I bet you have all sorts of "facts" to refute this. Go for it! (Craig, if you have anything to add, I would be interested to hear it also).

These are excerpts from the last two Opinion Columns from the Eastside Journal.

1/02/00

For a decade now, population and job growth have boomed in urban counties, but transportation dollars haven't gone where they're needed most.

The state has done a good job of building and operating a modern transit system. Transit ridership is generally higher here than in comparably sized communities around the nation. However, because transit ridership carries only 5 to 10 percent of rush-hour commuters, transit alone cannot reduce traffic congestion. Modern freeways, arterials and transit are necessary.

Construction costs are higher here than they should be. We rank 12th highest in the nation for state transportation workers. We are fourth highest in terms of administrative cost burden.

Our highway system is underbuilt. We rank 15th in population, but our state highway system is 35th from the largest. Between 1987 and 1996 we added only 47 miles of new highway. That's an insignificant amount for a system with 7,043 total miles.

We're driving more. In 1987, state residents drove 105 million miles a day. By 1997 the number had jumped to 140 million. However, there has been no proportional increase in the size of our highway system. No wonder there is congestion.

Transportation funding isn't stable or predictable. Gasoline prices have been flat since the 1980s. At the same time, cars have become more fuel efficient. So, while we drive more miles, we buy less gas to do so. That makes less gas-tax revenue while putting more wear and tear on the roads. Even worse, inflation makes construction projects more expensive.

http://www.eastsidejournal.com/Opiniondocs/edits/mat03698.html

1/03/00

Regional planning councils have most of the authority for improving urban freeways and major arterials. The state must force them to work together and deliver good roads quickly and cost-effectively. To do that, the state should give the councils more money and funding flexibility if the standards are met.

It takes the state far too long to complete major projects. It doesn't have to be that way. The DuPont interchange and the I-90 replacement bridge show that projects can be built quickly and cost-effectively. Make that the standard.

States that have lower transportation costs contract out more work to private firms. That, and public/private partnerships, could result in a boost to more freeway lanes, more freeway corridors and more and needed bridges.

Right now, no one is in charge of the state highway system because the state can't impose design standards on the various regional councils. The state Department of Transportation must be the single agency ultimately responsible for deciding how the roads will be now and in the future.

Roads must become a priority. During the 1990s, the state's population grew by over one million, yet few major roads were built. That attitude must change.

Right now, there are over 50 major transportation funds requiring administration by a sizable Department of Transportation staff. The funds go to many of 468 governmental entities with some control over transportation. That's too many. Transportation dollars must go where they are needed most -- congestion relief and freight mobility.

About 80 percent of the state's population -- and traffic congestion -- is concentrated in a dozen urban counties. These areas need the authority to raise and keep money for freeway and major arterial improvements.

Fixing our transportation mess won't be easy -- or cheap. But responding in the same old way isn't the answer, either. We need standards and accountability in our transportation program -- and we need it now.

http://www.eastsidejournal.com/Opiniondocs/edits/mat03756.html

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 03, 2000

Answers

Marsha- The difficulty with what is suggested here is that you are giving more authority to the DOT, which has been largely responsible for the waste and inefficiency to begin with. The DOT HAS been providing overall direction, and its been bad direction. My recent post on their desire to put $46 million into passenger rail improvements is a case in point. Also, lets stop blaming wear and tear on the roads on the cars, or lamenting the fact that lighter cars burn less gas and hence produce less revenue. Most of the damage to roads is done by big trucks and buses, not Honda Accords, even though the Accords vastly outnumber the trucks and buses. Trucks carrying goods are operated many more hours a day than passenger cars. They only put 6% of the miles on the roads but they have a far heavier footprint. Despite their heavier taxes, they dont usually pay their fair share of road damage. And buses never do. There are things that I think can be done. Here are a few. 1. Do what the transportation improvement initiative proposes. Limit all transit activities to 10% of the DOT budget. Im sorry, but transit carries 2% of the passenger miles. At 10%, thats more than 5 times its pro rata share of transportation dollars. Thats more than enough of a plus up to handle the social need (transit dependent) and adding still more empty seats isnt going to attract those who elect to not use transit, usually for excellent reasons. When you are only filling 20% of your available capacity now, you dont need to add capacity. 2. Privatize, privatize, privatize! Privatize ferries. Privatize transit. Privatize road construction and repair. 3. Get rid of the Prevailing Wage laws (http://www.lni.wa.gov/prevailingwage/default.htm). This was a payoff to the unions for past political support, the local equivalent of the federal prevailing wage laws. This guarantees a smaller pool of contractors bidding on your construction projects, which raises your cost, while guaranteeing that the winning bidder will be paying above market rates for their workers, raising cost yet again. How about low bid, with a performance guarantee bond? 4. Get rid of the requirement for training programs by state contractors. This too was a payoff to the unions, requiring state construction jobs to hire apprentices to get more people into the union, regardless of whether they were needed for that job. 5. Build parkways for commuting. Not EVERY road needs to be able to handle big trucks, and the requirements driven by big trucks (and 30 ton transit buses) drive up costs significantly. True, if you want federal interstate funds, you have to build to these standards. But for local arterials, make them big enough for a car or small truck. Large trucks need to take truck routes. This can dramatically decrease the cost of a road, albeit at some sacrifice to utility. 6. Fund bike paths, jogging paths, trails, etc., from user fees. Dont take money out of transportation revenues that will pay for something that is primarily recreational. 7. Stop concentrating activities in Seattle. Urban densification in the absence of an offsetting increase in the use of transit (and weve seen nothing approaching that) just means adding more congestion to an already congested area. The original siting committee for the Kingdome recommended AGAINST siting it in Pioneer Square because of congestion. Now we have TWO stadiums there. 8. Ashcan Sounder and LINK. They provide too little actual (as opposed to theoretical) capacity at too much cost, and will predominately shift people from economical bus to expensive rail, without any real reduction in time. And the number one reason that people who have the option to use transit dont use transit is that it takes (on the average) twice as long to use transit as to commute by car. Now for the good news: While the demographics are against transit, they are also against more VMT per capita. Now that we have one vehicle per licensed driver (on average) adding more vehicles really wont put a great many cars on the road. The percentage of women in the workplace with children has just about peaked. You wont be seeing a lot of additions to this group. So basically, our problem now is to build infrastructure to offset the years we wasted trying to push transit into doing a job that was outside of its niche.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 03, 2000.

Well sorry to disappoint you, but I have to agree with most of what was said. Basically it suggests a multi-modal transportation system and a more consistant funding source to fund transportation projects.

The main reason why the DOT hasn't been building that many new roads is because it lacks the funding. It has identified about $20 billion worth of road construction projects that it would love to do in order to relieve congestion (yes, ROAD construction), however the main funding source is reduced every year due to inflation. On top of that, it is QUITE a bit more expensive nowadays to build new roads for one big reason, right-of-way purchase. As we all know, property values have gone through the roof, and in order to build new roadways, most of the time, the DOT needs to buy more land. Regardless of the savings that may be found in items like public/private partnerships, a giganic chunk of money is always going to be needed in just obtaining land to build on.

It would be nice to get a lot of the politics out of the funding process. It is a documented fact that the Puget Sound region receives fewer transportation dollars than it gives out. I also agree with the idea of giving regions the ability to raise and keep transportation funding the way they see fit. But of course such an idea would be violated by the transportation improvement initiative.

Although I welcome Craig's comments, I'm wondering Marsha, since your question was directed at me, are you going to get mad at him like you did when I answered a question you asked of D?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 03, 2000.

"(Craig, if you have anything to add, I would be interested to hear it also)"

"Although I welcome Craig's comments, I'm wondering Marsha, since your question was directed at me, are you going to get mad at him like you did when I answered a question you asked of D?"

Patrick- If you would listen (or read) more, and pontificate less, you wouldn't make (quite) so much of a fool of yourself.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

$20 Billion? So, since I don't commute during the peak hours, and 80% of my automotive trips ARE NOT commute trips anyway, who should pay for the congestion relief? I end up paying the same gas tax regardless. $20 Billion in infrastructure only, paid for by MY taxes, that I don't get to VOTE on as to WHERE it gets spent? I am starting to believe that the only way to be able to shake this out is to PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING transportation related, including the roads. Heck, maybe I'm older than I'd care to admit, but even $15 Billion sounds like a lot of money just for congestion relief.

-- Jim Cusick (jccusick@att.net), January 04, 2000.

Patrick,

Yes I am terribly mad at Craig for responding to something I asked him to comment on. Feel better?

I disagree with your assumtion that it "basically it suggests a multi- modal transportation system and a more consistant funding source to fund transportation projects"

My interpretation is that it is calling for more roads. The first sentence says "For a decade now, population and job growth have boomed in urban counties, but transportation dollars haven't gone where they're needed most." It goes on to say "Modern freeways, arterials and transit are necessary." and "Our highway system is underbuilt." In other words, Patrick, they spent it all on transit. Of course, if you can't even read MY first three sentences correctly, it was a stretch to expect you to read and properly interpret the rest of the post. What disappoints me Patrick, is your lack of reading/comprehension skills.

Transit gets too much of the pie, even if you don't want to admit it.

Craig,

Your points are well taken, (as usual) but will dedicating 90% of transportation funds be enough, even with more privatization?

Also, giving DOT more authority is a bit misleading. It says "Regional planning councils have most of the authority for improving urban freeways and major arterials. The state must force them to WORK TOGETHER TO DELIVER GOOD ROADS quickly and cost- effectively. To do that, the state should give the councils more money and funding flexibility if the standards are met."

I don't believe they were implying that DOT should have a free hand to spend it on rail etc. I think they meant for DOT to oversee roadbuilding by the regional planners. Am I incorrect?

What seems apparent is that a shake-up in the upper tier of DOT may be in order to accomplish the roadbuilding task at hand. Yes or No?

It is time to "Ashcan Sounder and LINK" and privatize WSF.

Privatizing bus transportation services, since there are so many seperate agencies will be no easy task. Every single one would involve a lawsuit by the ATU or "other" Union, which historically takes years to resolve. Millions are spent to assure these become or remain government jobs.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 04, 2000.

Albert Einstein once said that he thought the greatest thing in mathematics was compound interest. Privatization is like that. If you can do the same thing you are now doing for 80% of what it currently costs you, AND INVEST THE OTHER 20%, year in and year out, it will make a real difference. If we save 20% by privatization and blow it all on 20% for art it will get us nowhere.

Where I disagree with these editorials is where they imply that DOT cant get these people to work together. Understand this. DOT IS THE PROBLEM. Unless you drastically decrease the overhead in DOT, and replace the senior people with people interested in solutions, rather than process, you will fail. Look at all the national transportation conferences. Look at what ONE STATE is grossly over- represented in articles, presentations, strap-hangars, and general maxing out the PROCESS without worry about the result. Its Washington.

Time, and past time. Oh, I know that well. Wont be easy, wont be quick. Wont get done any faster or cheaper if we put it off until later though. And it has to be done.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 04, 2000.

The opinions stated at the beginning are just that, opinions. The transit system in Seattle could be alot better. True, we could add some roads and widen others, but that has been done elsewhere in the country and does not seem to help. People must drive less, take a bus, train, ferry, bike, carpool, work from home, etc.

-- David B. (bowie@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

"The opinions stated at the beginning are just that, opinions." This is an opinion.

"The transit system in Seattle could be alot better." This is an opinion, and of course, a truism. It is unreasonable to assume that the transit system in Seattle is the best that can possibly be built. On the other hand, it ranks in the top thirty in the country in most major criteria except cost-effectiveness.

"True, we could add some roads and widen others," Fact.

"but that has been done elsewhere in the country and does not seem to help." Opinion. In fact, few places with more roadway per capita than Seattle are anything like as congested as Seattle.

"People must drive less, take a bus, train, ferry, bike, carpool, work from home, etc. " Opinion. Why? For what outcome? Are we talking congestion here? Or decreasing air pollution? This doesn't even identify what the alleged rationale is for the opinion?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Great. Another person who can't read. Go back and read it again Bob. The "opinions" are based on facts that were included in the article. While you don't have to agree with the conclusions the writers came to on how best to solve the congestion problem, you can't argue with the facts. Washington spent too much on transit (that most people WON'T ride, no matter how much you whine that they should), and not enough on new lanes, roads and freeways.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.

Sorry, I guess your name is David, not Bob.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 06, 2000.