or for a candidate who vows to increase it.

Is a vote against freedom. It is a movement to remove individuals from their vehicles so they will be more under the control of government. The existing MVET is a major part of that policy and ridding ourselves of it with I-695 is the first step in regaining some measure of personal freedom.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999

Answers

Geeze.. Maddjak.. your name seems to fit..IMHO Is everything a govenment conspiracy? Public transportation can be, if supported by stong public input which gives important info about when and where buses are most needed, a very logical and wise way for folks to move from point A to point B.. Now if you want conspiracy how about the cops impound all cars where drivers have three moving violations.. 3 strikes and you're out..

-- Moonhunter (moonhunter47@yahoo.com), September 02, 1999.

Are you nuts? Using public transportation is not a vote against freedom! It is a choice made by citizens who are (pick one)

a. Unable to drive themselves - senior citizens and handicapped, among others.

b. Concerned about the environment - citizens who wish to put one less car on the road.

c. Attempting to save money - bus fares are certainly cheaper than driving and paying for gas.

d. Avoiding wear and tear on their OWN cars - let the buses attempt the pot holes on our roads and freeways.

Your arguments make sense to me some times, but you have really pulled a doozy with this one. Personal freedom is not limited by transit. To say that increased services for the elderly and handicapped limits personal freedom is wrong. Please stop this nasty tangent from your more convicing arguments.

-- Dave (everett244@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

Here we have a clear example of what's wrong with the current relationship between government and citizenry at the citizen (or would-be citizen) level: people whose concept of "freedom" only seems to entail such self-centered "rights" as the right to drive, the right to shop, the right to be loud and obtuse in public, etc. The corollary here is that to such people, the concept of self-sacrifice for the greater good nearly always appears to be an infringement of their "rights" by "the man", never mind any possible right of other citizens to live in a civil situation (un-crowded roads, un-polluted environment, no noise from the "civil libertarian" next-door neighbors after 9 PM, etc.) maddjak, have you ever considered that there are greater freedoms than the freedom to drive your rock-and-roll hot rod at 110 MPH down the Civil Society Highway with the sun roof down blasting "Back in Black" by AC/DC at 300 db, dude? Such as freedom of speech, freedom to organize labor unions, freedom from enviromental degradation, freedom from discrimination, etc. And that these freedoms are not threatened by government, but more often than not are PROTECTED by it? If we privatized everything under the sun starting tomorrow, are you willing to bet that most of these freedoms would remain? Deny this, if you can: these freedoms I've mentioned are not very conducive to high profit margins on the part of private enterprise, and without government protection, would quickly be stomped out of existence by multinational corporations, taking full advantage of their new-found freedom from annoying laws and regulations foisted on them by The Man. Deny it, maddjak, in your own inimitable style of eloquence!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 02, 1999.

Jeff-

""Back in Black" by AC/DC at 300 db, dude? " First a point or two of scientific fact. It's dB, not db for decibel. This indicates that it's a decilogarithmic scale. The energy increases by a magnitude of ten for every 10dB. 130dB is 1000 times more energy than 100db. 135 dB is about the noise of a fighter jet taking off in afterburner, as heard by someone standing 10 feet away. I don't really think that 300dB is possible in a one atmosphere (14.7 #/sq in) environment, the air is not capable of being compressed that hard.

Now science aside, maddjak IS exercising the freedom of speech which you identify as being important, and doing so doesn't make him the heartless uncaring environment destroying ogre that you're implying. Transit in this state is highly subsidized, much more so than in most states. It comprises the largest single item in the King County budget, over a third of a billion dollars annually. It does not seem unreasonable that this would be a topic of some interest, perhaps the other states are dramatically undersubsidizing their transit, perhaps we are over subsidizing ours, or perhaps everyone is doing the right thing for their individual conditions. But no topic should be off limits and nobody should be personally vilified for raising what is clearly an appropriate issue. Besides, what "everybody knows" sometimes turns out to be greatly mistaken. Ferries used to be looked upon as environmentally friendly. It has been recently realized that they contribute significantly to air pollution, notwithstanding that they are "mass transit." Recently the passenger only ferry between Bremerton and Seattle had it's speed reduced until an environmental impact assessment can be done over allegations of erosion of beaches. That may or may not be valid, but it sure would have been nice if someone had raised the question BEFORE a multi- million dollar ferry was procured. If maddjak's opinions are wrong, it ought to be possible to refute them without ad hominem attacks. Don't shoot the messenger, if you truly believe in freedom of speech, even if you don't like the message. Do the research, post the DATA that rebuts his arguments, and prove him wrong if you can.

*

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 02, 1999.

Well Jeff, Dave and Moonhunter. The first thing you need to do is read my title and opening line again:

"A vote to increase public transportation or for a candidate who vows to increase it. Is a vote against freedom."

It's a simple statement I said nothing about people who USE public transit. Read the paragraph above again carefully.

But since you are speaking about the people who do use it.....WE PAY FOR IT. They save gas because WE are subsidising their ride. The money that WE have been paying in MVET, bas tax and other ROAD Related expenses have NOT been going to enhance the quality of roads and driving for us. They have been going to subsidize a means of transportation they we have chosen not to use.

Voting politicians into office who promise to expand it even further is taking MORE of the money WE have provided and giving it to a State sponsored and losing proposition that will never be self-sustaining, let alone turn a profit.

That is a blow against freedom. This is not a nasty tangent, this is reality.

Moonhunter, I don't speak of any conspiricy. When you take money from person A and use it to create stuff for person B instead of building and maintaining roads C that A pays for that is a reduction of freedom.

And Jeff just just prove once more that higher education is a waste of money.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 02, 1999.

maddjak-

A little ammunition for you from the 1997 National Tranit Profile (The latest available on the USDOT Website):

http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTST.nsf/NTST/1997/$File/Ntst97.pdf

The trends in contribution of passenger fares to total operating funds applied depend on the urbanized areas size. For small urbanized areas, the share of passenger fares increased 19.7 percent from 1993 to 1997. In 1993, passenger fares represented 21.5 percent of the total operating funds applied, and this figure increased to 22.2 percent in 1997. For mid-size urbanized areas, there was also an increase in the share of passenger fares for the 1993-1997 time frame, increasing from 22.5 percent of the operating funds in 1993, to 24.8 percent in 1997. For large urbanized areas, the contribution of passenger fares increased from 38.4 percent in 1993 to 42 per-cent in 1997. Now this reflect NATIONAL trends. Washington farebox recovery is CONSIDERABLY LESS. King County Metro was 21% of Operating revenue, Pierce Transit 16% (http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm) Our smaller systems like the Ben Franklin farebox recovery was 10% of operating revenue. Of course, if you count total operating expenses, all these percentage would be much lower. Any idea why that is???

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 02, 1999.

Uh-oh, did some more research on the USDOT site. You can thank Jeff and Moonhunter into for goading me into this. Now if JUST King County Metro transit passengers payed 100% of the operating cost of providing for the services that they used, that would amount to $250 million per year in farebox revenue above what Metro currently brings in. But even a more modest proposal, to raise farebox revenue on transit systems in the state of Washington to EQUAL the national averages listed above (22.2% small, 24.8% middle sized, 42% large transit system, would STILL bring in significant amounts of money. If King County Metro (21% farebox revenue) were raised to the national average 42% it would yield an additional $61 million annually. Tacoma-Pierce County (17%) would yield $11.5 million annually. For smaller systems the result would be less dramatic but still significant. Bellingham going from it's current 6% to 22.2 would yield $1.5 million. Yakima (9%)would yield $440K. This seems like a modest proposal. It would not slam the users of transit, merely require them to pay the average percentage of the operating expenses that the transit riders in the other 49 states pay. Subsidies would STILL be at least 52%, 78% for smaller systems.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 03, 1999.

But Gary, That's not fair. Why should the people who USE public transit be required to pay 42% of the cost? That should be paid by the rest of us who drive cars!!

Privatized transit is out of the question..even though it works every place it has been tried.

Maybe if we required ALL of our government officials to use the transit system. Maybe if ALL those city employees who drive around in cars WE PAY FOR were relegated to Public Transit???

Can you imagine the uproar?

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

maddjak writes:

"Privatized transit is out of the question..even though it works every place it has been tried"

Okay, I'll bite. Where?

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

BB Privatized transit.... Shuttle express is one example. There are probably thousands of similar operations all over the country.

Taxicabs are private transit.

I have mentioned the private transit system in Cancun which has been touted as the best transit system in North America...But it was criticized by people who know nothing about it.. who said "But it can't be safe..the government doesn't control it."

And I can understand the thought processes. If it's not in the USA it is garbage.

How about Greyhound?? check this one http://member.aol.com/Adriantm/jitneyed.htm

read about Oregon light rail http://www.cascadepolicy.org/transit/paveover.htm

more cab stuff http://www.cascadepolicy.org/liberty/transit.htm http://www.lakelandbus.com/

there's just a few

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 03, 1999.

maddjak-

Actually, the government will work aggressively to decrease the competition to the transit system through artificially controlling the availability of such things as taxis. The thought that someone might actually make a profit doing something that they do only at a great loss is embarassing to them. Hence they'll make it into a monopoly, to drive up the cost to the private entrepreneur.

Excerpts from a Seattle Times Article - today by coincidence"

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/taxi_19990903.html

In 1979, Seattle was reported to have taxi fares among the highest in the country, higher than Chicago, New York and San Francisco. Deregulation was introduced that year, and by 1983 the number of cabs jumped to 648, introducing cutthroat competition. In 1984, a moratorium was placed on new licenses. The regulations limit the number of licenses to about the 1,100 in existence now. As with any desirable item of limited quantity, the limited number of taxi licenses creates a classic supply-and-demand situation, with a licensed taxi in the Seattle area selling for as much as $150,000, depending on which licenses it has, said Kipper. Once acquired, a licensed cab can run 24 hours a day with several drivers, rolling up hundreds of thousands of miles. Drivers can earn as much as $300 to $600 a day. "The taxi business is good, let me tell you," said Kipper, explaining how the licenses change hands by word-of-mouth or postings on cab- association bulletin boards, usually financed through private contracts.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 03, 1999.

maddjak writes: "And Jeff just just prove once more that higher education is a waste of money."

okay okay maddjak, it's obvious obvious that my my education has been a waste waste of money money because they still haven't haven't taught me that that your opinion is correct correct in spite of the, shall shall we say say, ELLIPTITUDINOUSNESS of your logic. Such as the following following statement: "It is a movement to remove individuals from their vehicles so they will be more under the control of government." So, maddjak, are we talking mind control devices hidden in the handrails of Metro buses, or do you have, ahem, "documented evidence" of this apparent conspiracy? At the very very least, maddjak, those those dummies called professors at the UW have have at least taught me proper proper grammar as well as how to proof proof read read before before I send my tirades out into the Great Discourse!

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 03, 1999.

Oh, and one other thing:

"Deny this, if you can: these freedoms I've mentioned are not very conducive to high profit margins on the part of private enterprise, and without government protection, would quickly be stomped out of existence by multinational corporations, taking full advantage of their new-found freedom from annoying laws and regulations foisted on them by The Man. Deny it, maddjak, in your own inimitable style of eloquence!"

Still waiting for that denial, maddjak.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 03, 1999.

""Deny this, if you can: these freedoms I've mentioned are not very conducive to high profit margins on the part of private enterprise, and without government protection, would quickly be stomped out of existence by multinational corporations, taking full advantage of their new-found freedom from annoying laws and regulations foisted on them by The Man."

Gee Jeff-

Think we ought to launch missiles and nuke em till they glow??

The Crai

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 03, 1999.

Yes Jeff we understand that you have much time on your hands and we try to be patient with you. I mean we are real sensitive and caring people.

And even though at times you present the image of an angry rooster being sprayed with a hose....... we understand.... it's not your fault..... your programming has just kicked in.

And about your raving comment about commerce not being able to exist without the protection of government.....well that is a very good Marxist idea.

But we were discussing I-695 and the ramifications of public transit eliminating traffic lanes..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 04, 1999.

From yesterdays Seattle PI:

"An oversight committee reviewing Sound Transit's performance has dinged the 18-member board for poor attendance, noting that this is hampering its "effectiveness as a decision-making body." The report from the Citizen Oversight Panel released yesterday said a third of the agency's regular board meetings in the first half of 1999 were canceled because fewer than 10 members showed up."

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/rta031.shtml

Worst on the list were Ron (tax to the max) Sims and Everett Mayor Hansen with 40% attendance (no, not 40% absences, 40% ATTENDANCE). Sid Morrison, State Secy of Transportation gets a dishonorable mention with 50% attendance. And for Sims and Morrison, this is AN IMPROVEMENT! During all of 1998, Sims attended only 29 percent of the meetings and Sid Morrison 35 percent, according to board administrator Marcia Walker's records.

No wonder this $3.9 BILLION program is over budget and behind schedule. BB, Jeff-

How can you justify this???? How can you support these Bozos?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 04, 1999.

Keep Jim Compton off of the King County Council. His desire is to emulate Ron Sims and increase transit spending to the maximum.

Send him back to television where he belongs..

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 05, 1999.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Ron (tax to the max) Sims, and his cronies are seeing their light rail plans go up in smoke:

"Time is running out before a November deadline to settle on a route, and the transit agency faces a monumental task trying to reach Northgate, an important step in drawing Snohomish county riders and relieving bus traffic downtown.

Plus, Sound Transit still needs to find $200 million in savings to bring an even less-ambitious route - Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to the University District - within its $2.1 billion budget.

Sound Transit could seek more federal money. But competition is intense, and Earling noted, "That's $200 million on top of the $900 million we're already trying to get from the federal government."

Sound Transit also could hit up the state for money. But Eastern Washington legislators have thwarted state funding in the past, and Sound Transit is also hoping for state help building a rail line to the Eastside.

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/sims_19990905.html

Maybe if all these meetings hadnt been cancelled because of lack of a quorum, wed be farther along. Naw.. Probably not.

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 05, 1999.

http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi-bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/displa y?storyID=37d040371e&query=light+rail

THE next few months will be a big test for Seattle Mayor Paul Schell and regional politics. We're about to have a donnybrook over transit, now that word is out that the Sound Transit scheme is sputtering. Late in the day, local leadership in the form of Mayor Schell and Metropolitan King County Executive Ron Sims has finally appeared. Business is wheeling up some big guns. The stakes are high, political careers are on the line, and the issue (easing congestion) couldn't be more pressing. Two November deadlines increase the urgency. The first is Nov. 18, by which date the region must have reached an effective consensus on its rail-transit plan if it is to stand a chance for $500 million in federal funding. Miss this date, or go to the feds in the present regional disarray, and we'll have to wait another five years to get back at the trough.

Back at the TROUGH??? My goodness, an editorial that actually ADMITS that this is about political careers and SWILLING AT THE PUBLIC TROUGH. If you want to do something about congestion, build roads, specifically general purpose lanes. Double deck I-5 with lanes that zip right through (over) Seattle without an off ramp for the I-5 traffic that never did have Seattle as a destination, they are just happening to travel on the Pacific Coast's major North-South freeway to Canada and points North. Don't support politicians that are just building their careers, with YOUR tax dollars inefficiently spent in THEIR neighborhoods. They win or lose on the industrial activity they generate, not on the long term consequences. That's why you have the Kingdome where it is (rather than where the independent commission said to put it), why it'll soon be torn down, why the taxpayers (and lottery losers) are building/have built two more in the same crowded area. The payoff is in the public works projects. Thats why the unions and the AWB have been joined at the hip fighting I-695. To them, it doesn't matter what the outcome, they are getting rich on the process. We could continue to produce off-ramps to outer space like we did on I-5 back in the 60s and 70s forever for all they care. The unions are getting prevailing wage and plenty of overtime, and the AWB is getting a fat cost plus contract. The only people getting screwed are the taxpayers.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 05, 1999.

maddjak,

Could you be so kind as to quote, verbatim and unedited, where I allegedly made a "raving comment about commerce not being able to exist without the protection of government"? I could have sworn I was talking about how unregulated free enterprise poses a threat to certain civic freedoms such as the right to organize unions, the right to free speech, etc. Were you having another epoxy glue flashback when you read my post, maddjak?

As for how my post relates to I-695, well, you pretty much outright proposed a conspiracy theory worthy of Lyndon LaRouche in apparent defense of I-695; I, exercising the right to free speech, offered a critique. We're all adults here right?

P.S. Still waiting for that denial, maddjak.

-- Jeff Stevens (chez@u.washington.edu), September 07, 1999.

Jeff "P.S. Still waiting for that denial, maddjak"

How can you be waiting for denial when your whole existance is a denial? the 'right to organize labor unions'? Where did that come from? Is that somewhere in a Bill of rights I haven't seen yet?

Yes you 'excercise free speech'. You just don't practice it enough to make it understandable.

Raving comment? All your comments are raving and nonsensical

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), September 07, 1999.