How about Tim Eyman's front yard?

-- PeterH (hartikka@aol.com), December 17, 1999

Answers

Yes. A 10-lane paved freeway (no HOV lanes) right through is FRONT and BACK yards. Maybe an interchange in his side yard, and an exit ramp leading to the McD's drive-through where his garage used to be.

Since Eyman seems to be so in favor of more highways and wider lanes, I say we start with his own neighborhood. Re-route both I-5 and 90 through his property. He won't complain.

So he wants better access? Fine. Let's make sure the fast lane of this new freeway runs six feet from his bedroom. If he likes automobile traffic so much (like he seems to profess), I don't think he'll object. . .

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

Where should sound transit be located? In your yard.

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

It appears that our peace loving compassionate dissenters have quickly forgotten, or ignored that sound transit has already come under fire for putting the sound transit in someone's back yard, already. It's called the Rainier Valley debacle. Yep, sound transit, according to many, is racist 'cause it targets the backyards of poor, minority neighborhoods and business. Oh yes...

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), December 17, 1999.

didn't the voters speak when they voted in sound transit?

-- theman (theman@wuzzup.com), December 18, 1999.

"didn't the voters speak when they voted in sound transit? "

Yup- Just like they did with Prop 49. That doesn't mean they can't change their minds like they did with I-695 when they got a better offer.

Seattle politicians have for decades played a leverage game. When the original Kingdome proposal was made to Seattle voters only, they turned it down....too costly. They then pushed it on King County, twice, to get the tax base big enough that the per capita cost would come down. After making promises about not placing it in Pioneer Square, which they later reneged upon, it passed on the second attempt. They have now gotten most of a three county area involved to spread out the cost of a light rail it is becoming increasingly clear will only benefit Seattle.

The problem with leverage, as the day traders learn to their dismay, is that it works both ways. Although I-695 lost in Seattle, it won in Snohomish and Pierce County, by two to one in the latter. Given the fact that it is obvious to people on the Eastside that they will never see any help from the light rail, to the people in Snohomish that light rail wouldn't get any closer than the UW in their lifetimes, the people in Tukwila have realized that the Seattle merchants will never let the politicos give people easy access to SouthCenter, and now that the people in Tacoma are realizing that all they'll see of it is a very expensive downtown amusement ride, I would be greatly surprised if Sound Transit would survive a repeat vote. Remember how many times it LOST before it won!

My guess is that if it ever comes to another vote, it's toast. If it comes to a vote with the whole state voting (No worse gerrymandering than what was done with the Narrows bridge proposal, really), it will REALLY be toast.

Hope we get another vote. Ahh! Democracy

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 18, 1999.

"They have now gotten most of a three county area involved to spread out the cost of a light rail it is becoming increasingly clear will only benefit Seattle. "

Sorry, that's actually a mis-statement. It will benefit the economy in Seattle during construction. After that, it'll just be a real expensive fixed route bus system.

-- (graigcar@crosswinds.net), December 18, 1999.

Just a survey question for the group: How many have lived next to rail transit?(commuter/light/subway)

Me? 100' away from commuter rail (mostly electrified, with an occasional through diesel run).

Not attempting to agitate, I'm just interested in the perception issue.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), December 19, 1999.

I'd live next to a light rail line ANY DAY over a freeway. Freeways vomit pollution 24 hours a day while light rail makes no noise and creates no pollution. If we had light rail to the eastside I'd use it in a minute over taking a car. Pay one price for a smooth, non- stop ride to downtown over pouring money into a car with gas, mantainance, and road rage? Forget it. No matter how large you make the roads, they're going to fill up in only a few years and we're right back where we started with the mass transit options now being 3 times what the would have cost if we just went through with Sound Transit.

-- (laughing@eyman.com), December 20, 1999.

[I'd live next to a light rail line ANY DAY over a freeway. Freeways vomit pollution 24 hours a day while light rail makes no noise and creates no pollution.] Actually, light rail does make noise (albeit less than most freeways) and does make pollution (albeit at some distance from the place of use. We've long since tapped out hydroelectric capabilities, and may be giving some of the existing dams up to save salmon. How do we get electricity? Coal fired plants (like in Centralia) and natural gas fired plants).

[If we had light rail to the eastside I'd use it in a minute over taking a car. Pay one price for a smooth, non- stop ride to downtown over pouring money into a car with gas, mantainance, and road rage?] And I wouldn't object a bit if your "one price" covered the costs of providing the service. If you'd rather ride a light rail that averages 14 mph compared to a bus that averages 30, AND YOU ARE WILLING TO PAY THE TRUE PRICE FOR YOUR TRAINRIDE, go for it.

[Forget it. No matter how large you make the roads, they're going to fill up in only a few years and we're right back where we started] Now I don't necessarily agree with that, but even if I were to concede the point, why would it be any different with transit?

[with the mass transit options now being 3 times what the would have cost if we just went through with Sound Transit.] And given that light rail is $100 million A MILE to do something buses can do cheaper and faster, we sure wouldn't want to pay $300 million a mile in a few years to extend it to Northgate and the Eastside, since the basic system has no prospect of starting service before 2006, in the unlikely event that it is on time, and on budget.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 20, 1999.

I have a couple of recommendations on where to build tne highways. One recommendation is to go vertical. In other words, make a double decker out of the existing highway. We could also make the new highway a toll road, and private companies could bid for a 5-year franchise, and they could set the tolls at whatever level they choose, since it's their investment. There may have to be some regulations, like charging the franchise an additional fee for the number and/or weight of the vehicles, ensuring that the road can be maintained.

Another recomendation is to utilize the unused capacity of the highways going in the direction opposite to the rush hour congestion. This may require the construction of special on and off ramps. Again, the use of the new capacity could be tolled, with the franchise going to the highest bidder.

The beauty of the recommendations, is they don't significantly threaten any new front or back yards.

Wasn't that the original question?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 21, 1999.

I'd live next to a light rail line ANY DAY over a freeway. Freeways vomit pollution 24 hours a day while light rail makes no noise and creates no pollution.] Actually, light rail does make noise (albeit less than most freeways) and does make pollution (albeit at some distance from the place of use. We've long since tapped out hydroelectric capabilities, and may be giving some of the existing dams up to save salmon. How do we get electricity? Coal fired plants (like in Centralia) and natural gas fired plants).

Yikes, is that the extent of the logic? Light rail makes one heck of a lot less noise and 1/100000 of the pollution. If your argument is the electricity, your argument doesn't hold water. The energy needs of light rail are nothing compared to the tons of toxic waste thrown into the air from idle cars on freeways and the wasted energy they generate. The electricity for the light rail would come from Seattle city light who's source is the diablo dam in the N. Cascades and not a coal plant or natual gas plant.

So where does all the space for these new roads come from? Existing businesses and homes that have to be destroyed for new freeway lanes? Double decker freeways? If we used either of these choices we'd be buying up and doing construction on these roads LONG after the new rail lines are done in 2006. And what does it get us? More congestion, more pollution, lower quality of life and no more freedom to move about as we please.

-- (laughing@eyman.com), December 21, 1999.

[Yikes, is that the extent of the logic? Light rail makes one heck of a lot less noise and 1/100000 of the pollution.] REALLY? What's your source? Quote a source for light rail noise please, I haven't found a good one.

[If your argument is the electricity, your argument doesn't hold water.] Is that a hydroelectric pun?

[The energy needs of light rail are nothing compared to the tons of toxic waste thrown into the air from idle cars on freeways and the wasted energy they generate.] Your kind of comparing apples and oranges here. Do you want to discuss energy or emissions. If you are talking energy, the costs per passenger mile are LESS for autos in comparison to transit. If you are talking emissions, it depends on what emissions you are talking about.

[The electricity for the light rail would come from Seattle city light who's source is the diablo dam in the N. Cascades and not a coal plant or natual gas plant.] That's fine, but the second law of thermodynamics says there is no free lunch. A net increase in demand for electricity requires someone feed the grid. Since no one is building any more hydroelectric facilities (and we're closing down the nukes), additional energy capacity is being fed by burning fossil fuels. Don't ask me, ask Seattle City Light. They'll say the same thing. If the fossil fuel is burned locally (Centralia) we avoid the line losses that we get if it is burned in Montana for instance. But it's gotta come from somewhere. Contrary to liberal theology, there is no free lunch.

[So where does all the space for these new roads come from?] Actually, all the space that was in Washington when the territory was declared a state is still here. It HAS gotten more expensive to buy, but that holds true if you are buying it for roads or light rail.

[Existing businesses and homes that have to be destroyed for new freeway lanes? Double decker freeways? If we used either of these choices we'd be buying up and doing construction on these roads LONG after the new rail lines are done in 2006.] Assuming they'll be done in 2006. And we might as well do them now, cause they're unlikely to be cheaper in 1996.

[And what does it get us? More congestion, more pollution, lower quality of life and no more freedom to move about as we please.] Actually, these are the GOALS of SmartGrowth, not the goals of the transportation improvement initiative. If these aren't what you desire, you ought to be campaigning against SmartGrowth, not this initiative.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 21, 1999.

To Laughing: Great e-mail name! But, you're missing the point. Any new highway construction should be a tolled road. That way, people will have a huge incentive to rideshare. There really is no alternative to managing congestion. The tolled roads would be auctioned off as a 5 year franchise to the highest bidder. As congestion worsens, the private compant would raise the toll as much as possible, thus giving people even more incentive to rideshare.

And, having transit be privatized is not the end of the world, especially if there is a network of tolled roads which the transit vehicles could ply. I think rail could be privatized if the voters were willing to subsidize the riders.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 22, 1999.

"I think rail could be privatized if the voters were willing to subsidize the riders." Hell, sedan chairs could be used, if the voters were taxed heavily enough to subsidize them. The issue isn't CAN it be done, the issue is SHOULD it be dome.

-- Mike Alworth (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), December 22, 1999.

I posted this in a couple of other places and have added to it. Any comments?

Warning: Don't get too riled, since this is just speculation, but isn't this what everyone wants?

With Eyman's latest initiative aimed at directing funds to solve traffic problems...

Most of the people posting messages here seem to prefer reducing ferry and transit subsidies and prefer more funding be directed to highway construction to relieve congestion. So adding additional highways and bridges to link the Puget Sound area sounds like the preferred solution.

So, to improve the link to and from the Olympic Peninsula, there be an additional 8 lanes be added with a bridge built from Gig Harbor-to-Vashon and another bridge from Vashon-to-Seattle. And maybe another bridge across the sound connecting Bainbridge-to-Mukilteo to take care of the North end commuters. Now those people can commute like the rest of us.

To handle the North-South commuters, doubling the capacity of I-5 through the Seattle area should take care of things. Additional roadway could be built on to of the existing roadway in some areas. In other areas, it would probably need to be built along side displacing existing homes and businesses. Of course, you could dig down and build under the existing roadway, which is a more expensive option, but it looks much nicer.

There are also some North-South commuters that need to by-pass Seattle completely. So some similar projects need to happen with I-405 and Highway 167 all along the eastern side of Lake Washington and down through Tacoma. Maybe highway 167 could be extended to by-pass downtown Tacoma.

Of course, to handle the East-West commute, the 520 bridge really needs another 4 lanes each way. And I-90 could use a couple more lanes. In these cases, it doesn't seem reasonable to build on top of the existing floating bridges, so we probably will have to displace some homes and businesses to build along side the existing roadway.

And while we are at it, we need to make a 6-lane highway to by-pass King County to the East, starting from Olympia to I-90 and North up to Marysville.

That should solve the traffic problems in Western Washington. And Western Washington residents should thank Eastern Washington residents who will help foot the bill.

-- Gene (gene@gene.com), December 22, 1999.

to Mike Alworth: You ask: "Should riders of rail be subsidized?" It's up to the voters, and I doubt they'd be estactic about taxing themselves, unless they perceived a big benefit.

I wasn't suggesting it should be done. I was actually saying that without a voter-approved subsidy, I don't see how rail can compete as a private enterprise. The cost of rail is so high, much like the ferries.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 23, 1999.

Gene- Is that the twelfth or thirteenth time that you've posted that malarkey?

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 23, 1999.

"I wasn't suggesting it should be done. I was actually saying that without a voter-approved subsidy, I don't see how rail can compete as a private enterprise. The cost of rail is so high, much like the ferries." Hmm....... true, but very interesting. Freight trains MAKE money. Why does passenger rail continue to lose money despite massive subsidies? Any ideas, anyone?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 23, 1999.

Could be because the railroads don't have subsidized infrastructure.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), December 25, 1999.

Same tracks. AMTRAK subsidies frequently provide money for infrastructure that benefits the freight trains too.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 25, 1999.

Speed is so important that passengers on rail are those that have few options, or want to stay on the ground, short or long distance. I also wonder about the fuel and staff costs for passenger rail, on a passenger mile basis. When a train takes 20 times as long to get somewhere than a plane, operating cost savings get used up by the staff needed for the care and feeding of the passengers for that extended travel time. Just random thoughts. It has been about 40 years since I was on a passenger train; except for BART in the Bay Area, and the Green Line in Los Angeles, and they are not "real" trains are they?

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), December 25, 1999.

d-

I've always liked trains. If you have tonnage to carry between point "a" and "b" they can be real effective. But all fixed guideway systems share the same problems. Their Achilles heel, for passenger service, is boarding and de-boarding. You can shunt a flatcar or boxcar onto a siding while you load 50 tons of pig iron at your leisure. Personnel costs of a flatcar just sitting there are pretty modest. But when you're dealing with customers, you're right, it takes a fair number of people to get them on, get them off, and manage them while they are there. Commuter rail does have a niche, and even passenger rail pays for itself on the NY-Boston-DC corridor.

The problem with Sounder,IMHO(and excepting the fact that they are late, over budget, and currently have a non-executable program because of 695), is that they are paying WAY too much for what they are getting. From THEIR website: http://www.soundtransit.org/sounder/sounder.html>

Given a three hour rush hour period, morning and night, You are providing an alternative (of sorts) for 18,000 people IF RIDERSHIP REALLY MATERIALIZES. There isn't really much additional capacity to be gotten, at least not without a cutback in freight trains that BNSF will not do voluntarily. Now the capital cost of this alone is $669 Million (http://www.soundtransit.org/soundmove/paying.html#finance). Now that's $37,000 per commuter serviced, before you start to add in the OPERATING expenses. And that, of course, if it were on time (which it isn't) and on budget (which, as I indicated, is currently not executable according to

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswind.net), December 26, 1999.

sorry. Hit the return button at the end of a sentence. Too many years on typewriters. To pick up----

d-

I've always liked trains. If you have tonnage to carry between point "a" and "b" they can be real effective. But all fixed guideway systems share the same problems. Their Achilles heel, for passenger service, is boarding and de-boarding. You can shunt a flatcar or boxcar onto a siding while you load 50 tons of pig iron at your leisure. Personnel costs of a flatcar just sitting there are pretty modest. But when you're dealing with customers, you're right, it takes a fair number of people to get them on, get them off, and manage them while they are there. Commuter rail does have a niche, and even passenger rail pays for itself on the NY-Boston-DC corridor.

The problem with Sounder,IMHO(and excepting the fact that they are late, over budget, and currently have a non-executable program because of 695), is that they are paying WAY too much for what they are getting. From THEIR website: http://www.soundtransit.org/sounder/sounder.html>

Given a three hour rush hour period, morning and night, You are providing an alternative (of sorts) for 18,000 people IF RIDERSHIP REALLY MATERIALIZES. There isn't really much additional capacity to be gotten, at least not without a cutback in freight trains that BNSF will not do voluntarily. Now the capital cost of this alone is $669 Million (http://www.soundtransit.org/soundmove/paying.html#finance). Now that's $37,000 per commuter serviced, before you start to add in the OPERATING expenses. And that, of course, if it were on time (which it isn't) and on budget (which, as I indicated, is currently not executable according to Sounder spokesmen). And since their really isn't capacity on the tracks for any additional trains (or so BNSF claims), you can't get the unit cost down by adding capacity, and you may see it rise dramatically if the demand isn't really there.

Much of this goes to BNSF. Hanging over the whole thing like the sword of Damocles is the safety issue on the Seattle Rail tunnel. Built back around the turn of the century, it has room for two tracks and nothing else. No real access or emergency egress routes, inadequate ventilation, a fire in there would be a catastrophe. Everyone has quietly put the safety issue on hold until they can spend enough money to say, "Well we have to pay the money to fix it now, or we lose our INVESTMENT". I think it's irresponsible to invest another dime in the program, until some fire safety professionals evaluate the tunnel and tell us how much it would take to bring up to reasonable safety standard

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 26, 1999.

To Craig: You're comparing apples to oranges, when you compare freight to passengers. One is going over long distances, without the need for creature comforts. The latter is travelling a relatively short distance, requiring much pampering. Who uses rail to ship something across town?

I'm surprised you don't invoke your standard mantra, "It's the demographics, stupid", and pronounce the demise of freight by rail. Isn't a greater market share being taken up by planes and trucks?

I know the folks in Seattle want a monorail system. I assume monorails are cheaper than subways. But why are monorails so darn expensive? We can put people on the moon. We can win the Persian Gulf War. But we can't build a monorail. What gives?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 26, 1999.

Yes I was. By design. I 100% agree with you. I was pointing out these differences. One is non time-urgent bulk commodities. The other is relatively time-urgent (or HOV becomes a preferable option). Even apples and oranges are more alike than pig iron and people.

Actually, it's still pretty good for pig iron, grain, bulk industrial chemicals, coal (you'd be amazed how much coal we still mone and burn to make "clean" electric energy), and other bulk commodities.

Planes certainly have an advantage with time urgent freight (like shipping flowers from Columbia, their second biggest agricultural export, after drugs), and trucks certainly have the advantage if you aren't on a railroad spur, at least for the final trip from distribution center to customer. But railroads certainly do have their niche, and that niche is disproportionately heavy bulk materials. Pipelines have bitten into their niche for petrochemicals a little, and there is the possibility that slurries of powdered coal could be moved that way, but my guess is that freight lines will remain viable for a long time, my lifetime anyway.

"I know the folks in Seattle want a monorail system. I assume monorails are cheaper than subways. But why are monorails so darn expensive?" I don't know if monorails would be cheaper than subways or not. You have the same right of way problems, and no economies of scale, since there aren't very many monorails around to share R&D and engineering and design costs with.

Actually, no! We once could put people on the moon. With the demise of the last Saturn booster, we lost that capability. The Space Transportation System (the shuttle's official name) has nowhere near the capability to do that. We would have to rebuild that capability all over if we desired to put a man on the moon. It wasn't cheap the first time, and I have a hunch it'd cost more the second time, more in real dollars, after inflation adjustment. NASA isn't as entrpreneurial or as much of a risk-taker as it was during the early years.

Well, sort of. We killed more of them than they killed of us. Of course, George Bush has been out of office a while now, and in another year we'll see the last of Clinton (thank God), while Saddam is still squatting in Baghdad in luxury, the arms inspectors have been out of the country for over a year, and Iraq is slowly winning the battle to have sancions lifted. The longer this goes on, the more doubtful it looks that we "won." We did get his troops out of Kuwait, but it's apparent to everyone in the region who has the staying power, and it isn't us.

Of course we can build a monorail, just like we can regain the capability to put a man on the moon. The question is, do we want to pay the price to do that? IMHO. fixed rail linear systems have had their place in the sun. Unless there is some tremendous technical breakthrough that I don't see on the horizon, we aren't going to want to pay the price.

What we should be asking is, "What drives the costs in transit?" For fixed rail systems, you have an enormous initial capital cost, with very slightly diminished operating and capital costs. As things now stand, you'll never pay off your capital investment, relative to bus systems. And even these huge capital investments have finite life times. Remember when we were told that the Kingdome would last a hundred years? The other thing that drives to costs in transit are personnel costs, the largest single driver (no pun intended) and for most systems employee pay and benefits are over half of total operating costs. You change this by fewer employees through more automation (politically difficult, unless you privatize transit, and still difficult even then). You really can't do much about fuel costs (too few buses manufactured a year to invest big time R&D into improving fuel economy much), liability costs (you run over something with a 30 ton vehicle and it WILL do some damage), maintenance (same R&D lack), or parts costs (too few manufacturers, too little economy of scale).

These are all pretty basic business concepts, not real rocket science stuff. That's why I have come to believe that for many people, belief in the concept of mass transit is a de facto religion. Otherwise rational people believe that somehow, there's a free lunch here, if only we can find it. There isn't. It's efficiency (service delivered per dollar expended) can be IMPROVED through privatization, but it's alway

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 26, 1999.

gonna be a niche market. Most things are!

Webmaster- Is there anything that can be done to avoid truncating the last sentence or two?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 26, 1999.