Who is this Tim Eyman idiot, and since when is he such an expert on transportation planning? I don't ever recall seeing him in any of my traffic engineering or urban planning schools, nor have I ever seen him in any traffic-planning forum over the last 6 years.

You don't go to a florist for advice about your heart problems, so why is everybody suddenly consulting a guy like Eyman about the state's traffic problems?

People like Eyman should be exposed for what he is: A great organizer with big balls, but not a lot of brains. SO WHY DO SO MANY OF US LISTEN TO THIS IDIOT? (i don't!)

------------------------------------------------- I-695 author takes aim at transit

by David Postman Seattle Times Olympia bureau

OLYMPIA - Car-tax killer Tim Eyman's latest initiative - they're coming at a rate of one every three weeks since November's election - is more than just his latest push for people power. It's the birth of Eyman Inc.

Gone are the days of doing everything on his kitchen table. Now he has a database of volunteers and help from a think tank. He has a new organization, a catchy slogan and even his own version of market capitalization.

"I think of these initiatives as IPOs - you know, initial public offerings," Eyman said yesterday. "I want to put them out there, and people can tell us what they're worth."

He has a new organization, Permanent Offense. It's a political-action committee to raise money for the two initiatives and to pay for a legal defense of Initiative 695, the November measure that eliminated the motor vehicle excise tax.

"We have a slogan, too: 'Solving Problems Politicians Won't,'" Eyman said. "And critics should hold their breath. I know they'll be calling us Permanently Offensive."

Today, Eyman planned to be in Olympia to file a transportation-improvement initiative. It is his plan to fix the state's transportation woes, which I-695 opponents have said will worsen without the car tax to pay for road construction.

The initiative would require that 90 percent of state transportation money go to road maintenance and construction. The rest of the money, he says, could be used for buses, bike paths, commuter trains and "all the kit-and-caboodle ways they've got to force people out of cars."

It would essentially undo the 1996 vote in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties that created a regional transit authority to build a light-rail system.

The initiative would also eliminate car-pool lanes "because if the public's paying for it, the public should be able to use it anytime it wants," Eyman said.

A third provision would eliminate the sales tax on road-construction materials.

"Tim did a fabulous job selling 695, and the Legislature should have gotten a clear message from that," said Doug Ericksen, R-Bellingham, a vice chairman of the House Transportation Committee. "But . . . let's give the Legislature a chance to show we can do a few things before he throws another initiative at us."

Ericksen said he is working on a bill to exempt construction materials from the sales tax.

Last month, Eyman filed what he calls Son of 695. That measure would undo the tax and fee increases local governments have passed since voters approved I-695.

But neither will be successful in its current form, Eyman concedes. Both are initiatives to the Legislature and would need 179,248 signatures by Dec. 30 to be considered during the 2000 session.

Eyman says he proposed them almost as market research and to help raise money for the new PAC. It also allows the measures to be reviewed by state attorneys and to be given official ballot titles.

Early next year, he says, he will file the measures as initiatives to the people. That gives him until July to come up with the signatures needed to put them on the November 2000 ballot.

"We think this is going to be wildly popular," Eyman said of his transportation plan. "But the thing about initiatives is, you put them out there and see if it will play. The whole intent is to get a dry run at the bureaucratic process."

The I-695 campaign has left Eyman with a long list of volunteers, he says, which will free him to do more fund raising.

The initiative to be filed today was drafted with ideas Eyman got from the Evergreen Freedom Foundation, a conservative Olympia think tank run by former GOP legislator Bob Williams.

The initiative takes aim at Sound Transit, the agency in charge of building a three-county, $3.9 billion transportation system.

In 1996, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties approved a tax package to build a light-rail, commuter-rail and regional-bus system. The ballot measure and tax increase to pay for the projects passed by 57 percent.

Clarence Moriwaki, spokesman for the agency, said the transit authority is in keeping with the spirit of I-695, which along with cutting the car tax mandates voter approval of any tax or fee increase.

"Sound Transit was voter-approved," Moriwaki said. "We're ahead of Eyman's curve. Is it fair or legal for the entire state to determine how the Puget Sound can spend its money, particularly when it's a voter-approved program?"

Eyman's proposal would funnel public money almost exclusively to highway construction.

But the transit-vs.-freeway debate was hashed out years ago, said Rep. Ruth Fisher, D-Tacoma. Fisher, co-chairwoman of the House Transportation Committee, was one of the architects of the state law that created Sound Transit.

All through the '90s, people questioned whether public money should build freeways or mass transit, she said. The successful Sound Transit vote represented a general feeling that the region could not solve its traffic problems with more blacktop. That's still valid, she said.

Although Eyman tapped into public resentment of the motor-vehicle excise tax with I-695, most people in the three counties want Sound Transit to move faster, not dissolve, she said.

Nonetheless, it doesn't surprise Fisher that someone would seek to gut Sound Transit's coffers.

"It's always concerned me that someone will try and get their cash," she said. "Sound Transit has money. It has a way to tax, and people are going to grab it if they can."

-- (shallora@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999

Answers

Gee shallora-

You've been in the business for the last six years?? I've been driving in this area for 36 years (40 if you count farm tractors). Things were a H**L of a lot better when we spent less money on urban planning schools and just let the civil engineers build roads. If you want to do social engineering on your own time and on your own dime, go for it. I want MY transportation dollars to be used to build and maintain ROADS.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

"Who is this Tim Eyman idiot, and since when is he such an expert on transportation planning? I don't ever recall seeing him in any of my traffic engineering or urban planning schools, nor have I ever seen him in any traffic-planning forum over the last 6 years. You don't go to a florist for advice about your heart problems, so why is everybody suddenly consulting a guy like Eyman about the state's traffic problems? " Given that we got in this mess by listening to the urban planning idiots, I sure don't expect them to fix it. I say give Eyman's proposal a shot. It can hardly do any worse than the urban planners are doing. And if your heart problems are bad enough, you DO wind up giving the florist a lot of business. We are about to DIE following the guidance of the social planners, and the politicians are saying that they are just going to let things get worse to "punish" the inmates for asking for some say in the running of the asylum. They aren't the first to have this aristocratic attitude, it's been around a long time. It's an attitude more befitting a monarchy: "Universal suffrage is the government of a house by its nursery." Prince Otto (Eduard Leopold) von Bismarck (1815-98) Creator and first chancellor of the German Empire"

I say "screw em!" I ain't their serf. If they won't lead, they can get their fat overpaid butts out of the way, and give the initiative (double meaning, get it?)to someone who is more interested in solving problems than paying off special interests for past political favors. I am supporting and campaigning for it.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

>You've been in the business for the last six years?? I've >been driving in this area for 36 years

So aren't you tired of the "same old, same old" of spending 90% of all tranportation dollars on ONLY roads?

>Things were a H**L of a lot better when we spent less money on >urban planning schools and just let the civil engineers build roads.

Better? Really? HOW? Because in reality, the opposite is true. Things were actually WORSE when ALL of our tax dollars were spent on roads and nothing else (such as in the '50s and '60s and '70s and '80s). You have to go back before World War II to find a time when things were BETTER. Before WWII, we knew that TRANSPORTATION planning meant a blend of roads, rails, buses, sidewalks, boats, etc. And NOT just roads for cars.

>If you want to do social engineering on your own time and on your >own dime, go for it.

Aha! But spending 90% of all transit dollars ONLY on roads IS SOCIAL ENGINEERING of the worst form! When you do this, you're basically saying, "If you don't drive, you are an outcast of society and we reject you." Auto-centric spending policies are SOCIAL ENGINEERING of the worst form, yet its practictioners are ignorant they are even contributing to it.

>I want MY transportation dollars to be used >to build and maintain ROADS.

And I want MY transportation dollars to be used to build and maintain ROADS, and RAILS, and SIDEWALKS, and BIKE PATHS, and BUS SERVICE, and FERRIES. . . . and not just roads. We've put all our eggs in one basket before (roads) and look where it got us: the traffic jams that we're all stuck in.

Yet you want to go back to the lopsided and ineffective auto-centric transportation program of the '50s and '70s? Huh?

There's an old saying: "The definition of futility is doing the same thing over and over again, yet expecting different results."

Spending all our tax dollars on more roads is not only stupid, it's futile. We've been there, and it led us to the traffic jams of the '80s and '90s. Yet you want to go back to it again??????

Please explain to me the logic of this. Because to me, it sound like you're a newcomer to Washington State (probably from L.A.)!

-- shallora (shallora@stpubs.com), December 16, 1999.

You object to Eyman on the basis that he isn't qualified? Look who we have making our decisions on major transportation policies now:

King County Executive Ron Sims announced his recommendations for representation on the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) board from the County. Nominated to replace current board member Dave Russell of Kirkland is Kenmore Mayor Jack V. Crawford, to complete Russell's term that expires in 2001. Russell chose not to seek re-election, and vacated his board position.

Crawford, 71, is on the Kenmore City Council and serves as the city's first mayor. The 30-year Kenmore resident served 22 years with the Navy as a chaplain and retired with the rank of full commander. He holds a BA, Bdiv, and MDiv from Southwestern College in Kansas and United Seminary in Dayton, Ohio. He is a retired clinical member of the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapists.

Now Mr. Crawford may be a he...., pardon me chaplain, a REAL nice guy, but he doesn't exactly present unimpeachable credentials in the logistics business either. Sort of sounds like the pot calling the kettle black in attacking Eyman for his Chutzpah in thinking a car salesman has more savvy about transportation than a marriage counselor.

Why don't you quit the ad hominem attacks and admit you just don't like roads?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 16, 1999.

"Please explain to me the logic of this. Because to me, it sound like you're a newcomer to Washington State (probably from L.A.)! " You obviously aren't any better at reading than you are at making your case. The top line that you reposted indicated that I've been driving HERE for the last 36 years, pretty much on the same roads that we've got now, since we haven't added substantial CAPACITY since we got into the social engineering business.

If you want ferries, bikepaths, etc., AS I SAID, do it on your own time and your own dime. Fund ferries and transit 100% with user fees and give vouchers to the transit dependent. The taxes raised from motor vehicles ought to be spent on infrastructure that benefits motor vehicles.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

I like roads. In fact I LOVE them. I ESPECIALLY love them when they are used IN CONJUNCTION and IN ASSISTANCE with a functioning and utilitarian bus system, rail system, pedestrian program, and cycle commuter program.

Putting all your eggs into one basket (roads) is what led us to the famous traffic jams of the late '80s (remember them?), before we all scratched our collective heads and realized that roads aren't the ONLY answer, they are just PART of the answer.

But I wouldn't expect car worshipers to understand this concept, so I won't bogg you down with the details.

I return to my original question: What makes Eyman such an expert in transportation? I suspect his personal interests are behind his actions.

-- shallora (shallora@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

>If you want ferries, bikepaths, etc., AS I SAID, do it on your >own time and your own dime. Fund ferries and transit 100% with >user fees and give vouchers to the transit dependent.

Then highways should be funded with 100% user fees, as well. Following your logic, transit options should only be funded by those who use them. Okay. Let's start imposing a toll-only system for our highways. You only get to use them after paying a toll each and every time you drive. Sounds silly, but that's exactly what you are proposing. Get it?

-- shallora (shallora@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

Craig,

So, Tim Eyman has his own PAC called Permanent Offense. And he plans to use this PAC to get the government to divert voter approved funds identified for one project to fund something else. Whether you agree with Sound Transit or not, don't you have a problem with this?

-- Gene (Gene@Gene.com), December 16, 1999.

"Let's start imposing a toll-only system for our highways. " We do that. It's called the gas tax.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

"And he plans to use this PAC to get the government to divert voter approved funds identified for one project to fund something else. Whether you agree with Sound Transit or not, don't you have a problem with this? "

No more than I had with I-695 trumping Prop 47. INITIATIVES ARE VOTES OF THE PEOPLE, AND THE PEOPLE ARE ENTITLED TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS. Forward Thrust was voted down a number of times before it was finally approved in the last rendition. So was the KingDome for that matter. Would you say that Sound Transit should not have been allowed because of all the times it had previously been turned down?

Let's be brutally honest about what has been happening. We have a congestion problem BY DESIGN. If you read the New Urbanist literature, the INTENT is to drive people into the use of transit by congestion. If you read the SmartGrowth benchmark report (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/99-bm-ch5.pdf) page 133, it specifically laments that the congestion isn't high enough to force the desired actions:

This is the New Urbanist plan, to force everyone into transit. Now IF IT WORKED, THAT MIGHT BE FINE. But it doesn't work and isn't working. The transit share of peak hour travel and total travel is not going up. The number of transit rides per capita isn't increasing, certainly not fast enough to offset the effects of the designed increase in population density.

So, IMHO, people approved Sound Transit for the same reason they approved Prop 47, in desperation. With no other alternatives proposed, and traffic getting worse, even a bad plan was better than no plan.

Now there is an alternative. I see no difficulty WHATEVER with a majority vote of the people trumping a previous majority vote of the people. It happens every time you vote an incumbent politician out of office, something I anticipate occurring with increasing frequency if the politicians don't start getting the message.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 16, 1999.

"I return to my original question: What makes Eyman such an expert in transportation? I suspect his personal interests are behind his actions. " And I return to MY question. Do you believe that Chaplain Russell ought to be on the Sound Transit board? Can only people with 6 years study in urban planning and traffic engineering contribute? Not many of them on the Sound Transit Board, from what I see of their published on-line bios.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 16, 1999.

>We have a congestion problem BY DESIGN.

Yes we do! It is the result of 50+ years of auto-centric planning, during an era where mass transit was shunned in the name of the allmighty internal-combustion engine. . . BY DESIGN! BY DESIGN, our government since 1950 has supported a policy of building any road, any time, any where, whether or not we need the road in the first place. In short, our government has never met a bad road plan it didn't like! BY DESIGN, we have built ourselves into traffic jams and the sprawl most associated with L.A. and Seattle's eastern suburbs. BY DESIGN, these neighborhoods have created automobile traffic disproportionate to its population. This accomplishment was achieved from 1950-1999 by building sewer lines and roads BEFORE any actual population arrived. This practice was almost unheard of before 1950, and should never have happened in the first place. BY DESIGN we have created New Los Angeles right here in King County. How? By thinking like car-hugging Angelos instead of common-sense thinking Washington residents.

>If you read the New Urbanist literature, the INTENT is to >drive people into the use of transit by congestion. . .

RED FLAG! WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG! I won't even justify this ridiculous statement with a proper answer. If this is what you believe New Urbanism is all about, then you are even more ignorant than I thought.

>This is the New Urbanist plan, to force everyone into transit.

Where did you come up with such a ridiculous statement, anyway?

Besides, even if it is true (which it is NOT), than I can say this of you: YOUR PLAN IS TO FORCE EVERYONE INTO THE CONFINEMENT OF CARS.

How is stuffing everyone into cars any better, anyway? Haven't we already accomplished this goal of car stuffing, besides? I can see I-5 from my office window. Looks pretty congested to me! How is sitting in traffic like that any better than taking a bus or a train or whatever?

The more I write, the more idiotic you sound!

-- shallora (shallora@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

Name calling is the least constructive way to make your case. Is that what they taught you in traffic engineering and urban planning schools? No wonder the roads are such a freakin mess.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 16, 1999.

Craig,

You can't be serious! You expect me to believe that if a county voluntarily voted to tax themselves to fund a project, then the state (through the initiative process) can usurp that money to fund some other project(s)? You would support this?

-- Gene (Gene@Gene.com), December 16, 1999.

Shallora,

Just wondering here...

Is it too late for you to go back to those unnamed schools and get a refund? Then take that money and apply it to civics lessons concerning the way a democracy works?

Westin

"Have you emailed Rep. Fisher (fisher_ru@leg.wa.gov) to resign today?"

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), December 16, 1999.

"You can't be serious! You expect me to believe that if a county voluntarily voted to tax themselves to fund a project, then the state (through the initiative process) can usurp that money to fund some other project(s)? You would support this? " NO. What I said was that people have a right to change their mind, as they did with 695 viz 47. But I'd be willing to bet that if you gave the three county residents a straight up vote on Eyman's proposal versus Sound Transit, the former would win. I would not compel those individuals to fund the rest of the state, but I sure wouldn't give them a dime of state money if they persisted with Sound Transit.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 16, 1999.

YOUR PLAN IS TO FORCE EVERYONE INTO THE CONFINEMENT OF CARS. Actually, this has been explored to death in these threads and I would refer you to some of the older ones (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=001a9b) and (http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=001ZtO). The FACT is that there is a worldwide demographic trend away from transit, away from walking, and away from car-pooling. This is NOT part of a global conspiracy, it is by CHOICE. This is the case in the US (http://www- cta.ornl.gov/npts/1995/Doc/trends_reportl8.pdf) and it is the case worldwide (http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap10.pdf ). This is caused by increasing prosperity, a decrease in the number of transit dependent, increased females in the workforce, and a number of other trends given in the demographic analysis on the US DOT documents cited above. To repeat a refrain that the regulars here heard time and time again in the past, IT'S THE DEMOGRAPHICS, STUPID! (With thanks to the Ragin' cajun.)

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 16, 1999.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone added up how much has been spent on the road system in place? How about how much money it would take to 'build our way out of it'? I've heard figures from $6 billion to $14 billion. Six billion (or thereabouts) was the Kemperer Freeman plan, which he didn't happen to have with him when I asked for details, and the $14 billion was from a radio news story about 5 years ago, so I don't have specifics on that. I do try to pin them down, but engineers, and government engineers especially are loath to give a specific amount without a specific plan because the general public will forget the disclaimer "this is an estimate". Plus, local road widening isn't included in the gross aggregatte dollar quotes, as far as I can tell.

By the way, the GAS TAX is NOT a USER FEE... If it is being used for CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS to the highways system. It does not differentiate between me driving on off hours, back roads, or for most of the non-congested trips that are taken in an automobile. Any construction that increases capacity over the standard 2 lane access should be subject to the same public process and vote that any major Transit projects do. (Even small 1-2 mile long widening projects to local roads aren't cheap.) In fact, a toll-road system would provide more a more realistic way to gauge what capital improvements were made, versus, who really uses them. In addition to a gas tax that takes care of minimal maintenance, tolls would be a sort of automotive 'farebox recovery' system, after the million/billions of dollars are spent on a taxpayer funded/voter approved highway project. Speaking of which, even the extension of 2 lane auto only roadways into undeveloped areas is a subsidy.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), December 16, 1999.

I read a USDOT report on this several weeks ago. Basically it said that total government subsidy to roads from general taxes was about the same as total subsidy to transit from general taxes. Of course, the transit was mainly buses which benefited from the use of the roads too, and the total passenger miles contributed by transit was less than 2% of the total pssenger miles contributed by non-transit road use. Both forms of transportation actually were somewhat subsidized from the general funds, but transit was subsidized 50 times as much per passenger mile as roads.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

yes it's me again, finally a topic I can get into. Mr. Eyeman is no transportation planner. Yes I agree that many of our electeds aren't either, but there staff contains several. It is up to them to take the advice of their staff.

Ever since the auto was invented, our world was built around the auto. Just try to get around without one. The supply side phylosophy has dominated and it has not improved things. It has been shown that if you build a new lane on the freeway, then people will be drawn from their other routes back onto the freeway which will intern overcroud the freeway once again. When does it end?

I'm not gonna touch the equity issue of people needing to ride public transit, because it's a dead horse. But I will say that a variety of transportation modes is the best alternative to solving our transportation problems. opening the hov lanes will not magically cure us. What happens when all of the carpoolers and people riding public transit as a choice get slowed down again and have no benefit to riding public transit. They all go to their sov mode again which adds that many more cars to the road.

This new initiative mandates that transportation money gets spent on construction. What about safety? What about design and scoping? what about environment? Those are completely sepparate pools, but still transportation money. Some of these things are mandated by federal law and cannot be repealed by an initiative. And are you telling me that there's only 10% left for the aforementioned? not to mention overhead, planning, right of way acquisition, etc, etc.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.

Craig, FYI, there is a state law that mandates that all agencies with X number of employees have to take "commute trip reduction measures".

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.

Jim-

If you are seriously interested in this subject, rather than just venting your spleen like the fellow at the top of the page, I really would recommend you take the time to read (http://www.bts.gov/programs/transtu/tsar/tsar97/chap10.pdf) This is the transportation statistics annual report, and I'd encourage you to read the whole thing. Chapter ten, the reference cited, gives global trends. Transit market share is declining worldwide. It's declining in Europe, despite urban population densities we will never approach, and this is as true in Eastern Europe as in Western Europe. It is declining in Asia, even in Japan and other densely populated urban areas. And it is declining for a number of demographically driven reasons including the entry of more women into the workplace, more linked trips, global prosperity, etc. Anyone who believes that SmartGrowth is going to force transit use needs to read this document.

So if this is a serious discussion, and not just guerrilla theater (as we used to call it back in the 60s) I'd appreciate it if you would read this one chapter of the Transportation Statistics Annual Report 1997 and then let's discuss it. Same for anyone else out there who wants to be a serious student of logistics.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

Craig, FYI, there is a state law that mandates that all agencies with X number of employees have to take "commute trip reduction measures"

I am aware of that. In essence, it is an unfunded mandate that effectively provides a hidden tax on business (which they pass along in either increased customer costs or decreased wages to their employees, or both) that has the major economic effect of subsidizing transit and van pools. What's your point?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

"Who is this Tim Eyman idiot, and since when is he such an expert on transportation planning? I don't ever recall seeing him in any of my traffic engineering or urban planning schools, nor have I ever seen him in any traffic-planning forum over the last 6 years."

Yawn, this is a classic example of the appeal to authority argument. Especially ludicrous is that it ignores the obvious--transportation decisions often have little to do with science and everything to politics. Given Tim's recent success in that arena, I'd say he's as well qualified as anyone else making the decisions. "You don't go to a florist for advice about your heart problems, so why is everybody suddenly consulting a guy like Eyman about the state's traffic problems?"

First off, I don't think anyone "consulted" him about traffic problems. In any case, who else they gonna ask?

Silly me. . .I suppose you wanted them to ask YOU. Given how well-reasoned you've been so far, you'll pardon the snort. "People like Eyman should be exposed for what he is: A great organizer with big balls, but not a lot of brains. SO WHY DO SO MANY OF US LISTEN TO THIS IDIOT? (i don't!)"

Sometimes when you've a weekend to spare, you might want to think about what the phrase "on message" means.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 17, 1999.

my point is that this initiative makes it more difficult for these mandated agencies, businesses etc. to comply with this law. Hence more penalties. Plus you are not completely correct on the costing employees more. I see an extra $35/mo. in my check as an incentive to use ctr methods and it does not come out of my employer's pocket. It is a realized cost savings to the state and its citizens to have fewer cars on the roads.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.

"I like roads. In fact I LOVE them. I ESPECIALLY love them when they are used IN CONJUNCTION and IN ASSISTANCE with a functioning and utilitarian bus system, rail system, pedestrian program, and cycle commuter program."

From my perspective, we already have all the above (minus the rail system). From what I can tell, our bus system (I'm in King County) has moved beyond utilitarian to outlandish.

"Putting all your eggs into one basket (roads) is what led us to the famous traffic jams of the late '80s (remember them?), before we all scratched our collective heads and realized that roads aren't the ONLY answer, they are just PART of the answer."

A quick question: what percentage of people travel via auto (v. any other method)? Is it unreasonable to spend $$$ based on this percentage?

"But I wouldn't expect car worshipers to understand this concept, so I won't bogg you down with the details."

I understand the concept quite well. I've seen this argument before on a much earlier thread. As the previous poster was eloquent, you may wish to read it.

"I return to my original question: What makes Eyman such an expert in transportation? I suspect his personal interests are behind his actions."

Of course his personal interests are behind his actions. What are behind *anyone's* actions?

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 17, 1999.

Well let's say Shallora is some kind of an expert. You have to be an expert to work in the 'SIGN' industry.

We should bow to the superior planning knowledge of Shallora...Oh and of course visit the place where Shallora works... http://www.stpubs.com/ It's a 'sign of the times'

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

I have NO problem with him waking up the voters to the scam they were tricked into voting for..Somebody has to pull down the curtains hiding the 'Wizard of Oz' that this devious government has been for decades

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

If you think 'blight rail' is the answer then talk to the people who are trapped by it in Salt Lake City. Of course all the proponents of RANCID TRANSIT refuse to acknoledge anyone who has complaints about how it has degraded their own communities.

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

"BY DESIGN we have created New Los Angeles right here in King County."

Well if that is so then why don't we have any freeways?

Why is the freeway system in Washington State a monument to the sixties??

Oh yeah BAAAAAAbEEEEE. Have any of you detractors ever been anyplace outside the city limits of Seattle???

Mexico has better roads

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

"So aren't you tired of the "same old, same old" of spending 90% of all tranportation dollars on ONLY roads?"

Personally, I don't care. That being said, I'd say it's reasonable if 90% of people commute via their automobile. Since buses take the roads, 90% for roads affects more than just the automobile anyhow.

"Better? Really? HOW? Because in reality, the opposite is true. Things were actually WORSE when ALL of our tax dollars were spent on roads and nothing else (such as in the '50s and '60s and '70s and '80s). You have to go back before World War II to find a time when things were BETTER. Before WWII, we knew that TRANSPORTATION planning meant a blend of roads, rails, buses, sidewalks, boats, etc. And NOT just roads for cars."

Explain to me how we're better off now. Are the roads less congested? Are a larger percentage of commuters taking the bus?

FWIW, I think more people are bicycling to work, but from what I can tell they use the roads as well.

A quick question, what do you use to wipe the froth off your mouth?

"Aha! But spending 90% of all transit dollars ONLY on roads IS SOCIAL ENGINEERING of the worst form! When you do this, you're basically saying, "If you don't drive, you are an outcast of society and we reject you." Auto-centric spending policies are SOCIAL ENGINEERING of the worst form, yet its practictioners are ignorant they are even contributing to it."

I'm starting to miss chez. He would've at least been clever when he said something like this.

How are we saying "you're an outcast from society and we reject you?"

In my experience, most people who drive don't for one of two reasons: legally prohibition or moral prohibition. In the first case, I'd agree it's reasonable to state society has rejected them. Unfortunately for your position, many of these people should be rejected (DUI). In the second case, these people have made their own bed and their now laying (usually quite proudly) in it.

"And I want MY transportation dollars to be used to build and maintain ROADS, and RAILS, and SIDEWALKS, and BIKE PATHS, and BUS SERVICE, and FERRIES. . . . and not just roads. We've put all our eggs in one basket before (roads) and look where it got us: the traffic jams that we're all stuck in."

Ummm, I look at this statement and think "gee, I'm glad they spent a bunch of money on roads earlier. . .otherwise we'd be even more screwed." Is the glass half empty or half full?

"Yet you want to go back to the lopsided and ineffective auto-centric transportation program of the '50s and '70s? Huh?"

Are we supposed to make our choice against the "balanced" and "effective" transportation program we have now?

I'll need some data to help me make my decision, how long was the average commute in the '50s? Okay, how long was the average commute in the '70s?

"bu-buh-but, the demographics are different," he sputtered.

"Spending all our tax dollars on more roads is not only stupid, it's futile. We've been there, and it led us to the traffic jams of the '80s and '90s. Yet you want to go back to it again??????"

Personally, I liked commuting in the late '80s and early '90s. Guess what, I even like commuting now. Six words to live by: live close to where you work.

"Please explain to me the logic of this. Because to me, it sound like you're a newcomer to Washington State (probably from L.A.)!"

I always like an open invitation to waste words.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), December 17, 1999.

This is a deliberate plot by Tim Eyman and Co. to upset all you socialist whiners and convince you the free ride is over, it's time for you to move someplace else.

Hey, I have a right to my fantasies... Land of the free, and the home of the brave. Do these people celebrate the 4th of July? Or is there some secret socialist holiday we don't know about?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

"my point is that this initiative makes it more difficult for these mandated agencies, businesses etc. to comply with this law. Hence more penalties. Plus you are not completely correct on the costing employees more. I see an extra $35/mo. in my check as an incentive to use ctr methods and it does not come out of my employer's pocket. It is a realized cost savings to the state and its citizens to have fewer cars on the roads. "

I haven't heard anything as silly as that last statement since beginning debate as a high school sophomore. There ain't no free lunch. When you tax business, the customer pays or the worker pays. The owner has other portential uses for that capital. If he/she can't get the desired teturn on investment there, they shift funds into something they can get the desired return on investment in. Your total compensation is dependent on total costs to the company versus total revenues. Unless transit increases your companies productivity, the costs come out of someone's pocket. "Realized cost savings to the state and it's citizens to have fewer cards on the roads" is nonsense.

What these unfunded (or at times even funded, through tax breaks to business) mandates are is a way of hiding total subsidies to transit, to make it look more cost effective than it is.

Kind of like taking capital investments and putting it in a different budget. As long as I can do that, I can say that farebox revenue pays for 21% of Metro. If I have to admit what the total costs of Metro are, the numbers get much worse. Pierce Transit was silly enough to put up graphics that actually gave such a comparison. Have a look:

http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/oprev.htm http://www.ptbus.pierce.wa.us/99budget/bsum.htm

If you or I used that sort of logic it would be like saying a new Mercedes would be less costly than my 1988 Chevy because it gets 1 more mile per gallon of gas.

Don't let your economics get lost in your dogma. You'll go broke. Happened to the USSR, happened to Cuba, happened to Eastern Europe, happened to (less Communist all the time, but still big-time totalitarian) China. You keep believing there is a free lunch, it'll happen to you too.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

like I've always said about you craig, spoken like an old engineer. How about we think multi dimentially now, the days of building our way out of problems are over.

Speaking of your old sophmore year, don't you think it's about time you head back to school and get rid of your old school values. While you're at it, pick up some environmental law, transportation planning, planning, land use law, ecology, public administration, etc.etc.

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 17, 1999.

"How about we think multi dimentially now" I'll bite, how demented are you?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 17, 1999.

"Speaking of your old sophmore year, don't you think it's about time you head back to school and get rid of your old school values. While you're at it, pick up some environmental law, transportation planning, planning, land use law, ecology, public administration, etc.etc. "

Actually, I've got pretty decent training in these areas already. The pity is that most people are too lazy to dig up the facts in these areas and find it easier to accept the dogma.

But the sophomore year I was referring to was my sophomore year in high school. That was three degrees ago.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 17, 1999.

theman-

No better retort for Craig than what's above? He provides facts, figures, and graphs. You provide petulance and name-calling.

If that's the best you can do, your not going to win the hearts and minds of many voters.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

If the people vote to divert Sound Transit funds to road construction, then they should be allowed to do so. People should be allowed to vote.

But funding aside, are the funds just used on existing roadways, for repair work or updating them to the latest safety requirements (e.g. earthquakes)?

Does it also go into providing additional roadways? If so, how much more roadway and where?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

>If the people vote to divert Sound Transit funds to >road construction, then they should be allowed to do so. >People should be allowed to vote.

Correct. But why should residents of Spokane, for example, be allowed to vote on an issue that only affects residents of a three-county area near Seattle? If the residnets of King County have voted to tax themselves for the purpose of Sound Transit (which they did!), why should residents in Spokane have any power to revoke it when the taxes don't even affect them? That's my only point.

-- shallora (shallora@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

Shallora,

Why don't you post an answer to my question in the thread YOU created yesterday, apparently with someone elses letter? The thread is titled "Local decisions under assault"

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

"But why should residents of Spokane, for example, be taxed to support ferries,an issue that only affects residents of an area near Seattle? "

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

Just want to keep this thread active to remind us all that some people believe Tim Eyman is not an expert on Traffic Planning and he is a supposed "Idiot" with big ba!!s.

Some people really should retract statements like that if they wish to be taken seriously.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.

"Some people really should retract statements like that if they wish to be taken seriously. "

Take more than that to give them any credibility, I'm afraid.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 30, 1999.