery ticket, or buy a beer in King County. YOU also don't pay for the light and commuter rail service unless you live in King, Pierce, or Snohomish Counties. How can the people of Eastern Washington be tired of paying for these things if they never paid for them in

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), August 26, 1999.

So, the opposition is reduced to this?

Craig whines: Oh boo hoo Thanks for speaking on behalf of all citizens of Eastern Washington.

Both BB and Patrick are wrong, of course... so what else is new?

From all sources, approximately TWENTY PERCENT of the transportation budget is used to move the ONE percent of the people that use ferries. Whats the collected percentage of the MVET used exclusively for that purpose? 4.7? Year in... year out?.

The N/S freeway is chump-change in comparison. Easterners DO suffer a net-loss to support Puget Sounds more exotic travel methods... as does Clark County. And where did our esteemed governor want to spend the R 49 funds? Why, over 90% of it IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION... To support the only people that will vote for this jerk. Yeah, that was BRILLIANT public and political relations on Lockes part.

Patrick even acknowledges this: With the exception of Spokane.... Well, Patrick, unless Spokane is removed from Eastern Washington, you CANT except it

YOU don't pay for the stadiums unless you live in King County is, as anyone with basic awareness knows, a flat-out lie. Almost one million dollars was transferred from the General Fund to cover lottery ticket shortfalls for the Mariners stadium already... so Easterners DO pay for it, as do Northerners. Not to mention the Mariners idiocy in attempting to break their words and scam ANOTHER 60 million of taxpayer money.

As for the RTA, Patrick, were you out to lunch when the RTA came down to the legislature this past year in a serious effort to scam over $200 million dollars for THEIR project, which seems to be crumbling around them even as we speak? Breaking your word to the legislature is hardly the wise course, as the RTA types had, just one short year before, PROMISED not to ask for state money. (And no, so far they havent got a dime.)

In short, like down here in CC, there is NO WAY that ANY region of this state comes out ahead in the money game EXCEPT Western Washington.

And Patrick, youll have to PROVE to me that people in Eastern Washington dont pay for those projects. Know what I mean?

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 26, 1999.

Westin-

Is there anything about Washington State that you DO like? You rant about every program imaginable, and complain about conspiracies more than anyone I have ever met.

I am curious to know what you LIKE, and what you want tax money spent on, if anything.

You quickly shoot down any comment or suggestion, and rarely offer an alternative, or for that matter - an argument.

From my perspective, you are simply picking fights, and I would love to hear your personal political views, in general.

Thank you.

-- Dave (everett244@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

I'll trade in the North-South freeway and the arena any day. CUT MY TABS. Regarding which regions get what, I'm happy to reduce that equation and play that game all the way down from states, to regions, to counties, to individuals. People ought to be able to keep what they earn, and spend it on what they want, without having some politician decide what "better" use they ought to put it to. Its my money, I earned it with the sweat of my brow, my life energy is invested in it, and using the force and coercion of the law to steal it away is no more moral than slavery.

-- Greg Holmes (kholmes@ior.com), August 26, 1999.

Gee, Dave...

I show support for Craig's position, provide some evidence of what I say that can be easily checked out, and *I* am the only one here that faces your wrath?

Please.

I have more then enough proofs and presentations of my positions since this board came up; as well as the board before this one.

You don't like what I write? Don't read it. I don't post for you; I won't justify my positions to your satisfaction to set myself up for your judgment.

Westin

(Who suggests that if you're interested in being unbiased, you wouldn't limit the scope of your question to just me.)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 26, 1999.

Westin writes:

"From all sources, approximately TWENTY PERCENT of the transportation budget is used to move the ONE percent of the people that use ferries. Whats the collected percentage of the MVET used exclusively for that purpose? 4.7? Year in... year out?."

First of all, where do you get the data that says one percent of the population uses ferries? All the state gives out is total ridership numbers, which were over 25 million in 1997. Admittedly that number includes people who make the trip tons of times a year, but how do you get 60,000 or so out of it? I'm not trying to be a smartass here either, I'm asking for some real data.

The way I look at it is, if you say that 60,000 people use the ferries, those people would all have to ride them back and forth to Seattle EVERY WORKING DAY of the year for this statement to be true. I don't think that's all that likely. I think there's a die hard bunch (let's say 30,000) who use the system every day of their life. My guess is there's probably several hundred thousand people, if not maybe a million, who use the ferry system a few times a year.

"The N/S freeway is chump-change in comparison. Easterners DO suffer a net-loss to support Puget Sounds more exotic travel methods... as does Clark County. And where did our esteemed governor want to spend the R 49 funds? Why, over 90% of it IN THE PUGET SOUND REGION... To support the only people that will vote for this jerk. Yeah, that was BRILLIANT public and political relations on Lockes part."

You aren't really making a whole lot of sense here. It IS smart politics for Locke to focus on the Puget Sound region. Any governor of this state had better, or s/he won't have a job for long.

About half (or maybe even more) of the state's population is located in three counties: King, Pierce, and Snohomish. Where else would you expect any governor, and not just Locke, to focus?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

I think there's a die hard bunch (let's say 30,000) who use the system every day of their life. Since they count every boarding (coming and going, if you are a commuter) and there are 250 week days in a year, this (if true) would constitute 15 million of the 25 million passengers. That would seem unlikely, given the facts and figures presented on the WS Ferries website:

http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ferries/about-wsf/about-tourist-or-transit.cfm

Clearly the high volume times are on the summer weekends, and that is certainly where the waiting times get longest. I'd concede that there may be several million (predominately tourists) who use this service a few times a year. But that doesn't change the fact that the service is highly subsidized. The same citation indicates that users pay 60% of costs, but this figure is arrived at only after blowing off capital costs altogether. This represents just the operating costs. Now in truth, that's not bad as far as mass transit systems go, but the person in Ferry county might not understand why his/her MVET goes to subsidize and capitalize a resource that is of no benefit to them.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 26, 1999.

Gary writes:

"Clearly the high volume times are on the summer weekends, and that is certainly where the waiting times get longest. I'd concede that there may be several million (predominately tourists) who use this service a few times a year. But that doesn't change the fact that the service is highly subsidized. The same citation indicates that users pay 60% of costs, but this figure is arrived at only after blowing off capital costs altogether. This represents just the operating costs. Now in truth, that's not bad as far as mass transit systems go, but the person in Ferry county might not understand why his/her MVET goes to subsidize and capitalize a resource that is of no benefit to them."

Gary, I think that the difference between is us that you believe that nothing should be subsidized by the government, while I believe that there are certain instances where it's perfectly logical where something is subsidized by the government. You think this is accurate, or am I being a bit extreme with your position?

In any case, I think that the argument about people in Ferry County being mad about Ferries (sorry, couldn't resist :P) doesn't really hold water. Since our system of government isn't limited to really small areas, there's bound to be projects that higher levels of government (states, the feds) pay for that I'll never use. But this is just a byproduct of our system of large geographic areas, it's nothing to get upset about.

It is simply impossible to have all your money stay in your own community unless you disband the federal government, state governments, and cities. You have to pretty much turn each little neighborhood into its own country for this to work. And that's not feasible. That's why it bugs me when people make that argument.

I can understand their frustration on the surface, but I don't think that it stands up to greater scrutiny.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 26, 1999.

BB-

"Gary, I think that the difference between is us that you believe that nothing should be subsidized by the government, while I believe that there are certain instances where it's perfectly logical where something is subsidized by the government. You think this is accurate, or am I being a bit extreme with your position"

Very inaccurate. There are certainly essential government functions that can really only be done by government. I spent 20 years in government, and have been a (very junior) voting member of a government corporate board that handled a multi-billion dollar federal budget. I've seen the good and bad that government can do. Subsidizing is a different issue. The definition of subsidy is "Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or private commercial enterprise". This is a more dangerous game, regardless of whether the intent is social engineering, attracting industry, or paying off political contributors. The reason this is dangerous is that you are distorting the economic realities. This has the effect of distorting both the free market, and common sense. Example: MAX in Portland. The federal government payed 80% of the initial capitalization. But when it was finished, Portland found itself paying near 100% of the operations costs, to the point where it was detrimental to the more efficient (but less capital subsidized) bus services. It also allows manipulation by interest groups and wealthy corporations to swill at the public trough. Archer Daniels Midland has been subsidized to produce ethanol since the first OPEC shortage. They have become rich, and payed off both major parties (contributing to both Dole and Clinton simultaneously, and Bush and Clinton before that) to keep their subsidy going. This clearly benefits their stockholders (including me) and both major parties. I'd be hard pressed to say that it helps the taxpayer. The Milk Fund (I was born in Wisconsin, hence the Midwest examples) has been paying off Congress for years while we have been buying vast quantities of cheese, butter, etc., in a program that was originally based on a long discredited theory that babies needed a lot of cows milk, preferably with a high butterfat content. This bit of pork looks like it'll go on forever. I basically think that subsidies should be used very sparingly, and then only as a transition to allow people to adjust to market realities. I would generally NOT use them to attempt to social engineer anything. The track record of successful social engineering by the government is exceedingly small. Does this answer some

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 26, 1999.

BB-

The data on the ferries for 1997 (last figures available on the DOT site: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0035/ $File/P0035.PDF

Total costs for the year, $300 million (ops 123 million, capital 127 million), fares 17.43 million (covering 14% of operating expenses or 6% of total costs). Incidentally, the ridership on weekdays averages less than the ridership on either Saturday or Sunday

That's a pretty large subsidy, even as transit systems go. Obviously some of it supports tourism as well. Just info, for what it's worse.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 27, 1999.

Sorry-

Freudian slip

For what it's worth.

Gary

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 27, 1999.

BB...

"First of all, where do you get the data that says one percent of the population uses ferries? All the state gives out is total ridership numbers, which were over 25 million in 1997. Admittedly that number includes people who make the trip tons of times a year, but how do you get 60,000 or so out of it? I'm not trying to be a smartass here either, I'm asking for some real data."

Please pardon my delay in getting back to you...

I will defer to Gary's figures which show 17.3 million fares. It may be that "ridership" is a term that results from the number of trips the ferries make and their capacity, actual passenger numbers aside.

That said, the 17.3 million figure equates to around 47,400 people... or, less then 1% of our state's population each day... and about equivlant to the 45,000 CC'ers that commute to Portland every day without a $300,000,000 subsidy or a $30,000,000 subsidy or, for that matter, a $3,000,000 subsidy.

I am not quite sure why the 47,000 in Puget Sound are deserving of that type of money for THEIR transportation needs, while the people of Clark County (also a part of Washington State) are not. They get new super-ferries, and we need a new bridge... or, possibly even another bridge in another location... a situation that isn't even on this state's radar screen. But then the Trans. Committee chair doesn't live down here... does she?

That is, of course, a basic inequity... isn't it?

"You aren't really making a whole lot of sense here. It IS smart politics for Locke to focus on the Puget Sound region. Any governor of this state had better, or s/he won't have a job for long.

About half (or maybe even more) of the state's population is located in three counties: King, Pierce, and Snohomish. Where else would you expect any governor, and not just Locke, to focus?"

I'm sorry. I thought Locke was governor of every county, not just those three. I admit that it may not make sense that I, as a taxpaying citizen in this state, should not be considered less equal then any other taxpaying citizen in this state.

Frankly, I never bought into that Orwellian concept that as governor, it was Locke's job to kiss Puget Sound's ass while the rest of the state suffered from his efforts to cement re-election.

Strangely enough, I thought the governor was their to serve all of us (including the 4th largest city in the state) and not just to work towards re-election.

I stand corrected on that.

Westin

(Who is now busily researching the "Pierce, King and Snohomish" governor's clause of our state's Constitution...)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Westin-

The 17.43 million was NOT 17.43 million fares, it was fares totalling $17.43 million. I have no idea how many paying passengers that was, but if that was truly the 25 million passengers claimed above, they were getting a real good deal, less than a dollar a head. My guess is that the total passengers were a good deal less than 25 million, since they only claimed about 119 million passenger miles, and most ferry routes are over 5 miles long.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 27, 1999.

Gary,

I stand corrected.

Your refinement of the numbers to a level that even *I* can understand is greatly appreciated.

If the average fare was even as low as 2$, that would cut the number of passengers to 23,700 (17.3 mill divided by 365 divided by 2$)or so per day... (and that would assume they were all taking only one-way trips!) an even more compelling argument against what appears to be a rather outrageous amount of money being spent on so few (comparitively speaking) people, particularly when the rest of the people get so much less.

Thanks, Gary.

Westin

(Who hopes everyone is finally getting it)

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), August 27, 1999.

Let me start by saying that I think your calculations of passengers are off. Here's how I develop mine.

The state says that there were 25,587,112 passengers carried in 1997 (according to their website). Let's divide that by 365. That number is 70,101. So the ferry system, according to their numbers, was carrying at least that many people per day. I'm guessing that there were more people than that during weekdays (when tons commute to Seattle) more on summer weekends (when everybody goes on vacation) and far, far less during the winter weekends.

The Bainbridge Island run, the busiest one in the fleet, carried 18,850 passengers per day back and forth. Westin, you think that the system in total carried 23,700 people a day; this simply isn't the case. At least not according to the ferry system's passenger numbers.

In fact, I'm willing to admit that I can't even figure out the amount of people that the system carried every day. I don't know if anyone can. Fares don't necessarily work because the ferry system offers discounted rates for people who use it more often.

I remember early on in the life of this forum somebody posted that the Ferry system was obligated to be a run by the state because of some court decision; does anybody have any info on this? Which means that it could be done away with by the legislature in theory, but you can bet that that will never happen. The ferry system's here to stay folks, and as much as it annoys some of you, it ain't gonna go away.

This is all getting a bit off topic anyway.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

Now, onto more important things...

Westin writes:

"I am not quite sure why the 47,000 in Puget Sound are deserving of that type of money for THEIR transportation needs, while the people of Clark County (also a part of Washington State) are not. They get new super-ferries, and we need a new bridge... or, possibly even another bridge in another location... a situation that isn't even on this state's radar screen. But then the Trans. Committee chair doesn't live down here... does she?"

You keep going on and on about the I-5 bridge over the Columbia River. Where is the border between the two states? Is it the north bank of the Columbia, or the south? Building a new bridge across this river is more complicated than it would be in other places because you have to deal with two different states! Unless of course one state has possession of the river...

But I still think it's comparing apples to oranges.

"I'm sorry. I thought Locke was governor of every county, not just those three. I admit that it may not make sense that I, as a taxpaying citizen in this state, should not be considered less equal then any other taxpaying citizen in this state."

When did I say that? Quit putting words in my mouth. I said that Locke (and every other governor) needs to FOCUS (note that I did not say FOCUS ON ONLY PUGET SOUND AND NOWHERE ELSE) on Puget Sound in order for him to be re-elected. That doesn't mean he needs to totally neglect everywhere else; it simply means that he has to make sure that he knows what's going on in the most populous region of the state in order to be elected. You think this isn't the case?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 27, 1999.

BB-

"The state says that there were 25,587,112 passengers carried in 1997 (according to their website). Let's divide that by 365. That number is 70,101. So the ferry system, according to their numbers, was carrying at least that many people per day." The state told the feds (who give them money) that their average weekday unlinked trips (passengers) was 32,000, system wide. Go to the USDOT website: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0035/ $File/P0035.PDF I don't know who they are fibbing to, us or the feds. Any way you shake it, $17.43 million in fares is 6% of the total cost of running it for 1997. 94% is a heck of a subsidy, and the 32,000 passengers a (week)day that used it were and are getting a heck of a good deal.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 27, 1999.

Gary writes:

"The state told the feds (who give them money) that their average weekday unlinked trips (passengers) was 32,000, system wide. Go to the USDOT website: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/Profiles.nsf/1997+Exceeding+200000/0035/ $File/P0035.PDF I don't know who they are fibbing to, us or the feds. Any way you shake it, $17.43 million in fares is 6% of the total cost of running it for 1997. 94% is a heck of a subsidy, and the 32,000 passengers a (week)day that used it were and are getting a heck of a good deal."

Is it possible that the 32,000 number is actual passengers, meaning that's round trips? Assuming that most people actually use the ferry for a round trip.

Gary, I'm just about willing to throw my hands up and forget about even trying to sort this out. How the heck can we figure anything out if there's like 10 different sets of statistics for what we're both arguing? And here I wanted to prove my point! ;-)

First, I'm willing to concede to you that the ferries are heavily subsidized...but I don't necessarily think that's a horrible thing in this particular case. I won't say that it's *always* a good thing for subsidies to exist, because it isn't. But in this particular case, I think there's a need there.

Second, whether you like the ferry system or not, it simply is not a political reality to assume that it will go away any time in the near future. Whether 695 passes or not, there is some pretty bigtime political power in areas that depend on ferries; they'll find a way to keep them running.

And I would still argue my main point: even though people on one side of the state may pay money for something they'll never use, it cuts both ways. It's a useless argument that'll never have any sort of resolution.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), August 28, 1999.

BB-

Given the figures that Gary has given (from an official GOVERNMENT website, no less) are you at last willing to admit that those individuals paying MVET in Eastern and Southwestern Washington are providing a significant subsidy to those who ride ferries in the Puget Sound region? You infer that the people in Bainbridge alone are responsible for 18000 (highly subsidized) trips a day. Do you maintain that people outside the Puget Sound region use the ferries as often per capita? They certainly subsidize the ferries through the MVET just as muchper capita. The same can be said for a general state subsidy of Seattle transit through the MVET. This is an excellent reason for all Washington citizens who do not live in the Puget Sound region to vote for I-695. If Seattle wants her ferries and transit, pay for them with user fees (increase fares to cover costs). If that would drive the cost up too much, privatize both, that'll decrease the cost of operations so fares won't have to be so high. Just stop leeching off the rest of us.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), August 28, 1999.

BB-

"Is it possible that the 32,000 number is actual passengers, meaning that's round trips? Assuming that most people actually use the ferry for a round trip." Yes that's actual passengers. No that's not round trips. DOT considers unlinked trips to be just that, a one-way ride. The other problem is the number of passenger miles quoted. 119 million passenger miles is not a whole lot of miles if you consider an average passenger count of 32,000/day, or about 11 and one-half million per year. That comes out to be about 10.3 miles per trip, which is about right (The very short Vashon-Pt. Defiance run is not carried in the statistics mentioned, it's listed separately under Pierce County for some reason). So I don't think there is any doubt about the numbers. Your other issue, that everyone subsidizes everyone else's transport and there's no way to sort it out is simply wrong. If you look at distribution of MVET revenues on a per capita basis it is pretty easy to see that the disproportionate access to and use of the ferry system by western Washingtonians really is at the expense of people in Eastern Washington and Southwestern Washington. Don't get me wrong, I use them too and really enjoy them (the "harbor" in harbornet kind of gives my locale away), and I'd be a fool not to since the marginal cost to me is only 6 cents on the dollar. But the marginal cost to someone in Spokane has to factor in a 4-5 hour drive to GET to the ferry, so they aren't going to use it near as much, even though they pay just as much of their MVET for it as I do. And I agree, they probably aren't going to go away because of the tourism they bring in (which doesn't much benefit Spokane or Pullman either) and a more equitable way to fund them would probably be a hotel tax in the Puget Sound region and (sadly for me) increased fares.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), August 28, 1999.