I-695 will increase traffic congestion??

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

The opponents keep raising this flag.

How is a $30.00 license tab going to increase traffic congestion?

Is the savings going to result in a lot more children because people have more money to spend on romantic things?

Nope. the kids won't be driving for at least 16 years.

Are people going to migrate to Washington by the droves because the tabs are only $30.00?

Are people going to be so thrilled with the $30.00 tabs that they are going to learn how to drive TWO cars at the same time?

Are people who never considered buying a car going to do it now because..Hey it's only thirty bucks for tabs??

Are all the roads going to shrink by one lane?

Are the aliens going to quit using UFOs and buy SUVs instead?

Is Gary Locke and all the other schmucks going to give up their chauffeur driven limos and drive themselves around??

Heck I see that the roads will immediately be LESS congested.. Cause all the buses, fire trucks and Police cars are gonna be parked because there will be nobody to drive them!!

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999

Answers

"How is a $30.00 license tab going to increase traffic congestion?"

Because Referendum 49 is toast. $2 billion in traffic improvements will be gone.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.


"Because Referendum 49 is toast. $2 billion in traffic improvements will be gone. " Only if that's the way the politicians want it. They can divert resources from less important funding lines, or find economies within existing programs.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 01, 1999.

I'm surprised maddjak has set himself up so easily.

"Are people who never considered buying a car going to do it now because..Hey it's only thirty bucks for tabs??"

The supporters themselves are the ones who trot out the figures that Washington drivers buy newer cars at a rate lower than the national average and attribute it to the higher than average MVET. So by their own logic, people will buy more new cars. Will all the old cars disappear? No. Most will still be trade in's, but at $30 a pop for tabs I'm sure more people will consider keeping their old cars as a second or third car for the spouse or kids. So I think we can expect SOME increase in the number of cars on the road.

"Are all the roads going to shrink by one lane?"

No, but as BB pointed out, they ain't going to grow either.

I don't usually see too many police cars and fire trucks adding to the congestion in my area. The buses I see on the way into my work are usually packed with people commuting in from the South End. Hmm, figure a bus equals about 4-5 car sizes carrying about 40 people. Take away the bus and those 40 people are now taking up 40 car sizes in their solo commute into work. No, they won't all disappear, but there seems to be a general consensus that there will be fewer of them.

"Is Gary Locke and all the other schmucks going to give up their chauffeur driven limos and drive themselves around??"

Actually, I don't think the Governor has a limo. By chance were you making this one up?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 01, 1999.


Traffic will increase because of the cut in service from public transit. In King county alone, the traffic will increase by 70,000 auto trips per day from those people who will lose their buses and now have to drive their cars. In Kitsap County, people will have to drive around the sound instead of taking the ferry, because the ferry system will lose 200 millon the first year, and cut service as a result. With Ref. 49 money gone, their will be no new roads yet our population is growing....as it is everywhere....it's called people "multiplying". That is why traffic will increase....glad I could help.

-- (mkpow62@silverlink.net), October 01, 1999.

Mike--"In King country alone, the traffic will increase by 70,000 auto trips per day from those people who will lose their busses and now have to drive their cars."

I get nauseous every time I see this statistic. While I'd agree with the statement "there will be some number of extra cars on the road," the posted figure of 70,000 auto trips per day is ridiculous. If you don't believe me and you would like to decide for yourself, I suggest you visit the metrokc website and read the "analysis" used to support this number. If you do this I think you'll understand two things:

1) why I call the number ridiculous? 2) why I put quotations around the word analysis?

On the other hand, if you'd like, you can continue believing the 70,000/day number. If you do, you should also start thinking about the cookies you're giving Santa Claus this year.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 01, 1999.



Craig writes:

"Only if that's the way the politicians want it. They can divert resources from less important funding lines, or find economies within existing programs."

Wrong. The bonds for R-49 were supposed to start selling within the next few months. Now they cannot be sold until it is certain there is a dedicated funding source to back them. Since the MVET was to be that source, obviously there is no funding for the bonds if 695 passes.

Also, the state's bond rating will be downgraded if 695 passes, so the revenue created by bonds won't be as high as it was previously. Without a surplus (because 695 supporters want it to be burned up) the state does not have the revenue to back bonds that investors like to see.

Bottom line, R-49 projects are gone if 695 passes. Kiss the highway 509 extension in King County, the North/South freeway in Spokane, and a myriad of other projects goodbye.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 01, 1999.


BB-

"Wrong. The bonds for R-49 were supposed to start selling within the next few months. Now they cannot be sold until it is certain there is a dedicated funding source to back them. Since the MVET was to be that source, obviously there is no funding for the bonds if 695 passes. Also, the state's bond rating will be downgraded if 695 passes, so the revenue created by bonds won't be as high as it was previously. Without a surplus (because 695 supporters want it to be burned up) the state does not have the revenue to back bonds that investors like to see." I hate to say this, but this is an abysmally ignorant posting. The state can sell bonds any time they can find a buyer. They WILL clearly have to pay off the bonds somehow, but hether they use MVET or make them General Obligation bonds is entirely discretionary. Also, bonds don't "create revenue." They're just a loan, like any other sort of

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 01, 1999.


Craig writes:

"The state can sell bonds any time they can find a buyer."

This is true. But it really doesn't matter, considering the won't find buyers for the R-49 bonds when the funding is taken away and their bond rating is downgraded.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 02, 1999.


Oh and another thing Craig, on the subject of R-49 bonds. The state can't change the funding source for another year, and only then with a 2/3 vote of both houses. It's not just a simple discretionary shift of funding like you're making it out to be. There are those constitutional restrictions on changing referendums and initiatives that they have to deal with; they can't just plug new money in like you're implying they can.

Look, I know you really really don't want to admit this, but R-49 is gone of 695 passes. It's a simple fact. So by passing 695 you'll eliminate the biggest road construction boom this state will have had in decades.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 02, 1999.


"Oh and another thing Craig, on the subject of R-49 bonds. The state can't change the funding source for another year, and only then with a 2/3 vote of both houses. It's not just a simple discretionary shift of funding like you're making it out to be. There are those constitutional restrictions on changing referendums and initiatives that they have to deal with; they can't just plug new money in like you're implying they can." Of course they can. Thy can't call them R-49 bonds and they can't fund them with MVET (which will have disappeared) but they can certainly issue general obligation bonds and they can certainly spend the money anywhere their little hearts desire. Money is money. Nor is there rating in much trouble. If you saw the figures on growth of per capita income for the various states, it should be clear to you that Washington is currently a hot commodity. Heck, look at the bond market for state issued securities. And loss of 2% of revenue isn't going to make a significant difference. Nor would I particularly lament the demise of R-47 if it did go away. I didn't like the priorities they came up with in any event.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 02, 1999.


Craig writes:

"Nor is there rating in much trouble."

Yes it is. Read the papers. There are already indications that investors are less likely to buy bonds from Washington and its assorted local governments if 695 passes. There will not be guaranteed money to back up the bonds. It'll be a bad investment. Whereas now it's a good one.

"If you saw the figures on growth of per capita income for the various states, it should be clear to you that Washington is currently a hot commodity. Heck, look at the bond market for state issued securities. And loss of 2% of revenue isn't going to make a significant difference."

Washington may very well be a hot commodity right now. Why do you think that is? Because we have a surplus and guaranteed revenue streams to back the bonds. Which we won't have if 695 passes.

Also, the loss of revenue may not make that much of a difference to those who buy bonds. But the provision to vote on all tax increases makes a HUGE difference to investors. They won't have the same confidence they do now in the ability of the government to pay back the bonds. It's that simple. So they won't buy them, or if they do, it'll be with higher interest rates than they have now.

It's yet another negative side effect of this initiative.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 02, 1999.


"Washington may very well be a hot commodity right now. Why do you think that is? Because we have a surplus and guaranteed revenue streams to back the bonds. Which we won't have if 695 passes"

Actually, it is a hot commodity because of the relatively rapid rise in household income, fueled largely by the "Evil Empire" on the east side

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 02, 1999.


Q - I-695 will increase traffic congestion??

A - NO! The reason why? The only way to increase congestion isn't to lower dollars but to increase the number of vehicles on the road. The statement that it will is silly at best.

Q - Are people going to migrate to Washington by the droves because the tabs are only $30.00?

A - Washington State isn't the only state that has thought of this, currently Colorado has this same type of tax, they are NOT overflowing with new residents. This system works very well for them and they have less to support their economy then Washington State does. No major software companies, no big business, and no major sea ports

Another thing you must remember is that the Baby Boomer generation isn't going to be here forever, and when it's gone there will be major changes in this state due to a smaller population. Also the state doesn't track dollars and make sure what you pay goes directly to the DOT, they stick it in the general budget and they spend away.

Tony - supporter 695, life long republican

-- Tony Schroeder (baddog@nwlink.com), October 02, 1999.


Everytime I read arguments against I-695 on this bulletin board, I often see the arguments come from the same people. I also notice that their arguments are, for the most part, of the inflammatory type rhetoric as the politicians spew off about. This makes me wonder if these people are not themselves either politicians or someone hired by politicians to attempt to create mass hysteria about this issue. I too won't be heart broken to see the road construction issue quashed. We may not have the best traffic right now, but often these projects will take up hundreds of hours of your time sitting in traffic while the net benefit when finished will make your commute shorter by a factor of 30 seconds.

-- Matt Greenway (mattg@mossadams.com), October 04, 1999.

From the MetroKC website:

"Beyond such general observations, however, was the overall park-and- ride problem. A county staff summary said there are 51 permanent park- and-ride lots, with about 14,945 spaces. In addition, about 71 leased lots have about 2,942 spaces.

The immediate solution would seem to be add spaces to those approximately 18,000 spaces, but other county figures showed it costs $25,000 to $27,000 to add one parking space if a physical structure has to be built, such as a multilevel garage. To put in surface parking spaces costs about $17,000 to $19,000 per space.

The costs of providing free parking to encourage transit ridership, in other words, can be very expensive, the audience was told. " http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/park_19991006.html

Maybe if we didn't subsidize people to use transit, either the jobs would relocate to be near the people, or the people would relocate to be near the jobs?

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 06, 1999.



Gary:

And again I remind you, 695 is not a vote on transit. If you want to change the programs and priorities of transit, or the ferry system, or DOT, this initiative doesn't do it. It just cuts funding, with no direction about what to do about it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 06, 1999.


d-

The funding being cut goes disproportionately to transit and ferries. Now you are correct that the legislature may well reallocate, potentially straight-lining all accounts at 98% of current rather than actually allowing the cuts to go where the MVET currently sends them, and I hope they do some reallocation. Having said that, I think it is worth considering when we are renting park n ride spaces for $2000 per year, or buying them for $17-27 thousand (plus annual maintenance), and subsidizing the operating costs approximately 40%, that the marginal cost of each new rider is unreasonably high. That being the case, I'm trying to beat the rush in establishing that this would be a perfectly appropriate place to take a disproportionate share of the cuts, since the corollary to a high marginal cost is a high marginal cost-avoidance if we downsize this function. So you campaign for where you want the cuts to go, and let me campaign for where I want the cuts to go. OK? Cordially

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 06, 1999.


Gary wrote, "The funding being cut goes disproportionately to transit and ferries."

1. 695 cuts funding, not programs.

2. Whenever the opposition brings up the programs that are funded by MVET as examples of the effects of the initiative, they are attacked for a campaign of fear, lies, and terror.

3. You can't have it both ways.

4. If this were a referrendum on transit and the ferry system, instead of license tabs, the initiative would lose big. The discussion would actually be on an issue of substance, instead of a tax cut that is being presented to the voters as essentialy painless in terms of the program effects.

5. Constant specific complaints about government programs you don't like, seems to be an attempt to imply that 695 actually does something about them. It doesn't.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 07, 1999.


d-

1. 695 cuts funding, not programs. {That's true. Some of the funding is CURRENTLY dedicated to some programs, of which the ferry system and transit are two.} 2. Whenever the opposition brings up the programs that are funded by MVET as examples of the effects of the initiative, they are attacked for a campaign of fear, lies, and terror. {Not by me. I just wrote IMMEDIATELY ABOVE YOUR POST " you are correct that the legislature may well reallocate...." What part of that did you NOT understand?} 3. You can't have it both ways. {I am obviously NOT trying to have it both ways. Why do you allege that I am?} 4. If this were a referrendum (sic) on transit and the ferry system, instead of license tabs, the initiative would lose big. {Not with me, obviously. And I'm not sure it would with the average voter. The bulk of the people who use transit regularly are a very small fraction of the total voters. The market share for transit approaches or exceeds 10% in only two states. The majority of the drivers who support transit, do so hoping the other guy will use it so they can continue to drive. Despite billions invested in transit in the Seattle area, and massive subsidization, the per capita use has been flat for the last ten years, at approximately 48 one-way trips per capita in the Seattle Metro area.} The discussion would actually be on an issue of substance, instead of a tax cut that is being presented to the voters as essentialy painless in terms of the program effects. {A 2% reduction in revenue, if applied to the median family income in King County ($47000) would be approximately $1000. That isn't painless, but it is certainly manageable} 5. Constant specific complaints about government programs you don't like, seems to be an attempt to imply that 695 actually does something about them. It doesn't. {We apparently both agree that SOMETHING will have to be cut when I-695 passes. As I stated DIRECTLY ABOVE, "you campaign for where you want the cuts to go, and let me campaign for where I want the cuts to go" What part of that do you not understand?} Why do you attempt to misrepresent something I say when your post is going to be directly under mine on the page? This is not an effective debating technique. You will have difficulty enough dissuading the voters from passing I-695 even if you oppose it in as coherent a fashion as possible, but this is just wasting your time. If you've given up, resigned yourself to the inevitable, and are merely ventilating to get rid of frustration, go ahead. It'll be good to get it out of your system, so you can put it behind you. If you haven't given up all hope of stopping I-695, you need to sharpen your tec

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 07, 1999.


Gary - If people were told to how much it costs to add a lane to the highway vs. how much it costs to build Park'N'Ride, I think people would vote for the Park'N'Rides in a heartbeat. Furthermore, it takes years of environmental studies to get to the point where it takes years to build the additional lane. Furthermore, while the state builds the new lane, traffic congestion increases. Finally, when the lane does open, traffic congestion increases even more because the lane comes to an end, and this is yet another choke point.

That's why people would vote down the initiative if it were specifically targeted against ferries and Park'N'Rides. You're failing to discuss the cost avoidance to society, achieved by people who abandon cars.

You claim transit ridership is flat, but anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. In your own backyard (Gig Harbor), Pierce Transit added additional runs of the bus to Seattle. The bus now leaves as early as 5 AM, whereas it used to leave no earlier than 5:30 AM. Furthermore, Gig Harbor must be the vanpool capital of the world. I've never seen so many vanpools in such a small community. Furthermore, Pierce Transit claims that their express to Seattle from The Tacoma Dome Park'N'Ride is full at 4:45 AM!!!

I support I-695 because I believe it will force the transit agencies to listen to their communities so they can figure out a way to convince voters to raise taxes and fees.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 08, 1999.


Matthew-

"That's why people would vote down the initiative if it were specifically targeted against ferries and Park'N'Rides. You're failing to discuss the cost avoidance to society, achieved by people who abandon cars. " There is an excellent article on the USDOT website (A Review of the Literature on the Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States http://www.bts.gov/programs/jts/murphy.pdf) that addresses the many ways that the cost avoidance has been assessed by those that make this argument. If you read it, you will see the many flaws in their logic and economic analyses. But even were I to accept the flawed analyses, park n rides do not permit the economies you describe because the people who use them, by definition, still have cars. The only marginal cost they are saving is gas and wear and tear, having already spent the capital investment, and having to pay registration, MVET,insurance, garage/parking space, etc. Since gas and wear and tear is minimal compared to the others, there is little if any cost-avoidance. So this argument really just doesn't hold water for park n rides, even if you accepted it for other forms of transit.

"You claim transit ridership is flat, but anecdotal evidence suggests otherwise. " Anecdotes are fine, but facts are better. If you go to the MetroKC Smartgrowth site and look at their benchmark report (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/) you'll see that despite billions spent on transit over the last decade, transit use is flat, at 42 trips per year per capita. And even to keep these numbers, they had to throw in the rides in the free fare area downtown. This mirrors national trends. While overall transit use has increased somewhat with population, the market share of transit is continuing to decline.

"Furthermore, Gig Harbor must be the vanpool capital of the world. I've never seen so many vanpools in such a small community. " Clearly, van pool is the most cost-effective method of transit. Light rail, on the other hand, is the least cost-effective method. What are we about to spend $2 billion to build?

"I support I-695 because I believe it will force the transit agencies to listen to their communities so they can figure out a way to convince voters to raise taxes and fees. " I honestly don't see what more the transit agencies CAN do. They already provide free parking, heavily subsidized service, etc. The difficulty is that they are fighting geometry. It does say something that the most "individual auto like" form of transit, the van pool, is the most economical and effective. It has LESS of a problem fighting geometry than linear systems. The hope of the "new urban" movement is that these linear systems will force densification that will lead to the transit market share increasing. According to the benchmark report it isn't working in King County, and if you look in Europe where the urban population density tends to be far higher than what we have, and even what we envision under SmartGrowth, the trend is for a DECLINING transit market share. I personally think that we are well past the point of diminishing returns on transit investment and should be looking at other technologies, smart highways, etc., that can give us more capacity at reasonable cost. The LAST thing we need to consider is high capital cost linear systems like Link and Sounder that went away in the 40s and 50s for perfectly good economical reasons, and can be sustained today only like AMTRAK, with massive subsidies. I really would recommend perusal of the USDOT site. They may not be able to do much else, but they have NO problem funding studies. There are few transit related issues that haven't been studied to death on that site.



-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 08, 1999.


"transit use is flat, at 42 trips per year per capita" Whoops, typo. That should be flat at 48 trips per year per capita.

-- (henrik@harbornet.com), October 08, 1999.

Matt-

I'd also recommend the following reference since it specifically addresses Puget Sound transit market share. This is a good deal more authoritative than anecdotal evidence.

Go to http://www.fta.dot.gov/ntl/index.html

And hit intermodal

Transit Component - 1995 Update of the Metropolitan Transportation Plan for the Central Puget Sound Region, MTP-4, May 1994

Despite gains in overall annual ridership since the 1960s, transit patronage in comparison to automobile travel has dropped steadilyin the central Puget Sound region. Between 1961 and 1990, the proportion of transit trips to all trips within the region decreased from 5.2 percent to 3.3 percent. Traffic in the region has grown at nearly four times the rate of population and more than twice as quickly as employment. Since 1960, the number of vehicles miles traveled in the region has increased 450 percent. Other trends such as a dispersed land use pattern, two income families, and rising incomes have contributed to the preference for SOV travel Considerable investment and implementation of innovative programs by the region's transit operators have been necessary to contain the rate of decline of transit ridership per capita.

Although this is 5 years old, the figures haven't improved since that time.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 08, 1999.


Gary:

What I have given up on, is convincing you, and discussion of specific programs expected to be cut by the loss of MVET. Both activities are a waste of time. You acknowledge that 695 is not about programs, and then continue to discuss transit, park and ride, and the ferry system is if it is. After 695, the right place to influence the decisions on these issues will be the same places you and others should have been influencing the decisions before 695.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 08, 1999.


To Gary: I haven't been to the web sites you recommend, but most people understand that there will be economic implications if the people using ferries, transit, and vanpools choose to use their cars, instead. That's why I am willing to pay a property tax on my home and/or car in order to subsidize such activities. I believe I-695 will make the governmental agencies more responsive. With the huge state surplus, we can take a risk on I-695. The huge surplus can help cushion the blow to the ferries and transit. Then, it will be up to the voters to decide how much they want to subsidize the poor folks.

I don't know about you, but if I'm offered a choice of paying hundreds of millions for ferries and transit vs. paying billions for roads, I know which option I prefer.

Now, if your position is pay nothing for nothing, I can respect that. Just say it. I don't agree with it. I won't vote for it. And, I doubt many others will, either. But, you're entitled to your opinion.

Just how would you manage congestion, and at what cost? Do I dare say it: Put up or shut up! Just kidding. You don't have to shut up.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 09, 1999.


To dbvz: You say that we can influence decisions, now. That we don't need I-695. This is a lie, in my opinion. The government will be more responsive and more accounatble as a result of I-695. The government will have to come up with specific proposals in order to convince voters to approve higher taxes. I've been to meetings. I've attempted to communicate with my representatives and governmental agencies. They could care less.

A perfect example is the Tacoma Narrows Bridge where the people who will actually pay the toll voted overwhelmingly against the project. Now, you tell me what we have to do to be heard. I-695 may not kill the Tacoma Narrows Bridge project, but it's our last hope.

I'll tell you what, if you can get the Tacoma Narrows bridge project cancelled, I'll vote against I-695. Is that fair?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 09, 1999.


Last hope? It does nothing about the narrows bridge! It deals with funding, not projects. They could build a 2% less expensive bridge, or make other cuts to build it. This initiative is the wrong tool for the job of changing any priorities, and especially something as specific as the bridge.

As for my "lie", you win some and you lose some. Getting involved and influencing the decisions does not assure you will win. It just gives you a better chance of winning than doing nothing.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.


to dbvz: I-695 does do something about the Narrows bridge, because I- 695 increases the probability that Referendum 49 will fall apart, which provides the initial financing for the bridge project. It's just common sense, if there's less money available, then there is a higher probability the bridge project won't be financed.

You are simply ignoring that the government is unresponsive, unaccountable, arrogant, and corrupt. That why I say you're "lying" when you imply that I-695 won't change our ability to influence the government. It will change everything. Now, the politicians will have to convince voters to fund transit, ferries, and new road construction. Sounds to me like I-695 is going to revitalize communications between the citizens and their representative.

I'm willing to take a gamble on I-695 because of the huge state surplus and the strong economy. I'm optimistic, and you're not. I'm adventurous, and you're boring.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 09, 1999.


Matt wrote, "I'm willing to take a gamble on I-695 because of the huge state surplus and the strong economy. I'm optimistic, and you're not. I'm adventurous, and you're boring."

I'm not willing to gamble on 695, because the state surplus is not large enough to cover the loss for long, and the cuts are not expected just at the state level. The local economy is strong, but the business leaders are concerned about this, and the economy can change. Your reckless, and I'm conservative. Your careless and I'm careful. When it comes to how the state operates, boring is better.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 09, 1999.


to dbvz: The surplus doesn't need to cover the cuts for very long. Just long enough for people to vote on restoring or replacing some or all of the lost revenue. I know I would vote for increased property taxes on my home and/or vehicles, if I believed the programs made sense for the community.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 10, 1999.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ