As yet another sign of desperation on the part of the governments that oppose this initiative, I enter exhibit "A" of the levels they stoop to, and yet another example of why government is held in such universal contempt:

Posted at 06:45 a.m. PDT; Wednesday, October 6, 1999

Is a King County poll a veiled campaign against I-695?

Would Initiative 695, the $30 car-tab measure on the Nov. 2 ballot, hurt poor people and make traffic worse?

You may think so after talking to pollsters working for King County, even though the county is barred by state law from campaigning for or against ballot measures.

The county is spending $24,000 on a telephone poll now under way that asks residents to choose among drastic steps that may be needed if Metro Transit loses a large portion of its revenue.

Without mentioning I-695, callers doing the poll tell those receiving the calls that Metro is looking at fare increases, then say:

"The more that fares increase, the less services would need to be cut. But higher fares would have the greatest impact on low-income people. Also, if people switch from riding the bus to driving cars, this could increase traffic congestion."

Then the callers ask whether fares should increase 25 percent, 50 percent or neither.

County officials say the poll is legal, but I-695 sponsor Tim Eyman called it "a standard, classic campaign strategy of threats, scare tactics and lies."

"It is illegal for the government to lobby the public against the initiative, but they're getting so desperate it's obvious they've decided to not push the envelope but toss it aside," said Eyman, a Mukilteo entrepreneur.

King County is one of many local governments walking a fine line this fall as they try spreading the word about I-695's potential effect on budgets, without appearing to criticize or endorse the measure.

Officials say the public needs to be informed because bus service may be cut, fares increased and other government services trimmed if I-695 passes.

Rolling back the car-tab tax would cost King County $122 million a year, mostly in transit funding, and trim the average city budget by 7 percent.

In addition to reducing the vehicle tax, I-695 would also require public votes on all tax and fee increases.

Initiative proponents say shortfalls could be covered by the state budget surplus. They also say it would force politicians to prioritize spending.

Poll an attempt to prioritize?

One response by King and Snohomish counties has been to hold public workshops at which officials discuss Initiative 695, cuts in bus routes, higher fares and reduced services to the elderly and disabled.

Notices of potential service cuts are posted on buses, and press officers are distributing fact sheets that detail potential cuts.

King County also is doing the poll. It initially was rejected by County Executive Ron Sims, who was concerned it would appear to be a "push poll" intended to sway voters in a certain direction.

But Sims agreed to it after the questions were toned down and prosecutors said it was legal.

"There were a number of questions that were deleted because I thought they overreached," Sims said. "I said we're not here to poll, we're here to make intelligent decisions about how to reduce services if it occurs."

What the law says

So far, nobody has complained about the poll or other I-695 events to the state's election watchdog, the Public Disclosure Commission.

But the agency has had to edit numerous fliers prepared by local governments because "some or certain words could be interpreted as advocating a position," said acting director Vicki Rippie.

"It is not unusual for them to need some minor revisions," Rippie said.

For workshops, polls or other activity to be legal, they must be considered "normal and regular conduct."

"Public agencies are legally permitted, and one could argue required, to communicate with folks in that jurisdiction, but it has to be regular," Rippie said. "It has to be an activity that is typically undertaken, that is not unusual."

An advisory letter her agency provides to governments says it's fine to provide a fair, objective explanation of how a ballot measure may affect them.

However, it "may not advocate a position, either expressly or through the judicious application of style, tone, tenor or timing."

Callers told to obscure link

The poll for King County is being done by Northwest Research Group of Bellevue, where field manager Troy Hawkins declined to comment.

Callers working for the company were told the poll is to help the county make budgeting decisions in case I-695 passes. But they are instructed not to disclose that the survey is related to I-695.

The instructions say: "If a respondent asks, `Is this about I-695?' simply say, `I don't know. The only information I am given is that this is a planning study for King County and Metro Transit.' "

However, sources told The Seattle Times that numerous people who were called figured out that the poll was related to I-695. They may have been helped in part by a Sept. 21 news conference where Sims and Metro officials broadcast their concerns about the effect on transit, roads and other services.

Sims routinely holds public workshops on major policy issues, and Ron Posthuma, acting deputy director of the county Transportation Department, said his agency commonly polls riders. This time, it wanted to see how people would react to the 25 percent to 50 percent fare increases that might be needed if I-695 passes, he said.

"We think we're on pretty firm ground with what we're doing in this case," he said.

Eyman disagreed.

"Common sense tells you that the King County government has decided that they can't beat 695 in a fair fight," he said, "and that they need to break the law in order to try and scare voters away from it."

Brier Dudley's phone is 206-515-5687.

Copyright ) 1999 The Seattle Times Company

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions in the county's poll

[ seattletimes.com home ] [ Classified Ads | Yellow Pages | Contact Us | Search Archives ] Copyright ) 1999 The Seattle Times Company

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 06, 1999

Answers

I don't suppose that it's worth pointing out that although Eyman is complaining that such action is illegal, he apparently hasn't contacted the proper authorities (PDC) to report it. Neither, apparently, have any of the several hundred people who have been asked to take the poll.

Besides, even if they could "push" all 800 people that the polled into voting no on the initiative, is that a significant number of people to affect the election? Or could Eyman just be trying to sway voters himself by making a claim that something is illegal even though it appears that he himself doesn't believe that it is illegal (otherwise it's pretty easy to file a complaint)?

I suppose the government can't win either way. First people complain that it doesn't spend the money it has properly, and then when it asked people how it should spend the money it gets yelled at by the same people.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

ahh, yes walk that line. All under the heading of "voter edumacation", I hope they cram this initiative down there collective throats. Chew on this.

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 06, 1999.

That's what I like about you, Patrick...

With you, governments are apparently incapable of doing anything wrong; charging too many taxes or fees; acting without ethics; and using cigars in a manner that, well, I'm sure Castro didn't even think of.

With you, it's OK that the pollster lies. With you, it's OK that only 800 people that may be used to violate the law... because, after all, they're pushing your side.

Well, guess what. It ISN'T OK... and you know, I have all this time on my hands... who knows... perhaps I'LL file the complaint. After we get this thing passed, maybe we can skewer these fine folks... folks who wouldn't DREAM of even POSSIBLY violating the law.

But, as you've shown so many times in the past, it truly must be based on what your definition of "is," is.

Westin

-- Westin (86se4sp@my-deja.com), October 06, 1999.

Well there are a few questions about this 'poll'

How many people are being 'polled'? The normal number is between 500 and 1000.

Are the results of this poll going to be released to the public? Including the number of people polled?

Why does the polling of 500 to 1000 people cost $24,000.00? I've done this stuff before and 500 to 1000 people can be accomplished by two people in ONE eight hour workday!!!

How much are these people being paid? And Why so much??

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

I go out on a limb here and guess I'm in the minority. I think they're actually heading down the right path by doing this. I believe they're trying to determine what decisions are most palatable to King county residents. If you want to know why I think this is true. . .keep reading.

Quite frankly, I think they know they're beat. I've kept a current list of large (>= $500) donors to the no 695 campaign. Interestingly enough, this list hasn't grown since September 27. Considering the fact that it grew rather rapidly earlier, I must conclude one of the following:

o something is screwed up administratively at the pdc and their C3 forms have been lost

o relatively constant poll numbers have dried up sources of revenue for the no 695 campaign. Put another way, there's no reason to file a C3 when you aren't raising any more money (FWIW: as of 9/28 they'd raised about $760,000).

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), October 07, 1999.

Maddjak says....

"How much are these people being paid?" and then.... "Why so much?"

Is it just me, or does anyone else see how stupid this sounds?

First you ask how much, then complain that it's too much? Pretty smart Jack!

Down with the Libertarin Party.

-- (mkpow62@silverlink.net), October 07, 1999.

"Down with the Libertarin Party. " I agree Mike, none of the Libertarians like them either.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.

The poll would be fine it included questions about how much of the state surplus should King County receive. The problem with people against I-695 is they refuse to acknowledge that the huge state surplus buys us time. Time for the voters to decide which taxes and fees need to go up to fund which programs. In other words, the government will be more responsive. The sky isn't falling, it's just getting sunnier, and the doom&gloomers are frightened of a little light!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 07, 1999.

Well- right, wrong, or indifferent, it appears that this isn't going to keep up. Kind of reminds me of the famous Al Gore'ism about soliciting contributions from his government office. "I did nothing wrong, and I'll never do it again."

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/poll_19991007.html County's I-695 poll won't be copied by PDC by Brier Dudley Seattle Times staff reporter A controversial King County poll on the effects of Initiative 695 had been slated to become a model for governments across the state. But the state Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) dropped that plan after the county balked. The commission also decided it would prefer to check polls for legality than to provide examples. A complaint about the poll received yesterday had nothing to do with the decision, said Susan Harris, PDC assistant director of compliance and enforcement. "We were going to," Harris said about offering the poll as a model. "Then we decided, no, we're not going to go there. We're not going to offer suggestions."

-- The spellmeister (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.

Let's review what's basically happened. Metro is looking at the possibility of a $100 million reduction in the funding they receive. So they ask people what they should do. Do they raise fares, cut services, a little of both? Essentially they're saying "If you pass I-695, what do you want us to do?" Is this such a horrible question to ask? Oh no, it might possibly spur people into actually considering the consequences of their actions beyond paying less on their car tabs!

This is classic Eyman. He acknowledges that governments will be required to reprioritize their spending, but tries very hard to distract people when a government actually starts considering how they're going to reprioritize.

Westin, did I say that the government can do no wrong? I don't believe I did. Tell me, where did the pollsters lie? Some examples might be nice. By all means Westin, file a complaint. I'll even help you fill out the forms! It won't do a bit of good. Turns out King County already got pre-approval from the PDC. You know, that independent group that decides what things are legal in a campaign. Once again it seems as Westin's view of how the world should work don't match up to how it really does.

Maddjak, 800 people are/were polled. 400 Metro riders and 400 non Metro riders. For the rest of you questions, I would imagine that most of that information is public information. You could contact the county if you are honestly interested in answers.

Brad, I'd probably guess at your first conclusion. The PDC can be pretty slow in updating its information as an election draws near. It wasn't discovered that the I-200 proponents spent almost the same amount of money as the No side until a couple months back.

Matthew, a portion of a question asked in the poll: "This revenue loss could be offset fully or partially by other funding from the state, or by reallocating funds within the County. Or Metro spending may need to be cut to the new level of revenue . . . "

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Ah yes Mike pow pow powell. Of course to you and the people like you it is stupid to ask why something that should cost a few hundred dollars or a grand at most, when done at the bidding of the government, costs $24,000.00

That's because you have been deluded for so long that you believe everything government does is correct.....or maybe it is because you have your head so far up your ass you can lick your tonsils from the inside...

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

Actually Maddjak, I think Mike was taking issue with you asking how much the people who conducted the poll were paid and then complaining about how it was too much BEFORE any number could be given. It kind of makes it seem like you would complain about any amount over "free." That's a perfectly fine stand to take, but why not just come out and say it? Why the BS making it sound like you might be okay with it if a fair market amount was paid to perform the poll?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Patrick--

Why don't you address the facts and arguments that maddjak brought up first. Then you can impugn his motives, honor, legitimacy, family tree, etc.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.

That is what I was saying Patrick. But Maddjak was to busy licking his tonsils to understand!

-- (mkpow62@silverlink.net), October 07, 1999.

Actually Craig, I did. I believe he had several questions like how many people were polled, were the figures going to be released, and how much the pollsters were paid. I answered the first one and then told him that he could probably ask the county for the rest of the information.

And, don't you think that you should ask Maddjak to do the same? Or does "..you have your head so far up your ass you can lick your tonsils from the inside..." qualify as addressing the facts and arguments?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), October 07, 1999.

Touche' As Jeff would no doubt say.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 07, 1999.

Yeah, I like the way they conducted this honest "let's see how we can pour love and compassion on our citizenry in the most efficient way possible" poll, while not referring to 695.

"When the end of the world comes, and all the poor people get it first, should we kill them slowly, quickly, or let them take their own lives?"

If I were on the anti-695 campaign, I'd be embarrassed! That would be like a pro 695 poll asking questions like "If 695 doesn't pass, where will your funding come from, food from the mouths of your children, clothes off their backs, or a quick entry into a life of crime?"

The fact that the poll announced that this will 'hurt low income people the most' is feeding the respondents with a preconcieved notion.

"When did you stop beating your wife?"

-- Paul Oss. (jnaut@earthlink.net), October 08, 1999.

The more I think about it, the more shocking the King County poll appears. The debate on I-695 should be about how much money to use from the surplus fund. Certainly, Metro should ask their customers about priorities, but they should not be asking about cuts unless they're going to couple the argument with use of the state surplus.

I've already received information from Pierce Transit where their first cut is a freeze on new Park'N'Rides. This is about the stupidest thing I've ever heard. How are they going to expand bus usage in the future, if folks have nowhere to park? Therefore, Pierce Transit should aggressively go after the legislature to fund the construction of Park'N'Ride facilities.

It is virtually impossible to reduce congestion by expanding existing highways. It would cost hundreds of millions (if not BILLIONS!) and take years (if not TENS OF YEARS!!) to expand the existing highway system. Whereas, it costs only millions and takes only months to expand a network of Park'N'Ride lots, or even better, tranit centers. A transit center is a fancy Park'N'Ride with its own on-ramps and off-ramps to the highway, as well as a parking garage to house vanpool vans.

I estimate for about $50 million dollars a year, vanpooling could reduce the number of cars on the road by up to 100,000. How much would you have to spend on building roads to achieve the same effect? Not only that, ridesharing can grow incrementally. Can you add a useful lane to a highway incrementally? I think not.

I'm not sure why Metro needs a poll. If you're going to cut bus service, get rid of the ones running between 7:30 PM and 4:30 AM. Get rid of buses on weekends. If Metro wants to raise fares, then find out what route adjustments will increase demand. If you raise fares without listening to the customer, then, surely, usage will drop, and the net revenue increase to Metro will negligible, if at all.

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

"I estimate for about $50 million dollars a year, vanpooling could reduce the number of cars on the road by up to 100,000. " 50*10^6 divided by 10^5 = 500 people per van pool.

Matt- I think your optimism for transit is as misplaced as your decimal points.

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

Whoops-

I miscalculated that myself. $50*10^6 divided by $25*10^3 (cost of vans if bought at fleet prices, $25K) equals 2000 vans. 100,000 drivers divided by 2000 vans is ONLY 50 drivers per van. Of course that doesn't count liability insurance, gas, oil, parking, park n ride lots, capital replacement, etc. I still think your optimism is as misplaced as both of our decimal points.

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

If you have such a problem with this "push-poll," why don't you file a complaint with the Public Disclosure Commission (PDC)? Complaining on this web site is certainly FUN, but the most effective way to air your gripe would be to go to the agency that can actually DO something about it.

I had heard that the pro-I695 campaingn wasn't going to file a complaint because the poll was, in fact, not in violation of PDC rules and regulations. This may be a rumor, but it's the word on the street. If any of you on this thread would like to correct me, please do so.

If the poll is in not in violation of PDC rules, then complaints on this thread are scare tactics meant to coerce readers into thinking that the county did something wrong. At least that's my take on it...

-- Diana (washingtonian@hotmail.com), October 08, 1999.

Diana-

Please see today's PI editorial. Like most things involving the PDC (the state educational association issue, for example), the ultimate decision on legality/illegality will take some time to decide. It clearly was a POLITICAL blunder, however, as even the supporters of the MVET (PI editorial board) admit.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 08, 1999.

To Gary: No, I did not misplace a decimal point. You have to amortize the cost of the vans over five years. So you need to divide your 50 "drivers" by 5, and you get 10 (can you handle that?). The 10 = 1 vanpool driver plus nine passengers, by the way.

Actually, my numbers are both conservative and optimistic, at the same time. At the end of 5 years, the vans would still have a significant residual value, even with say 100,000 miles. I don't take this into account in my analysis. I'm being optimistic when I say that the vanpools would reduce the number of cars on the road by 100,000. A very conservative estimate would be 40,000. But still, to reduce the number of cars by 40,000 for 50 million a year is very impressive.

Additional costs for maintenance or insurance are covered by the contributions of the user of the van. As far as the cost of parking or Park'N'Rides, these are optional. Theoretically, vanpool users can choose to meet in a church parking lot, etc.

In my opinion, vanpooling is the most cost-effective way of managing congestion. If you know of better ways of managing congestion, I'm sure we'd like to know about them.

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

"To Gary: No, I did not misplace a decimal point. You have to amortize the cost of the vans over five years. So you need to divide your 50 "drivers" by 5, and you get 10 (can you handle that?). No Matt- That makes no sense whatever. Do you understand what amortize is? "1. Finance. a. to liquidate or extinguish (a mortgage, debt, or other obligation), esp. by periodic payments to the creditor or to a sinking fund. " "Amortization. The process of gradually reducing a debt through installment payments of principal and interest, instead of paying off the debt all at once. " Are you attempting to say that you meant $50 million per year for 5 years? That gets it up to $250 million which would let you buy 10,000 vans. If so, that has nothing to do with amortization. "Additional costs for maintenance or insurance are covered by the contributions of the user of the van." Excuse me? liability goes to the entity with the deepest pockets. That will be the government. "As far as the cost of parking or Park'N'Rides, these are optional. Theoretically, vanpool users can choose to meet in a church parking lot, etc." Not hardly. Haven't you been following the difficulty that King County is having finding room for their park n rides. They are paying up to $25K per stall to build them. Churches (stores, schools, shopping centers, and everyone else) do not WANT commuter cars using up their parking space.

"But still, to reduce the number of cars by 40,000 for 50 million a year is very impressive. " Reducing the cars by 40,000 for $50 million a year is $1,250 per car. That's not particularly good, but since you will take 5 years to do this at a total cost of $250 million it's $12,500 per car which is pathetic, not impressive. And once again, that is just for the five years. Since these vans wear out you may AMORTIZE (remember that word) their value over the usual seven years and see that you get to sink $50 million into this scheme for five out of seven years for THE SAME 40,000 CARS. And it won't even be 40,000 until the fifth year. And you really haven't saved the money that you were talking about to begin with, because these people STILL OWN CARs, so the cost- avoidance you talked about really doesn't occur. I Hope you have an accountant do your taxes.

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

Addendum to above:

And the truly pathetic thing is that vanpools ARE the most cost effective transit, by a considerable margin. As bad as the above is, other forms of transit are even worse.

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

To Gary: I'm not sure amortize is the wrong word or not. The bottom line is you have yet to offer a more cost-effective means of reducing congestion. If we are not willing to spend 50 million a year to reduce the number of cars by 40,000 - 100,000, then society will fall for the trap of Referendum 49 and attempt to reduce congestion by increasing capacity, which we all know is virtually impossible, and at a greater cost!

You continue to miss the point that the cost avoidance issue relates to fact that society does not have to throw money away building more roads. You keep referring to people buying cars, as if that is the cost avoidance to the taxpayer.

You ask what more can transit do? They can build transit centers with non-stop express buses connecting people from one transit center to another, thereby facilitating ridesharing. Yes, it is a great cost to society. But, the alternative is even more congestion. You continue to avoid addressing the cost to society of even more excessive congestion. If it costs us several thousand dollars a year to remove a car from the road, that may be a considerable bargain when judged against the alternative.

I'm willing to let the voters decide. That's all I-695 says. Let the voter decide. If you can convince the voters that excessive congestion is ok, I'm sure they'll refuse to vote in higher taxes to subsidize ridesharing.

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

Matthew-

I'm glad that you are pro-695. Your math, however, is terrible.

" You continue to miss the point that the cost avoidance issue relates to fact that society does not have to throw money away building more roads. You keep referring to people buying cars, as if that is the cost avoidance to the taxpayer. " Please read some of the other threads that give references for social costs of automobile useage. If you just tally the costs of the roads, they clearly pay for themselves. But the other FACT is that getting people to use transit is not working, and we have long since passed the point of diminishing returns in subsidizing transit. The incremental investment for the next rider is HUGE, and since most of the cost of transit is funded by taxes levied on the auto, even if somehow we changed the fundamental nature of human beings we'd still be unsuccessful, because OUR FUNDING SOURCE WOULD DECREASE AS OUR TRANSIT RIDERSHIP INCREASED. You just can't get there from here.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 10, 1999.

To Gary - You're still avoiding the issue as to how much it would cost to increase capacity in order to reduce congestion. To some of us, it appears that the option of building more lanes on existing highways. It will not work in a timely and cost-effective manner.

You've already agreed that vanpooling is the most cost-effective means of mass transit. Please tell us how much it would cost and how long it would take to increase capacity by 100,000 cars. I've already given my solution for a cost of 50 million dollars a year via vanpooling. A cost which you opposed, initially, by the way.

Expanding our roadways is a non-option. It takes too long and costs too much.

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

"You've already agreed that vanpooling is the most cost-effective means of mass transit."

I agree. If you look at mass transit it has a number of problems. One is the high personnel costs. You must pay a driver a living wage, even though the true need for the driver is mainly during the commuting periods, and the driver (and the bulk of the vehicles) will be dramatically underutilized from a capacity perspective the rest of their work day. With a vanpool you avoid much of the under utilization of the driver that drives the high personnel costs of mass transit, since the driver IS NOT AN EMPLOYEE. You do not, however, avoid the underutilization of the equipment which typically will sit idle except during the commute. The problem is that mass transit per se isn't going to work. All the people that were EASY to get on mass transit (in economic terms, geographic terms, and in motivational terms) are already on transit. That is why the New Urban movement is trying to redesign the cities to make them transit oriented. Transit is barely holding market share in the Puget Sound region, despite massive subsidy. The incremental cost of expanding it is huge, and that is apparent from how much the subsidies have been going up for each incremental rider.

" Please tell us how much it would cost and how long it would take to increase capacity by 100,000 cars." This is a nonsense question. Capacity of what (I-5? (all of it? Some of it? Per day? Per hour?), the Narrows bridge, the Aurora Bridge?) This isnt an answerable question. Define your parameters.

I've already given my solution for a cost of 50 million dollars a year via vanpooling. A cost which you opposed, initially, by the way.

I didnt "oppose it initially", I said your math was wrong. It still is. $50 million will buy about 2000 vans (@$25K per van). That does not pay for fuel for the vans. That does not pay for maintenance for the vans. That does not pay for liability insurance for the vans (required by law), let alone comprehensive or collision. That does not pay for a place to park the van, or a place to park the vehicles driven y the riders of the van. That does not account for replacing the vans at the end of their life expectancy which for non-owner driven fleet vehicles is fairly short. Nor does it necessarily take any cars off the road in non-commuting times. It gives you a one-time buy of 2000 vans, without anything else. That is not even remotely close to your assertion that this would take 100,000 cars off the road.

Expanding our roadways is a non-option. It takes too long and costs too much. I dont agree. It certainly takes too long if you dont start doing it. We were able to do it in the 60s because we gave it priority. I remember the pre-I5 days of going from Tacoma to Everett on old 99 through Fife, Federal Way, the Alaskan Way Viaduct, the Aurora Bridge. We built our way into a pretty good system by the early 70s. We just havent done much to increase capacity since.

But the big problem with transit is what I previously said. People are just looking at the motivational problems of getting people to use transit (which Lord knows are formidable enough) and not looking at the economic problems. You have a system that is disproportionately funded by non-riders. The 96% subsidize the 4% through their MVET (temporarily at least) their fuel taxes, their sales taxes, and their property taxes. Adding peak-load capacity to transit will unquestionably COST money. If we were to somehow suspend reality and convince twice as many people to ride transit we would need to double our peak load capacity. That would require nearly doubling the drivers and equipment. Realize that transit is ALREADY the single biggest line item in the MetroKC budget. Where does the money come from? Doubling transit use will not increase property tax revenues. It will not increase sales tax revenues. It would likely DECREASE MVET (even if I-695 fails) and gas tax revenue. While the elimination of SOVs may appear to be a great social goal to some people, as you eliminate the SOVs you eliminate the funding for transit. Whish is what I meant by the statement, "You cans get there from here."

I still hope you have an a

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 10, 1999.

to Gary: Gosh, you still can't admit you're wrong. It's $50 million a year over 5 years for a total of $250 million. The gas, insurance, and maintenance are paid for by the users of the vanpool. The benefit to society is that it avoids the cost of building additional roadways. Society spends 50 million a year, and saves billions. The 100,000 cars taken off the roadway are primarily on I-5 and I-405, in proportion to existing traffic patterns. I agree you can build new roadways, but you cannot cost-effectively or in a short amount of time add additional lanes to the existing time. You can certainly build a new highway across Lake Washington, or even trans-sound bridge via Vashon Island. But everybody (except you) understands it would cost billions.

To provide you a real-life comparison between roadbuilding and vanpooling, we need only look in your backyard with the proposal for a new Narrows bridge. The cost of the bridge and accompanying roadwork will exceed $350 million. This doesn't take into account the cost of maintenance. Furthermore, the toll will cut off the people on the west side of the bridge from businesses in Tacoma, in terms of discretionary travel. So, there may be other undesireable economic side effects. Finally, the current proposal for a new bridge will not reduce congestion one whit , as you will have three lanes converging to two. Rather than reducing congestion, the project will increase congestion. When this was brought to the DOT's attemtion, they said that someday there will be a carpool lane all the way to I-5. Probably not in the forseeable future, though.

Comapre building a new bridge, which won't reduce congestion, to building transit centers and purchasing vanpool vans. Imagine a transit center next to the west side of the brdige with its own on ramps and off ramps to the highway. Imagine another transit center at near the intersection of Hwy 16 and I5, again with its own on ramps and off ramps to both Hwy 16 and I-5. The transit center at I- 5 would also have a parking garages to house vanpool vans. Then folks from Gig Harbor, Puyallup, Tacoma, etc. could hop on a non-stop express bus in their neighborhood and go to the Park'N'Ride at I-5. There, they could come together to join a vanpool van. This could have the effect of reducing congestion on the Narrows Bridge by thousands of cars, likewise for I-5. All for a similar cost to building a bridge to nowhere.

Furthermore, if the funding for the transit centers and vans comes from property taxes and cars, then the cost is tax deductible for commuters, unlike tolls.

All I ask is that the voters of Pierce and Kitsap counties be offered the opportunity to vote on the choices. A lot of people in Kitsap county are going to be ina world of hurt when the ferry subsidies end.

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

to Gary: Gosh, you still can't admit you're wrong.  Theres a reason for that, Matt. Im not. You started this out by saying that for $50 million a year you could take 100, 000 cars off the road. We eventually came to the realization that you didnt understand what amortization meant (or the basics of finance for that matter) and that what you were REALLY saying was $50 million per year for 5 years. I pointed out that for $250 million you could buy 10000 vans (@ a reduced fleet price of $25K/van) by year five of your scheme. These would have the NOMINAL capacity to carry 100,000 people. In order to make this work, however, you would need the other parts of the system besides just the vans, ie., the cost of liability for the state or transit agency (if self insuring) or the liability premiums if not self-insuring. You would require people to run the program, insure accountability of vehicles, appropriately licensed drivers, etc. Additionally, it would require parking for the van at destination, parking for the riders cars (unless the van driver makes the rounds to pick them up), gas, oil, maintenance, someone to administer the program, etc. Since fleet vehicles wear out quick (just ask Avis or Hertz) you would need to budget money from day one for capital replacement. Nor can you avoid liability costs by saying the drivers/riders will cover them. Seattle was "protected" by worker's comp law from liability for the Pang fire fiasco. What did it cost them, about $12 million? Same deal. Whose got the deep pockets?

You can certainly build a new highway across Lake Washington, or even trans-sound bridge via Vashon Island. But everybody (except you) understands it would cost billions.  I certainly understand it would cost billions. So would this scheme of yours. Even ignoring the operations and maintenance costs (which for MetroKC transit are three times the capitalization costs) your capitalization costs alone will be a quarter billion every five years. Thats equal to the amount planned for capital improvement for ALL roads in the King County budget ($298 million over 6 years) (http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/04capita.pdf)

Comapre building a new bridge, which won't reduce congestion, to building transit centers and purchasing vanpool vans. Imagine a transit center next to the west side of the brdige with its own on ramps and off ramps to the highway. OK, Im imagining this. I imagine its going to cost a great deal of money.

Imagine another transit center at near the intersection of Hwy 16 and I5, again with its own on ramps and off ramps to both Hwy 16 and I-5. The transit center at I- 5 would also have a parking garages to house vanpool vans. OK, Im imagining this. It doesnt look cheap either.

Then folks from Gig Harbor, Puyallup, Tacoma, etc. could hop on a non-stop express bus in their neighborhood and go to the Park'N'Ride at I-5. There, they could come together to join a vanpool van.

Youve lost me again. Are they going non-stop express bus, or are they going local? If they are to be picked up by bus locally, you will have to substantially increase local bus service because it has nothing approaching this capacity currently. That will cost money, SUBSTANTIAL money, because it is nowhere near as cost effective as vanpool vans due to personnel costs. And as long as you already have them on the buses, why dont you just take them to their destinations, having already paid the capital and personnel costs for the buses? Are you saying that they should drive to the transit station on the Gig Harbor side of the bridge? Great. Build park and ride facilities at the station. Thatll really be cheap. Then they make one intermodal transfer at the Gig Harbor Station and another intermodal transfer at I-5? The time cost on that will be substantial. Millions of dollars of USDOT studies say it wont work, but they might be wrong, you might be right. But itll cost a whole lot more money. Or are you talking about buses from the Gig Harbor Park n Ride to the I-5 vanpool? That means you need two places to park the vans, one at I-5, one at destination. Same question though, once youve got them on the buses, why ot just take them to their ultimate destinations.

Furthermore, if the funding for the transit centers and vans comes from property taxes and cars, then the cost is tax deductible for commuters, unlike tolls.  You want to increase property taxes and MVET? I thought you were pro-695? Or is this all just about tolls on the bridge? I agree that Gig Harbor got the shaft when WDOT gerrymandered the vote on the bridge, and believe it is stupid to build a complete new bridge for a net gain of one HOV lane each way. Having said that, your proposal makes even less sense.

And I STILL hope you let an accountant do your taxes for you.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 11, 1999.

To Gary: You still have yet to offer a more cost-effective means of managing congestion. I understand your point that building transit centers is expensive. But builiding a Narrows Bridge is even more expensive.

You have yet to disprove my math. I say $50 million a year plus fees from the riders covers the cost of 10,000 vans for one year. You have yet to come close to disproving that. You're the one who needs an accountant, not me. I'm sorry I did not spell it out more clearly to you in the beginning that the $50 million/year is a recurring cost. I can understand your incredulity if you thought the $50 million was a one time fee.

There are no non-stop express buses from Gig Harbor to anywhere useful. And, you wanted to know what more Pierce Transit could do, right now. Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to the Southworth Ferry? Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to the Tacoma Dome Park'N'Ride, where no doubt folks could hook up with a vanpool? Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to any of the Park'N'Rides in Federal Way, where, again, riders could hook up with vanpools? Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to Bellevue, where there are many high-paying jobs?

A network of non-stop express buses, alone, is more cost effective than the proposed Tacoma Narrows bridge. The WSDOT's own data show the rate of growth of congestion across the bridge to be slowing to almost zero. In fact, in 1996, the traffic across the bridge actually decreased. Therefore, any additional gains in congestion could easily be handled by expanding transit capacity, since we're probably only talking about hundreds of potentially new drivers, not thousands, per year.

Your brain is stuck in the 60s. You honestly believe that we can build our way out of congestion. If I-695 were worded as an opinion poll on can we build our way out of congestion, it would go down with a resounding NO!

I'm voting for I-695, but I also plan to vote for new property taxes on my house and/or car, as long as it funds programs which benefit the community. Vanpooling, non-stop express buses, and transit centers will mitigate congestion, and I am willing to pay taxes to fund this. Right now, the transit agencies and the DOT have no idea what they are doing. I-695 will force them to figure what we really need.

By the way, I'm also willing to vote for higher gas taxes to fund your fantasies of "building our way out of congestion".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 12, 1999.

Matt- You've now gone from a fantasy that you can sustain 10,000 vans in van pools at an annual cost of $50 million to diatribes against the Narrows Bridge. As I have pointed out, $50 million would buy (fleet rate) about 2000 vans per year. It would not operate the vans. It would not provide park n ride room, it would not provide the Transit centers that you say would be needed at the Narrows Bridge and at I-5. It would not provide the additional bus service that you indicate would be necessary to make that system functional. It would not provide the liability coverage that would be required. It would, at best, provide the capitalization that is needed to keep 10,000 vans on the road. But that doesnt make the system work, nor does it necessarily take 100,000 cars off the roads, since there is no guarantee that anyone would use the vans, particularly not with all the intermodal transfers that you apparently envision.

There are no non-stop express buses from Gig Harbor to anywhere useful. And, you wanted to know what more Pierce Transit could do, right now. Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to the Southworth Ferry? Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to the Tacoma Dome Park'N'Ride, where no doubt folks could hook up with a vanpool? Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to any of the Park'N'Rides in Federal Way, where, again, riders could hook up with vanpools? Is there a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to Bellevue, where there are many high-paying jobs?  My statement that vanpools are the most cost-effective transit implies that they are used IN LIEU OF BUSES, not in addition to buses. Anytime you uses buses to get to a vanpool you increase the peak load requirement for both buses and drivers, the biggest single economic Achilles heel of transit. Using them to get to another transit mode increases your cost of capital, increases your cost of labor, and tosses in an intermodal transfer to delay/discourage patronage.

Whatever your concern about our ability to build ourselves out of congestion, transit has been pushed well past the point of diminishing returns. Pushing it farther will, in most cases, give us less for our transportation dollar, not more.

You have yet to disprove my math. I say $50 million a year plus fees from the riders covers the cost of 10,000 vans for one year. You have yet to come close to disproving that.  Hey if you make the fees big enough, itll certainly work. The problem is that no one will pay the fees. Pierce County Transit right now charges fees that only return 16% of operating expenses (http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm ) to maintain the ridership they have. If you think that youll get more customers by raising prices, give it a try. It makes about as much sense as your math.

Id still recommend that you let an accountant do your taxes.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 12, 1999.

Matt-

If you want to see just some of the costs associated with your proposal, try this site. Looks like for capital investment of the vans alone you would need $55 million (in 1992 dollars)annually. Other expenses including adminiatering the program would be above and beyond. That's also assuming that you can find 100,000 who want to shell out $1250 per year. Not necessarily bad if you could use the van pool in lieu of owning a second (or first) car. But administrative costs would be bad enough. If you started adding buses to get people to the van pools, transit centers, the costs skyrocket.

To determine fixed costs: per month Vehicle payment $550. 00 Insurance 300.00License fee ($150/year divided by 12 months) 13.50Maintenance - tires/oil change($1,200 year/divided by 12 months) 100.00Total fixed costs per month $963.50To determine operating costs: Daily round trip miles 60Gas costs (at .1 5 per mile)* x.15 Number of working days/month x 21Total operating costs per month $189To determine fares: Total fixed costs per month $963.50Total operating costs per month $189.00Total costs per month $1152.50Divided by number of riders (minus driver) /11Suggested monthly fare per rider $104.77* Source: Based on 1992 estimates from the Automobile Club of America Although it's much cheaper to vanpool than to drive alone, people often are daunted by the cost of vanpooling because they simply aren't aware of how much they're paying for gas, car maintenance and wear and tear. Fact is, the average vanpooler in Southern California saves $1,500 a year. When you establish fees, it may help to provide employees with a comparison of vanpooling costs versus those of driving alone.

Secure Insurance Coverage You must have adequate insurance for your vanpool. In California, employer liability is limited to employer- operated vanpools and does not extend to individual owner-operated and employee leased vanpools. They must provide their own insurance coverage. Van vendors typically provide insurance coverage for companies that lease vanpools. Otherwise, you will either need to self-insure or obtain coverage from an insurer specializing in vanpool risks. Be sure to leave enough time for this step-not every insurance provider covers vanpools .Recommended minimum coverage amounts are: Bodily injury: $500,000 to $1.5 million Property damage: $50,000 Medical payments (per person): $5,000Uninsured motorist: $50,000 to $1 00,000Comprehensive: $250 deductible Collision: $250 deductible Your insurance agent will want to know the name of the legal owner of the van, where it will be stored and its costs, capacity and daily mileage. To help keep insurance costs down, make sure that the drivers and alternate drivers you select have good driving records.

The driver is the critical link between the vanpool and your company. He or she acts as the vanpool "leader" and drives on aregular basis, collects fares, keeps records, helps recruit riders, keeps the van clean and notifies you of any maintenance problems(although some drivers simply drive, and leave other duties to the vanpool coordinator). In exchange for these services, the driver rides free and is often entitled to use the van on evenings and weekends, depending on company policy. Driver Criteria California law requires a vanpool driver or alternate driver tohave a class 3 driver's license and to submit to a sworn statemen that he or she has not been convicted of reckless driving, drunk driving or a hit and run offense in the last five years. In addition, a vanpool driver or alternate driver must undergo a medical exam to identify any underlying medical conditions that may affect driving ability and, if there are no problems, obtain an approval certificate from the doctor. (Vanpool drivers and alternate drivers can now be reimbursed up to $30 through the state for the medical exam; call your CTS account executive for details.)

http://www.fta.dot.gov/fta/library/planning/VANPOOL/vanpool.html

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 12, 1999.

To Gary: You still are struggling with your math. When I talked about $50 million a year, I was referring strictly to the capitalization costs. You offer the dollar figures for the vanpool members, but you fail to mention that the taxpayer is paying for the van, not the riders. Therefore, using your own numbers, the vanpool passenger is only paying about $60/mo. (or less), not over $100. Therefore, if a passenger uses the van even for 10 days out of the month, they probably break even in terms of personal cost avoidance. And, they have the added benefit of being able to read or nap or chat, etc.

So, let me repeat it one more time, since some people benefit from repetition. Society (i.e., the taxpayer) pays for the vans. The passengers pay for gas, maintenance, insurance, and administrative costs. Comprende?

Next, realizing you're flailing with your math, you then decide to mix metaphors, and interchange three (3) different proposals. One proposal was for society to purchase up to 100,000 vans for a cost of approximately $50 million/yr. The proposal had no requirements for additional Park'N'Rides, although this would facilitate the process greatly. The vanpool driver parks the van at his/her home. The rider s meet at a church, community center, mall, etc. Now, I agree this is optimistic, but not impossible.

Then, I made another proposal. I suggested taking the monies for the Narrows bridge and using it to build transit centers, purchase buses and vanpool vans. I didn't say how many vans. But, you chose to mix metaphors, so to speak. I merely pointed out that the new Narrows bridge will do very little to reduce congestion, oh ye of the road-building faith. Whereas, the combination of transit centers, buses, and vanpools can certainly handle the slight growth in congestion as predicted by the DOT.

Then, I answered a question you asked earlier about what more can Peirce Transit do. I pointed out how there are no non-stop express buses going anywhere useful for the people west of the Narrows. If someone on the Kitsap Peninsula wants to join a vanpool in Tacoma, they have to drive across the Narrows. This means they have to subject themselves to the evening commute. And you talk about intermodal transfers. Well, let me see. The commuter spends an extra 15-30 minutes commuting across the Narrows Bridge. Doesn't sound like they're going to be phased by an intermodal transfer.

What is clear is that you need an accountant. Waht is clear is that you do not commute across the Narrows brdige every day. Or if you do, someone else is driving your limo.

You have yet to offer a cost effective, timely solution to mitigating congestion, especiallu across the Narrows.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 13, 1999.

"Next, realizing you're flailing with your math, you then decide to mix metaphors, and interchange three (3) different proposals. " You're upset with ME because YOU mixed up three different proposals that YOU put forward? If these are three separate proposals, the ones having to do with additional bus service share all the problems of traditional transit that your vanpool proposal is designed to minimize, and can be rejected out of hand as less cost-effective than your vanpool proposal. The vanpool proposal, it was pointed out, does not cover anything but capitalization for the vans (and barely that, the figures given from tthe DOT site were 1992 dollar values). Your plan needs to address the other problems with financing. Then it needs to deal rationally with the difficulties of recruiting 100,000 people, ensuring that 10,000 drivers and 10,000 alternates meet DOT driver standards, everyone pays their fees, etc.

"When I talked about $50 million a year, I was referring strictly to the capitalization costs. " Great. This hasn't been a total waste. You now understand what capitalization costs are.

"Therefore, if a passenger uses the van even for 10 days out of the month, they probably break even in terms of personal cost avoidance." Any time you can use transit IN LIEU of a first or second car, you are probably going to better than break even. Most people, unfortunately, can't. If you can't use transit in lieu of another vehicle, the issue becomes if the cost of use of transit is greater than the MARGINAL COST of using the vehicle you already have. For most people, that's not usually the case.

With regard to the Narrows Bridge. It was finished in 1950 (for $14 million, if I remember correctly), at a time of single wage-earner families. It is 49 years and a social revolution later. It should come as no real surprise that it is exceeding it's design capacity. I agree with you that the new bridge is not desired by local Gig Harbor residents. Some do not desire to increase access to Gig Harbor for reasons of controlling growth. Some (like me) simply believe that the WSDOT proposal is dumb, too little additional capacity for the money. Others merely object to the tolls.

"Waht is clear is that you do not commute across the Narrows brdige every day. Or if you do, someone else is driving your limo. " Actually, I drive the Narrows every workday. Transit wouldn't work for me without increasing my travel time EVEN MORE than the current congestion. And the one's that the WSDOT proposal ($350 million for a bridge, another $350 million for HOV lanes from I-5 to Purdy, with a $3(minimum) toll)WOULD benefit WOULD be your limo driven rich guy. The tolls would be a trivial part of his/her transportation costs, and the limo could use the HOV lanes (at least, whenever the passenger was in it). Kind of ironic, huh.

But I think that you still really don't get the point that I'm trying to make. We have invested billions in transit, as a nation, and it continues to lose market share. We have long since passed the point of diminishing returns in funding transit, and people are staying away in droves. And the anti-construction idea doesn't work either. The Narrows must ultimately be REBUILT one day regardless. You can't just keep slapping coats of paint on it forever. I'd recommend you look at this presentation:http://iti.acns.nwu.edu/outreach/cats1.html

I realize it's out of the Midwest, but what applies to Chicago also applies here. There are some realities that we all need to deal with. One is that transit isn't the answer. It can be part of the answer, but trying to push it past the point of diminishing returns is just throwing money away. And building isn't the total answer. But saying we aren't going to do any building despite obvious need and areas where it would be cost-effective to build, isn't helpful either. And ignoring social trends that are working against our pet solutions (be it conventional transit or 10,000 vanpools) isn't going to help either. That's how the Urban Renewal movement led to the Cabrini Greens and Anacostia-type developments that we are now, at great cost, trying to repair.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 13, 1999.

"Next, realizing you're flailing with your math, you then decide to mix metaphors, and interchange three (3) different proposals. " You're upset with ME because YOU mixed up three different proposals that YOU put forward? If these are three separate proposals, the ones having to do with additional bus service share all the problems of traditional transit that your vanpool proposal is designed to minimize, and can be rejected out of hand as less cost-effective than your vanpool proposal. The vanpool proposal, it was pointed out, does not cover anything but capitalization for the vans (and barely that, the figures given from tthe DOT site were 1992 dollar values). Your plan needs to address the other problems with financing. Then it needs to deal rationally with the difficulties of recruiting 100,000 people, ensuring that 10,000 drivers and 10,000 alternates meet DOT driver standards, everyone pays their fees, etc.

"When I talked about $50 million a year, I was referring strictly to the capitalization costs. " Great. This hasn't been a total waste. You now understand what capitalization costs are.

"Therefore, if a passenger uses the van even for 10 days out of the month, they probably break even in terms of personal cost avoidance." Any time you can use transit IN LIEU of a first or second car, you are probably going to better than break even. Most people, unfortunately, can't. If you can't use transit in lieu of another vehicle, the issue becomes if the cost of use of transit is greater than the MARGINAL COST of using the vehicle you already have. For most people, that's not usually the case.

With regard to the Narrows Bridge. It was finished in 1950 (for $14 million, if I remember correctly), at a time of single wage-earner families. It is 49 years and a social revolution later. It should come as no real surprise that it is exceeding it's design capacity. I agree with you that the new bridge is not desired by local Gig Harbor residents. Some do not desire to increase access to Gig Harbor for reasons of controlling growth. Some (like me) simply believe that the WSDOT proposal is dumb, too little additional capacity for the money. Others merely object to the tolls.

"Waht is clear is that you do not commute across the Narrows brdige every day. Or if you do, someone else is driving your limo. " Actually, I drive the Narrows every workday. Transit wouldn't work for me without increasing my travel time EVEN MORE than the current congestion. And the one's that the WSDOT proposal ($350 million for a bridge, another $350 million for HOV lanes from I-5 to Purdy, with a $3(minimum) toll)WOULD benefit WOULD be your limo driven rich guy. The tolls would be a trivial part of his/her transportation costs, and the limo could use the HOV lanes (at least, whenever the passenger was in it). Kind of ironic, huh.

But I think that you still really don't get the point that I'm trying to make. We have invested billions in transit, as a nation, and it continues to lose market share. We have long since passed the point of diminishing returns in funding transit, and people are staying away in droves. And the anti-construction idea doesn't work either. The Narrows must ultimately be REBUILT one day regardless. You can't just keep slapping coats of paint on it forever. I'd recommend you look at this presentation:http://iti.acns.nwu.edu/outreach/cats1.html

I realize it's out of the Midwest, but what applies to Chicago also applies here. There are some realities that we all need to deal with. One is that transit isn't the answer. It can be part of the answer, but trying to push it past the point of diminishing returns is just throwing money away. And building isn't the total answer. But saying we aren't going to do any building despite obvious need and areas where it would be cost-effective to build, isn't helpful either. And ignoring social trends that are working against our pet solutions (be it conventional transit or 10,000 vanpools) isn't going to help either. That's how the Urban Renewal movement led to the Cabrini Greens and Anacostia-type developments that we are now, at great cost, trying to repair.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 13, 1999.

"Next, realizing you're flailing with your math, you then decide to mix metaphors, and interchange three (3) different proposals. " You're upset with ME because YOU mixed up three different proposals that YOU put forward? If these are three separate proposals, the ones having to do with additional bus service share all the problems of traditional transit that your vanpool proposal is designed to minimize, and can be rejected out of hand as less cost-effective than your vanpool proposal. The vanpool proposal, it was pointed out, does not cover anything but capitalization for the vans (and barely that, the figures given from tthe DOT site were 1992 dollar values). Your plan needs to address the other problems with financing. Then it needs to deal rationally with the difficulties of recruiting 100,000 people, ensuring that 10,000 drivers and 10,000 alternates meet DOT driver standards, everyone pays their fees, etc.

"When I talked about $50 million a year, I was referring strictly to the capitalization costs. " Great. This hasn't been a total waste. You now understand what capitalization costs are.

"Therefore, if a passenger uses the van even for 10 days out of the month, they probably break even in terms of personal cost avoidance." Any time you can use transit IN LIEU of a first or second car, you are probably going to better than break even. Most people, unfortunately, can't. If you can't use transit in lieu of another vehicle, the issue becomes if the cost of use of transit is greater than the MARGINAL COST of using the vehicle you already have. For most people, that's not usually the case.

With regard to the Narrows Bridge. It was finished in 1950 (for $14 million, if I remember correctly), at a time of single wage-earner families. It is 49 years and a social revolution later. It should come as no real surprise that it is exceeding it's design capacity. I agree with you that the new bridge is not desired by local Gig Harbor residents. Some do not desire to increase access to Gig Harbor for reasons of controlling growth. Some (like me) simply believe that the WSDOT proposal is dumb, too little additional capacity for the money. Others merely object to the tolls.

"Waht is clear is that you do not commute across the Narrows brdige every day. Or if you do, someone else is driving your limo. " Actually, I drive the Narrows every workday. Transit wouldn't work for me without increasing my travel time EVEN MORE than the current congestion. And the one's that the WSDOT proposal ($350 million for a bridge, another $350 million for HOV lanes from I-5 to Purdy, with a $3(minimum) toll)WOULD benefit WOULD be your limo driven rich guy. The tolls would be a trivial part of his/her transportation costs, and the limo could use the HOV lanes (at least, whenever the passenger was in it). Kind of ironic, huh.

But I think that you still really don't get the point that I'm trying to make. We have invested billions in transit, as a nation, and it continues to lose market share. We have long since passed the point of diminishing returns in funding transit, and people are staying away in droves. And the anti-construction idea doesn't work either. The Narrows must ultimately be REBUILT one day regardless. You can't just keep slapping coats of paint on it forever. I'd recommend you look at this presentation:http://iti.acns.nwu.edu/outreach/cats1.html

I realize it's out of the Midwest, but what applies to Chicago also applies here. There are some realities that we all need to deal with. One is that transit isn't the answer. It can be part of the answer, but trying to push it past the point of diminishing returns is just throwing money away. And building isn't the total answer. But saying we aren't going to do any building despite obvious need and areas where it would be cost-effective to build, isn't helpful either. And ignoring social trends that are working against our pet solutions (be it conventional transit or 10,000 vanpools) isn't going to help either. That's how the Urban Renewal movement led to the Cabrini Greens and Anacostia-type developments that we are now, at great cost, trying to repair.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 13, 1999.

"Next, realizing you're flailing with your math, you then decide to mix metaphors, and interchange three (3) different proposals. " You're upset with ME because YOU mixed up three different proposals that YOU put forward? If these are three separate proposals, the ones having to do with additional bus service share all the problems of traditional transit that your vanpool proposal is designed to minimize, and can be rejected out of hand as less cost-effective than your vanpool proposal. The vanpool proposal, it was pointed out, does not cover anything but capitalization for the vans (and barely that, the figures given from tthe DOT site were 1992 dollar values). Your plan needs to address the other problems with financing. Then it needs to deal rationally with the difficulties of recruiting 100,000 people, ensuring that 10,000 drivers and 10,000 alternates meet DOT driver standards, everyone pays their fees, etc.

"When I talked about $50 million a year, I was referring strictly to the capitalization costs. " Great. This hasn't been a total waste. You now understand what capitalization costs are.

"Therefore, if a passenger uses the van even for 10 days out of the month, they probably break even in terms of personal cost avoidance." Any time you can use transit IN LIEU of a first or second car, you are probably going to better than break even. Most people, unfortunately, can't. If you can't use transit in lieu of another vehicle, the issue becomes if the cost of use of transit is greater than the MARGINAL COST of using the vehicle you already have. For most people, that's not usually the case.

With regard to the Narrows Bridge. It was finished in 1950 (for $14 million, if I remember correctly), at a time of single wage-earner families. It is 49 years and a social revolution later. It should come as no real surprise that it is exceeding it's design capacity. I agree with you that the new bridge is not desired by local Gig Harbor residents. Some do not desire to increase access to Gig Harbor for reasons of controlling growth. Some (like me) simply believe that the WSDOT proposal is dumb, too little additional capacity for the money. Others merely object to the tolls.

"Waht is clear is that you do not commute across the Narrows brdige every day. Or if you do, someone else is driving your limo. " Actually, I drive the Narrows every workday. Transit wouldn't work for me without increasing my travel time EVEN MORE than the current congestion. And the one's that the WSDOT proposal ($350 million for a bridge, another $350 million for HOV lanes from I-5 to Purdy, with a $3(minimum) toll)WOULD benefit WOULD be your limo driven rich guy. The tolls would be a trivial part of his/her transportation costs, and the limo could use the HOV lanes (at least, whenever the passenger was in it). Kind of ironic, huh.

But I think that you still really don't get the point that I'm trying to make. We have invested billions in transit, as a nation, and it continues to lose market share. We have long since passed the point of diminishing returns in funding transit, and people are staying away in droves. And the anti-construction idea doesn't work either. The Narrows must ultimately be REBUILT one day regardless. You can't just keep slapping coats of paint on it forever. I'd recommend you look at this presentation:http://iti.acns.nwu.edu/outreach/cats1.html

I realize it's out of the Midwest, but what applies to Chicago also applies here. There are some realities that we all need to deal with. One is that transit isn't the answer. It can be part of the answer, but trying to push it past the point of diminishing returns is just throwing money away. And building isn't the total answer. But saying we aren't going to do any building despite obvious need and areas where it would be cost-effective to build, isn't helpful either. And ignoring social trends that are working against our pet solutions (be it conventional transit or 10,000 vanpools) isn't going to help either. That's how the Urban Renewal movement led to the Cabrini Greens and Anacostia-type developments that we are now, at great cost, trying to repair.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 13, 1999.

"Next, realizing you're flailing with your math, you then decide to mix metaphors, and interchange three (3) different proposals. " You're upset with ME because YOU mixed up three different proposals that YOU put forward? If these are three separate proposals, the ones having to do with additional bus service share all the problems of traditional transit that your vanpool proposal is designed to minimize, and can be rejected out of hand as less cost-effective than your vanpool proposal. The vanpool proposal, it was pointed out, does not cover anything but capitalization for the vans (and barely that, the figures given from tthe DOT site were 1992 dollar values). Your plan needs to address the other problems with financing. Then it needs to deal rationally with the difficulties of recruiting 100,000 people, ensuring that 10,000 drivers and 10,000 alternates meet DOT driver standards, everyone pays their fees, etc.

"When I talked about $50 million a year, I was referring strictly to the capitalization costs. " Great. This hasn't been a total waste. You now understand what capitalization costs are.

"Therefore, if a passenger uses the van even for 10 days out of the month, they probably break even in terms of personal cost avoidance." Any time you can use transit IN LIEU of a first or second car, you are probably going to better than break even. Most people, unfortunately, can't. If you can't use transit in lieu of another vehicle, the issue becomes if the cost of use of transit is greater than the MARGINAL COST of using the vehicle you already have. For most people, that's not usually the case.

With regard to the Narrows Bridge. It was finished in 1950 (for $14 million, if I remember correctly), at a time of single wage-earner families. It is 49 years and a social revolution later. It should come as no real surprise that it is exceeding it's design capacity. I agree with you that the new bridge is not desired by local Gig Harbor residents. Some do not desire to increase access to Gig Harbor for reasons of controlling growth. Some (like me) simply believe that the WSDOT proposal is dumb, too little additional capacity for the money. Others merely object to the tolls.

"Waht is clear is that you do not commute across the Narrows brdige every day. Or if you do, someone else is driving your limo. " Actually, I drive the Narrows every workday. Transit wouldn't work for me without increasing my travel time EVEN MORE than the current congestion. And the one's that the WSDOT proposal ($350 million for a bridge, another $350 million for HOV lanes from I-5 to Purdy, with a $3(minimum) toll)WOULD benefit WOULD be your limo driven rich guy. The tolls would be a trivial part of his/her transportation costs, and the limo could use the HOV lanes (at least, whenever the passenger was in it). Kind of ironic, huh.

But I think that you still really don't get the point that I'm trying to make. We have invested billions in transit, as a nation, and it continues to lose market share. We have long since passed the point of diminishing returns in funding transit, and people are staying away in droves. And the anti-construction idea doesn't work either. The Narrows must ultimately be REBUILT one day regardless. You can't just keep slapping coats of paint on it forever. I'd recommend you look at this presentation:http://iti.acns.nwu.edu/outreach/cats1.html

I realize it's out of the Midwest, but what applies to Chicago also applies here. There are some realities that we all need to deal with. One is that transit isn't the answer. It can be part of the answer, but trying to push it past the point of diminishing returns is just throwing money away. And building isn't the total answer. But saying we aren't going to do any building despite obvious need and areas where it would be cost-effective to build, isn't helpful either. And ignoring social trends that are working against our pet solutions (be it conventional transit or 10,000 vanpools) isn't going to help either. That's how the Urban Renewal movement led to the Cabrini Greens and Anacostia-type developments that we are now, at great cost, trying to repair.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), October 13, 1999.

Sorry about the double post. I have NO idea how I managed to do that.

-- (henrik@harbornet.com), October 13, 1999.

To Gary: Well, at least we're making progress. You no longer challenge my math, now that you understand that the $50 million is a capitalization cost. And, yes, it would grow, over time, with inflation.

But, keep in mind that my original slant on all this was that society can mitigate congestion more cost-effectively with vanpooling than it can with road-building.

I did not "mix metaphors". My proposal for 10,000 vans was the entire Puget Sound.

I then focused in on the Narrows Bridge as an anecdote for how road-building fails in comparison to "alternatives".

I do not dispute that some day it will make sense to build another Narrows Bridge. However, I do not see the intelligence of building another bridge, when the infrastucture to the east is not able to handle the current design. In other words, why would you want to add another lane to the bridge before you you've added another to Hwy 16 at the Nalley Valley Intechange. But, then, why would you want to add another lane at the Nalley Valley Interchange if you've haven't added another lane on I-5. It's the major problem with the road-building fantasy. You have to increase capacity everywhere in order to see the full benedit. Takes too long and costs too much.

Therefore, until I-5 is expanded; until the Nalley Valley interchange is rebuilt; I recommend society defer building a new Narrows Bridge and, instead, utilize vanpooling and/or non-stop express buses as a mean of mitigating future congestion. With my approach, you don't have to commit to huge capital costs, anyway. You can try the theory out on a smaller scale, and see how well it works. If it meets the expected target value (i.e., $5000/yr per van), then society can spend more money on the idea. This is unlike roadbuilding where you cannot build half a bridge and charge half a toll to see if the idea will help.

By the way, the toll will not be $3. The $3 is what is known as an opening day special. It will be greater than $10. And the limo will not be able to use the carpool lane, as it will be a bus-only lane for safety reasons.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 13, 1999.