Can you build your way out of congestion? Well, yes, or so the Blue Ribbon Panel was told. Wouldn't be quick, wouldn't be cheap, and you's piss off both the transit lobby and the unions, but you could do it.

The blue ribbon commission members were told that You can build your way out of congestion, but that excessive construction costs are partly keeping us from doing it. The other thing is that all the capital funding is going to transit.

Reduce Congestion Now Chairman Beighle next introduced Kemper Freeman, President of Kemper Development Company and a former state legislator. Mr. Freeman began by citing polls that he said indicate that 66% of Puget Sounds population feel congestion is the regions worst problem. A year ago he hired Bill Eager of TDA Inc. to answer three questions: 1) what would it take to reduce congestion by 25%, 2) how could mobility be improved, and 3) how could we boost performance and reduce costs. MR. EAGER CONDUCTED A STUDY THAT FOUND THAT BY INCREASING LANE MILES IN THE REGION BY 4%, ALL THREE GOALS COULD BE MET. He asked Mr. Eager to describe his study. Mr. Eager said his study covered Snohomish, King and Pierce Counties. It found that travel demand is growing faster than population; the number of occupants per vehicle is declining; and no one in the region is charged with improving mobility. The Metropolitan Transportation Plan says that unless people change their behavior, mobility will get worse. THE MTP ASSIGNS OVER HALF OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION DOLLARS TO TRANSIT. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, Puget Sounds congestion index is 1.2 or 20% over capacity. A 25% reduction would get the level of congestion to .9 or back to what it was in the early 1980s. The increased mobility would serve almost 40% more trips. According to Mr. Eager, to accomplish this, the region must: complete the financially constrained state highway plan; continue to boost the efficiency of the system using ITS and other means; and add 4% to the lane miles of roads in the region. This would require adding 700 lane miles to the freeways and expressways and 700 line miles to the arterials. Together these roadways carry 65% of the travel. IT IS NOT TRUE THAT YOU CANNOT BUILD YOUR WAY OUT OF CONGESTION -- THE VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED HAVE INCREASED 68% SINCE 1980, BUT OUR LANE MILES HAVE BARELY GROWN. HE SAID INVESTMENT IN THE ROADWAY SYSTEM HAS BEEN NEGLECTED. There is also a need to boost the efficiency of the system. HOV lanes could be converted to HOT lanes or used in peak periods only; WE SHOULD ALSO EXAMINE THE PROCESSES THAT HAVE ALLOWED OUR COST PER LANE MILE TO EXCEED NATIONAL AVERAGES BY TWO AND ONE-HALF TIMES. THE COST OF THE NEW LANE MILES WOULD BE $12.8 BILLION IF WASHINGTON STATE FIGURES WERE USED; BUT ONLY $6 BILLION IF THE 50-STATE AVERAGE WERE USED. Q: Did you look at the right-of-way issues? Is the land the re? So far we have taken only the macro look. We are now starting to look at the details. Q: How do you get from a 4% increase in lane miles to 40% more trips? The 4% is primarily on the freeway and arterial system on which you actually increase lane miles by 35%. Q: If freeways, expressways and arterials comprise 12% of the 32,000 lane miles, that is 3,840 lane miles. You would be adding lanes to fully one -third of the principal roads. That is correct. Q: You are proposing to spend another $2 billion per year on top of the $1.2 billion we are already spending and the $2.7 billion in the constrained plan. So far we have only looked at the added increment of capital cost. Asked to offer lessons learned to the Blue Ribbon Commission, MR. FREEMAN SUGGESTED IN EXCHANGE FOR ASKING THE PUBLIC FOR MORE MONEY, IT IS ESSENTIAL TO OFFER THEM SOMETHING THAT CAN WORK. He suggested looking hard at why it costs so much more to build here. Mr. White suggested having a specific plan that can move forward. He said focusing on specifics would be critical. He agreed that more roadway capacity was needed. Also more partnerships will help move solutions forward.

http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/docs/FullCom05-12-99.pdf

-- Mikey (m_alworth@olympusnet.com), January 10, 2000

Answers

Could have sworn I was reading a Craig post until I scrolled to the bottom. ;)

OK, so we need a catchy slogan for the "Traffic Improvement Initiative". Any suggestions?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Screw Transit, build roads! Simple, crude, but effective!

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 10, 2000.

Let me introduce you to something called "triple convergence" by Anthony Downs, author of "Stuck in Traffic: Coping With Peak-Hour Traffic Congestion." Roughly paraphrasing Mr Downs....

Drivers normally search for the quickest route. Since most drivers share common information, they tend to "converge" on these "best" routes from many points of origin. With so many drivers on these "best" routes during rush hours, some will abandon them for other routes. Eventually, a sort of equilibrium sets in. If a vast improvement is made to one of the limited-access routes, say, increasing the number of lanes, the carrying capacity of the route is improved. But it isn't long before traffic is moving as slowly as before the improvement. Why? Downs suggest three kinds of convergence: 1)drivers who formerly used alternative routes switch back (spatial convergence); 2) drivers who formerly travelled just before or after peak hours moving into peak hours (time convergence); and 3) commuters changing from transit to driving, because it is percieved to be faster (modal convergence.)

Triple convergence will keep you from ever building your way out of congestion. What does work? Not to deliver a lecture on transportation planning, but there are both market-based and regulatory solutions that can work. Both these solution sets, especially the market-based solutions, have been made infinitely more difficult by I-695's "voter approval" requirement and its overly broad definition of taxes. Eliminating HOV lanes will make congestion worse, not better. Any short term improvements for current SOV drivers will be very short term, and system performance for HOV occupants will drop radically and rapidly. Slowing down carpools will encourage more SOVs; slowing down buses will encourage more SOVs; and before long, things will be worse -- possibly much worse -- than they are now. Don't believe me? Stay tuned...I'll be back in a few days and show you how to do the math.

BTW, I'd be very interested in seeing the Kemper Freeman study. Just how much will 700 freeway lane miles and 700 arterial lane miles cost? You can't build them just anywhere. We - as citizens, builders, government officials - have allowed the creation of an urban area with very constrained travel corridors. Building this much new capacity will require displacing thousands of homes and businesses. Remember I-90? There's a reason that Washington highway construction costs are above average...it's more than "prevailing wage" or "low bid contracting". We've built ourselves into a box. Look at the per lane mile costs of rebuilding the SR16-I5 interchange in Tacoma. Multiply that by 700 miles! And with Tim Eyman already campaigning against an increased gasoline tax (as close to a "user fee" as you can get!), how will these new miles be paid for? Will it be at the cost of maintaining the Evergreen Point or Hood Canal bridges? Is it logical to demand "efficiency" from government at the same time we remove the tools that allow them any chance at improving the efficiency of our transportation system?

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), January 10, 2000.

If I'm not mistaken, the $6 billion number ONLY takes into account how much it would cost to build the new roads, and NOT how much it would cost to buy the land to build it on. If he does take this into account, then the $6 billion number is a fairly wild guess since he has "taken only the macro look" at right of way issues, and doesn't even know if the land is available. Without right of way, the cost of such an undertaking would be substantially higher (how much do YOU think it would cost to buy land through downtown Seattle and Bellevue?).

I am not saying that such building projects wouldn't be at least partially worth while, just that it would cost A LOT of money. The report itself spells it out: In addition to the $1.2 billion already being spent per year and another $2.7 billion in another plan, he would advocate for ANOTHER $2 billion, for a total of $5.9 billion a year in transportation spending (this is AFTER the DOT cuts its costs in half). That would require about a 500% increase in the transportation budget. The Transportation Resource Manual mentions that every one cent increase in the gas tax produces $64.2 million every TWO years, but even if we spread the construction out over double the recommended time, it would require an increase in the gas tax of about $0.91 a gallon. Only implementing his proposal would require an increase of about $0.32 a gallon.

Sure you can build yourself out of congestion. Of course the cost of gas in order to pay for it might actually prove that there is an upper limit to how much a person will pay for gas before he leaves his car at home. And if you think that redirecting the RTA taxes will solve that problem, they bring in about $202 million a year, or less than 5% of the required funding.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.

Yeah Patrick-

But we've been WASTING $100 million a year on capital expenses alone for Metro, and spending $200 million on operating expenses as well. Do that for twenty years and, as Ev Dirksen used to say, it starts to add up to REAL money. The difference, of course, is that when you build the roads, at the end of 20 years, you actually HAVE something. At the end of twenty years of feeding transit, you have an organization that NEEDS MORE FEEDING, and is still only contributing 2% to the passenger miles, LESS percentagewise than when you started.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 11, 2000.

I commute every day from Pierce County to South Seattle. The consistently harshest part of my commute is during the evening up the Southcenter Hill. I am skeptical that you can improve the situation through additional construction. First of all, the construction will take a long time (several years?) to complete. Secondly, while the construction is taking place, there will be worse congestion (if that is possible) then there is now.

Right now, Sound Transit a variety of bus routes (which, as far as I can tell, appear to be quite full) plying the carpool lanes of South King County (of which there are less than 7 miles worth between I-405 and Federal Way on southbound I-5). If we attempt to privatize Sound Transit, and they are unable to accomplish this, then we may be unleashing an additional 1000 commuters per hour onto I-5 in South King County. If we assume that the commuters will carpool, then there will be an additional 500 cars per hour going up the Southcenter Hill. Likewise, in the morning, there will be an additional 500 cars per hour attempting to enter Seattle from South King County.

Likewise, opening up the carpool lanes will provide little relief up the Southcenter Hill, since the traffic in the carpool lane (during the height of rush hour) often travels at speeds of less than 20 MPH!!!

This is why the voters voted for Sound Transit. Because, unless you have a specfic plan for addressing the Southcenter Hill in the evening, and the I-5 northbound bottleneck near I-90 in the morning, then you're just blowing hot air.

Don't talk in generalities about building our way out of congestion. Specifically address the areas of worst congestion.

After the Southcenter Hill, I typically encounter a mysterious slowdown between Hwy 18 and the Tacoma Dome. Here, there are no carpool lanes. Now, it should be fairly simple to expand congestion through Fife, but I suspect it will be enormously expensive to expand capacity around the Tacoma Dome, one of the unsafest roadways I've ever observed in my life.

That is why society chooses to subsidize transit. It is a quick way of mitigating intolerable congestion. The analogy would be if you have a brain tumor, and the doctor gives you extra-strength Tylenol to mitigate the pain. Is it a great solution? Probably not, but the alternative, radical brain surgery, doesn't sound great either. Especially, if doctor tells you that after the surgery, the cancer will have moved to some other part of your body.

I know the voters will make the right choice. If you have a great plan for expanding capacity quickly and cost-effectively, we'll vote for it in a heartbeat. If not, I'll take some more extra-strength Tylenol, please.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 11, 2000.

Nobody is fundamentally against extra strength Tylenol. Matt, but you've got to realize where extra strength Tylenol fits in the scheme of things. I remember when Tylenol first came out. All the people who had been making their suicide gestures with aspirin, now decided to do it with Tylenol because it was less irritating to the stomach and "so safe, they give it to babies." The problem is that, in overdose, it rots your liver. And the margin between effective dose and lethal dose isn't as wide as with aspirin.

So what's the point? The point is proven by your own analogy. Everything is OK in it's appropriate niche. If your transit route is cost effective- great. Nobody's going to hold a gun to your head to keep you from using it. And your route MAY be cost-effective. We'll never know that unless we break out the individual cost factors, or simply privatize it which is easier. But the fact of the matter is that the transit system as a whole, is terribly non cost-effective, because it's been pushed out of it's niche since in it's present form economiocs are irrelevant to it. It lives or dies by protests in the capital.

Currently, transit is getting far more public transportation money than it warrants, either based upon passenger miles provided, marginal effect on congestion, per capita cost of providing services, or any other reasonable measure. That needs to be scaled back. If transit provides 2% of passenger miles (as it does in the Puget Sound region)and uses the public roads to provide most of that, a 90% roads/10% transit split (which is essentially what the transportation improvement initiative provides for) is MORE than fair. If I ruled the world, we'd have a basic transit system for the transit dependent and everything else would be pay-as-you-go. But in recognition of the number of people we have lead to make housing and work choices based upon the availability of subsidized transit, I think that the transportation improvement initiative is a good first start.

Just as it would have been unfair to abruptly cut off the welfare benefits to healthy people on welfare when we decided on welfare reform, it would be unfair to abruptly cut off the transit riders who have been long subsidized by the rest of us. But that doesn't mean it is a lifetime entitlement. You need to learn to make your own way in the world. You need to become self sufficient. You need to stop sponging off your fellow citizens.

Transit is a system that is far out of it's niche. It needs to be trimmed back. Tylenol is a good drug, but you don't want to overdose on it.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 11, 2000.

Matt--"from Pierce county to south Seattle" You could've stopped there. You gripe about congestion, but don't realize the irony of this statement. I find it remarkable you expect people to subsidize your vanpools and HOV lanes so you can live at least 30 miles from where you work. Y'all made your own bed. . .now sleep there.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 11, 2000.

To Brad: I'm not "griping" about congestion, although you come across as whining about my alleged griping. I merely point out that any proposal for roadbuilding must specifically address known choke points, or the voters won't take it seriously.

I'm not asking rush-hour SOVers to subsidize anything. The HOV lanes were paid for by the license tab fees of HOVers, as well as licesnse tab fees from the wealthy who don't commute. Likewise, none of the gas tax goes to purchase buses. So, again SOVers aren't subsidizing HOVers. So, stop your whining.

As for me commuting from Pierce County, this is irrelvant, as the choke points would remain the same if I commuted from Federal Way to Seattle.

The bottom line is you want to add 500 cars per hour to already overwhelmed choke points. Calling me a griper or whiner doesn't justify your point of view. And, I don't think the voters are going to be duly impressed, either.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 11, 2000.

To Craig: I have no problem eliminating bus routes with low ridership. The bus routes of Sound Transit have high ridership, so perhaps I'm "preaching to the choir".

The voters will only respond to credible proposals for mitigating known choke points. If you have a credible proposal, spit it out. So far, Sound Transit is doing a credible job.

I would like to see the HOV lanes opened up for a couple of months, at least on Tuesdays and Thursdays. Then, we'd have some data on which to make a decision on Tim Eyman's proposal. For the Southcenter Hill it will probably make no difference, so if it'll make the SOVers happier, it's fine with me.

When I see specific, credible, timely, cost-effective proposals for addressing known choke points, then I'll join the bandwagon. Of course, it's kind of hard to be credible when the hard-core SOVers don't even want to adjust the gas tax upwards for inflation.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 11, 2000.

"Of course, it's kind of hard to be credible when the hard-core SOVers don't even want to adjust the gas tax upwards for inflation. "

This statement would be more biting if it didn't come from someone SUCKING AT THE PUBLIC TEAT on his highly subsidized transit route. Look at the public money that's gone into transit, locally, statewide, and at the federal level for the last 25 years. Support has been WELL ABOVE the inflation rate, and all we have gotten is a DECLINING market share. Why don't you pay your own way before you accuse others of being cheap?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 11, 2000.

"I have no problem eliminating bus routes with low ridership. The bus routes of Sound Transit have high ridership, so perhaps I'm "preaching to the choir". " The issue isn't merely one of ridership. It's one of cost-effectiveness. As I said on another thread, if the government would provide me with the use of an F-16D model, my wife and I could fly down to Sacramento this week-end to visit Mom. We'd have EVERY SEAT IN THE AIRCRAFT FILLED, and avoid causing further congestion at Sea-Tac by flying out of McChord. It would be FAR more convenient and easy for me. The problem is that this is an unrealistic expectation. Even if I would optimally utilize it, society does not owe me a $40 million aircraft for my convenience. If you are riding one of the newer buses, that's a $435,000 acquisition cost vehicle, and wlill amortize over 15-20 years. Your driver is getting $20 an hour (including the empty trip back), the rest of the maintenance and liability is about another $80/hr. So your round trip winds up costing at least $400 operating expenses and $100/day capital costs, plus the costs of building the roads you are operating on and maintaining them. Is that a break- even proposition? How many people on the bus? 65? What you paying? $2.50 each way. If that's the case, the expenses are $500 a day, the farebox revenue is $325 BEFORE YOU EVEN PAY FOR THE WEAR AND TEAR A THIRTY TON BUS DOES TO THE ROADS. And the sad fact is that the express buses probably ARE more cost effective than the rest of transit.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 11, 2000.

Well Craig, we all know that you consider public transit a waste, but that is your opinion. If the public wants to subsidize a transit system (and there has NEVER been any pretense that maybe someday the system will become self sufficient), then that is their choice. If a region votes to tax itself to create a mass transit system in which only a quarter to a third of the costs are covered by farebox returns and is used by less than 10% of the people, then that is their choice.

What the transportation initiative does is not only override a local choice, but it also prohibits any future local transportation choices. Say this passes and it essentially defunds the RTA. The people in the RTA region couldn't even take it upon themselves to reauthorize the refunding of Sound Transit if a majority wanted to. It would be like the citizens in the Tacoma School District passing a levy to purchase more computer equipment, but the rest of the state passes an initiative to force the Tacoma School District to spend that money on other projects and makes it so the people of Tacoma could never try to provide extra funding for computer purchases again.

Finally, to get back to the subject at hand, even if Metro was dissolved as well as the RTA taxes rerouted, that would STILL only provide about 6% of the necessary funding for Kemper Freeman's suggestion. And Craig, you neglect to take into account that those new lanes and roads WOULD require maintenance and repair work which WOULD require additional funding. You don't just build a road and walk away from it forever. Also, in 20 years those new lanes would most likely be just as congested or even more congested as the current lanes are today. Which of course would require MORE money for more expansion.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.

"If a region votes to tax itself to create a mass transit system in which only a quarter to a third of the costs are covered by farebox returns and is used by less than 10% of the people, then that is their choice."

I think the question is, would the people really vote for it if they were educated and KNEW that only a quarter to a third of the costs are covered by farebox returns and is used by less than 10% of the people? I don't think they would consider that a wise investment of their tax dollars if they were actually educated.

-- Kevin McDowell (kevinmcd@microsoft.com), January 11, 2000.

"If a region votes to tax itself to create a mass transit system in which only a quarter to a third of the costs are covered by farebox returns and is used by less than 10% of the people, then that is their choice. "

EXCUSE ME! I believe those numbers are 5 to 21% of costs covered by farebox returns and used by 5% of the people.

Every man has a right to his opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts. Bernard M. Baruch

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 11, 2000.

Matt--

"As for me commuting from Pierce County, this is irrelvant, as the choke points would remain the same if I commuted from Federal Way to Seattle."

While this is certainly true for you personally, it has little to do with my original post.

If *everyone* cut their commute distance in half (approximate change between Tacoma and Federal Way), how would this affect congestion?

As an aside, this is the only solution I see to congestion (short of extremely drastic legislation)--get people living closer to their work (or the converse). Unfortunately, I don't think this is workable for most dual-income families.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), January 11, 2000.

"Well Craig, we all know that you consider public transit a waste, but that is your opinion. " Not so! In fact, I have repeatedly indicated that I believe that society SHOULD provide a safety net of mobility for the transit impaired. But it's a niche market.

Do you really support the underground parking garage (with elevator) for the Mercer Island park n ride. The new garage winds up costing over $29,000 per stall (plus long term maintenance) so impoverished Mercer Islanders who HAVE cars can ride highly subsidized transit into Seattle. This solves no air pollution problems (the cold start alone is 80% of auto caused air pollution), certainly doesn't meet a compelling social need, and has the net effect of transferring general fund revenues to the richest area in the state.

Do you really support LINK-T? $65 million to replace one bus that provides stops in five places on a 1.6 mile route every 15 minutes (in an area with NO REAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS) with a light rail that provides stops in five places on a 1.6 mile route every 15 minutes (in an area with NO REAL TRAFFIC PROBLEMS)?

At what point does the cost-benefit get too adverse, even for you? Or does that always occur just past the point where YOU derive benefit from transit. Cause that's the "commons problem" that democracy always deals with. At what point does the individual, despite knowing that his use of public resources is not appropriate were it HIS resource, continue to use resources appropriately. This issue is behind littering, behind abuse of fleet vehicles, and behind most transit use. It is why the Army no longer has general use vehicles in the motor pool. Everybody abuses them. They now sign the vehicle out to one person, paint HIS name on the windshield.

So think long and hard before denigrating the opinions of others that are based upon fact and logic, particularly when yours are obviously based on "what can I get out of society." I'm not the one who is unwilling to pay his own way. You are.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 11, 2000.

Now that you have all gotten that off your chests. I want to hear what everyone of you thinks congestion will be like if the Traffic Improvement Initiative fails, few lanes or roads are added and somehow, Transit has most of it's funding restored. Keep in mind, the fact that Transit is LOSING MARKET SHARE, folks don't WANT to ride a bus, train, or carpool or vanpool, if they do not already do so. Get out your crystal ball, and tell me what you see.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 11, 2000.

Patrick:

"Well Craig, we all know that you consider public transit a waste, but that is your opinion. If the public wants to subsidize a transit system (and there has NEVER been any pretense that maybe someday the system will become self sufficient), then that is their choice. If a region votes to tax itself to create a mass transit system in which only a quarter to a third of the costs are covered by farebox returns and is used by less than 10% of the people, then that is their choice. "

Mr Chomsky immediately comes to mind here. Patrick, let me remind you, that if people vote to NOT do this, then that too, is their choice. You can't start throwing around the 'choice' argument, and then when the 'public choice' doesn't go your way, call it 'manufactured consent'.

Yes, people often do 'choose' to raise their taxes. I would never, ever argue that in this state. It never ceases to amaze me how often new taxes are approved here. See the studies on 695 regarding past performance of publicly approved taxes. I believe that over the long haul, people are fairly complacent. Also, taxes and tax increases are usually dished out in insidiously indirect, or sometimes dishonest ways in which they're difficult to track or see by this same complacent people. Most of them just slowly transform themselves into inflationary affects to the economy: After a few years, it becomes somehow 'harder' to make ends meet, we get a higher paying job, or we pressure or negotiate raises from our employers-- it just becomes another factor in the cycles of economies. I've always said that if people *really* knew what they were paying in taxes, the whole 'atm fee' issue would be the joke of the century. Give the people a tax that they gotta write the check for at the end of the year-- in full? Hoo dogey, you got yerself a hot button issue.

In a democracy, choice is often lost by the few at the hands of the many. Politicians: Make your case, the only difference is, you gotta sell it to the voters-- you can't just implement it. If you can't sell it, try again next year.

-- Paul Oss (jnaut@earthlink.net), January 11, 2000.

Get out your crystal ball, and tell me what you see. Gonna get harder and harder to tax people for services that are less and less cost-effective that they don't use. You can fool around with the market economy for just so long. Then your house of cards comes a tumblin' down. Just ask Eastern Europe. It is ONLY the few New Urbanists really pushing transit now. They can't even get a big crowd out to Olympia when they have a rally sponsored by Sims and Locke. Two hundred-fifty people? I've seen more at a cockfight on Guam, and they're illegal.

Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Aldous Huxley

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 11, 2000.

Kevin: Well, we all voted to provide TWO renewable funding sources for the RTA to both create and operate the system. I figure anyone who didn't count on the system being heavily subsidized probably didn't look at the issue very clearly.

Craig: Well I'm not too familiar with the Mercer Island garage, but I would most likely say no. Should I therefore reject the entire idea of building park-and-ride lots? And unless otherwise stated, I'll assume that the elevator was an ADA requirement. We've been over the LINK project before. I'd have to say the cost-benefit question is one where I know it when I see it. So far with your evidence I haven't seen it. And just FYI, I personally don't use transit. I pretty much pay 100% of my own way.

Paul: I agree. So let the people who are being taxed on the RTA, and ONLY those who are being taxed, vote on the issue. I'm of the opinion that the people in the RTA district are much more inclined to at least see Sound Transit in operation first instead of relying on studies and estimates before they seriously consider giving the system the axe.

So is anyone going to discuss the issue of it taking an insane amount of money to "build our way out of congestion?" Everyone is talking about how they don't want to spend money on public transit, but nobody seems interested in bringing up the subject of actually paying for the road construction that they actually want.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 11, 2000.

"So is anyone going to discuss the issue of it taking an insane amount of money to "build our way out of congestion?" Everyone is talking about how they don't want to spend money on public transit, but nobody seems interested in bringing up the subject of actually paying for the road construction that they actually want. " Sure! As has been said, it won't be cheap and it won't be easy, but I'd do it. First some preliminaries:

Abolish sales tax on road constructtion. This is just an instrument for shifting money from the transportation budget into the general fund. Savings? 8% plus or minus.

Abolish prevailing wage legislation. (This one will help school construction too.) This will get you a 15-18% reduction in costs (not additive to the first but serial discounts. The first gets you the roads at 92% of the original price, the second gets you the roads at 86% of the 92% ... about 80% of original cost).

Get rid of mandatory training programs, small and disadvantaged business set-asides, etc. About another 4% off.

Get rid of 1% for art. 1%

Now that we've cut out some ridiculous overhead costs, let's tax users that aren't currently being charged their fair share.

Charge any rail improvements necessary to BNSF. They are the ones that are benefiting from them. They are a profit making business (I know, I've got stock in them). Let them raise their fees to customers to cover the expense. These are truly user fees. They will go to whoever benefits from the improvemnts, bur won't come from the taxpayers EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY ARE USERS.

Charge schools and transit for the use of the roads for buses. On most smaller roads, these are the heaviest vehicles that do the most damage. These are user fees. They should pay on a weight scale, the same as for heavy trucks.

Stop diverting highway funds to the ferries. These aren't highways, no matter what the court says. You can walk on highways. If just one supreme court justice will walk from Bremerton to Seattle, I may very well reconsider this position. I would also humbly request that the justice CREATE adequate roads. If he can't do that, his divinity would come into question.

Sell the ferries to the highest bidder if they can't be run at break even costs.

Get rid of existing HOV lanes. These WERE NOT paid for by HOV drivers, to any greater extent than they were paid for by SOV drivers. Build new toll lanes. If HOV drivers want to use them, they can pay like anyone else, just split it by however many people they have in the car. If SOV drivers are willing to pay a premium to use these lanes, that's great. They can help pay them off quicker.

Except for the indigent, physically/mentally impaired, or those unable to legally drive, charge market rates on transit. Whatever it takes to cover the CAPITAL AND OPERATING COSTS. Send the funds freed up to pay for roads.

Sell off the state liquor stores, with liquor licenses/franchises to the highest bidder. This isn't an essential function of government. There are PLENTY of entrepreneurs more than happy to satisfy our vices. Use the money for roads. They are essential.

Sell Evergreen State University to the highest bidder. We have more than enough environmental wackos now.

And keep doing this for 25-30 years. That's how long our current transportation people have FOULED US UP. That's how long it'll take for us to get it right again.

Last but not least, don't try to make little incremental changes. Won't work. Even if DOT was to get its collective butt in gear today, things will be worse before they get better. And the worse they get, the more likely that the people will pass more and more initiatives to take money and control away from our elected wafflers.

So there, Patrick. How do you like them proposals?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

to Mark Stilson: Hooray! I like your proposals, especially the part of building new toll roads. Unfortunately, you don't elaborate on where the toll roads will be built; how they will be financed and; will the existing "free" roads be converted to be part of the "tolled network" (this is what is being done with the Tacoma Narrows).

I'm all for a situation where I can choose to either sit in traffic or choose to pay a toll and shave 15-20 minutes off my commute.

But, I don't know how the toll roads will be financed, since there is no way I can guarantee the tolls will cover the cost of the roads.

Anyway, if you run for political office, you'd get my vote. But, I'm also willing to vote for taxes to fund transit, since I know it is, currently, the only timely method of mitigating known choke points.

On your comment about abolishing HOVs, I remain unconvinced. I think the proper approach would be to open up the HOV lanes for a couple of days a week for a couple of months. Then, we'd have some real-life data to make a decision. Your claim that the HOVers didn't pay for the HOV lanes is false. They did pay for them, along with the idle rich who don't need to commute during rush hour. So, tell those SOVers to quit their whining.

-- Matthew M. Warren (Mattinsky@msn.com), January 12, 2000.

to Craig: Apparently, your main gripe is that the express buses plying the HOV lanes are subsidized too much. So, if we reined in the amount of the subsidy, you'd be less opposed. This is a reasonable point of view. I think most voters would have a point, past which they could no longer justify the subsidy.

If the buses cost that much to operate, then the transit agencies should be agressively recruting their passengers to form vanpools, since, according to your figures, they could probably purchase 20 vanpool vans for the cost of a single bus. Likewise, the operating costs are fully covered by the vanpool members. So, overall, the transit agencies could drastically reduce the amount of subsidy.

It's hard for the voters to get excited about "doing nothing", when everyone agrees there's a problem. Now, you can probably motivate voters with a slogan of "Stop the waste".

But, until you provide alternative proposals for mitigating known choke points, the voters will relunctantly support some level of subsidies to transit.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 12, 2000.

to Marsha: I can tell you exactly what is going to happen in future, as it has already happened in my backyard with the Tacoma Narrows Bridge.

The commuters across Lake Washington will be forced to pay a toll. In order to ensure the financing of new bridge across Lake Washington, the government will have to impose tolls on the existing bridges, once the new bridge opens. Don't say it can't happen, because it will happen with the Tacoma Narrows.

The very existence of the tolls will encourage people to rideshare. Plus, you will have new capacity. Hence, congestion will worsen at a slower rate than now.

Of course, if the voters approve signifcantly higher gas taxes, then there will be new road construction, although the location and timeliness remains a mystery. And, again, the significantly higher price of gas will add to the incentive to rideshare. So, congestion will worsen at a slower rate. It is unlikely the voters would agree to raise the gas tax (especially by a huge amount), so don't get too fussy.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 12, 2000.

"Your claim that the HOVers didn't pay for the HOV lanes is false. They did pay for them, along with the idle rich who don't need to commute during rush hour. " I didn't claim that the HOVers didn't pay for the HOV lanes, I stated correctly that the HOVers have contributed no more for the HOV lanes than the SOV people have contributed. In point of fact, they've contributed less on a per capita basis, since they presumably would be paying at most HALF the gas tax per capita of SOVers. And do the "idle rich" have a check- off on their IRS form that says "donate to HOV lanes"? Please explain this to me. In fact, the majority of trips are not commute trips even during commute times. The "idle rich" are probably out their with frau's in their RV's.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Matthew,

Toll bridges appear likely. Few would argue the neccessity I think. Toll roads, perhaps. Maybe not as much as you would like. The state still has an obligation to pay for roads. Tolls or a higher gas tax? My preference is to give voters a choice of funding. Clearly and simply stated choices, at the same time.

In fact, all new tax questions should be presented with alternate, clear choices.

Ask anybody who is against transit subsidies what their main gripe is, and you will usually hear, too many empty or nearly empty busses. The second thing you will hear, is that riders don't pay enough. I have never heard a Kitsap County taxpayer complain about a full shipyard worker/driver bus. Those riders pay more than regular fare, and they have a much higher ridership.

Transit would probably get more idealogical support if they became more cost effective. Even with a decline in ridership. There is a wide variance between cost effectiveness in rural areas vs urban. Also, a wide variance exists between individual agencies, performing the same basic urban service. New standards need to be implemented for cost effective routes, state wide. If it doesn't meet the criteria, dump it. It is amazing to me, that some agencies can have very cost effective service, while others plainly milk the taxpayers.

I say, if you want transit, pay for it. Poor and low income riders should get a break. Well to do commuters should not. I find it ludicrous that all taxpayers, even lower income, should subsidize the well to do commuter.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Patrick-

You left out a couple of things:

1) Blow up the I-5 bridge over the Columbia, keeping migrating Californians out. 2) Close the Port of Seattle to keep the Chinese out. 3) Close SeaTac to keep everyone else out. 4) Enforce mandatory sterilization after any resident female has her allocated 1.3 children.

That will reduce growth to zero, after a while. Then the rest of your plans will work. Maybe.

BTW, you still can't build your way out of congestion. You can alter behavior, through market mechanisms that truly allocate costs, in a way that reduces congestion. But as long as we choose to live in cities, congestion will continue to exist. Simplistic solutions like "live closer to where you work" simply aren't possible when we have large employment concentrations and low density housing. Many, perhaps most, people would prefer to live close to work, but can't afford to. If we want to maintain communities, and not force families to relocate each time one of the wage earners in the family changes jobs, the we'll have to live with commutes and congestion.

Or maybe we could all live in MVET-free motor homes...

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), January 12, 2000.

to Marsha: Mmmm, the shipyards. Now there's a bastion of free enterprise.

I agree with you, though, there should be some minimum level of ridership in order to justify a particular bus route. But, ultimately, if we are to believe Craig's numbers (e.g., $465,000 for a single bus), it is unlikely the users of transit would ever agree to pay the actual cost. I mean, it would be a hell of a lot cheaper to carpool.

So, you either subsidize transit. Or, you pump more cars per hour into known choke points. Apparently, many voters (myself included) don't mind paying a higher sales tax or a modest license fee tab (i.e., Sound Transit) as a way of mitigating congestion.

I'm sorry that transit subsidizes those of us who are well off as equally as the less fortunate. That's the way it goes.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 12, 2000.

to Mark: The HOVers and those with fancy cars who don't commute during rush hour did pay for the HOV lanes. Society collected license tab fees from these carowners. For example, a vanpool with ten pasengers could have easily been contributing $3000/yr to the government in tab fees. Add to this the monies from owners of Jaguars and Mercedes who don't commute during rush hour, you have lots of monies to account for the cost of the HOV lane. Ergo, it didn't cost the SOVers one red cent. But the SOVers benefit from the reduced congestion. Sounds like the SOVers got something for nothing. How do you like them dem apples!

In any case, I agree with you about toll roads, as long as I can choose between using the toll road or sitting in traffic. You still haven't explained how the toll roads will be built - who will lend the money and how will it get paid back.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 12, 2000.

"to Mark: The HOVers and those with fancy cars who don't commute during rush hour did pay for the HOV lanes. Society collected license tab fees from these carowners. For example, a vanpool with ten pasengers could have easily been contributing $3000/yr to the government in tab fees. Add to this the monies from owners of Jaguars and Mercedes who don't commute during rush hour, you have lots of monies to account for the cost of the HOV lane. Ergo, it didn't cost the SOVers one red cent. But the SOVers benefit from the reduced congestion. Sounds like the SOVers got something for nothing. How do you like them dem apples! "

Sounds like you failed both ECON 101 and basic logic. That or your reality testing just isn't very good. You could about as easily say that yacht buyers in Rhode Island paid for the HOV lanes, since no doubt SOME of the money used in the interstate system was federal money and SOME federal money comes from Rhode Island yacht buyers and the yachts CERTAINLY don't use the HOV lanes!

About the time we start to have hope for you, you come up with some totally inane comment. How disappointing.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Matthew,

Transit doesn't subsidize you. The taxpayers do. If you are willing to pay for operating costs, and your transit agency runs cost effective routes, no problem, I don't mind kicking in a few bucks for capital costs. (busses)

By the way. If you ride a bus, the regular driver probably knows the passenger per hour average for that particular route. Compare it to the agency average, and see if it truly is one of the more cost effective routes.

One of the sneaky things transit will do with routes, is to run them from a high ridership/density area, to a low ridership/density area and back, to keep the passengers per hour count up, so they can expand outward, and still maintain a decent head count. Most passengers will embark and disembark, within the high density area. The rest is mostly make work, and should be cut. You have no idea how wide spread this practice is. It's the main reason people see empty busses.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 12, 2000.

Empty buses? WE live in an area with little reverse commuting. During peak hours, buses go from residential areas to work centers FULL. Don't think so? Ride one some time. They come back from the work centers to the residential areas empty, or nearly so. They pick up another full load, and so on, until peak hours pass. Then most head back to the bus barn until the afternoon peak. Only a small part of the fleet operates during non-peak hours, and it is transporting mostly those people who don't/can't drive. And yes, those buses are largely empty..but the people riding them have little or no choice and are those people whom the "minimum basic transit system" would still have to be provided for. Given that the major cost is the driver, smaller buses would save little during off-peak and be less efficient during peak hours. BTW, some transit agencies WERE investing heavily in vanpools, until I-695 cut them off. At least here in Snohomish County, commuters are getting hit, with 50% fare increases.

-- Keith Maw (mapworks@connectexpress.com), January 13, 2000.

Ride a bus? Me? No thanks. Drove one for 6 years. Can't stand the smell of diesel fuel or exhaust anymore. And Keith, I'm sorry, but you are wrong about how transit operates routes throughout most of this state. You can advocate transit all you want. But when you want me to pay for it, you had damn well better spend the money wisely, and pay your share. In my opinion, 20% farebox recovery isn't high enough. 40% is the national average, so it's about time they raise fares. In the case of commuters, 50% - 60% farebox recovery would be more applicable.

I hate to tell you this, but Snohomish County is only one small part of the Transit subsidy picture in Washington. If your agency operates efficiently, and is cost effective, bully for you.

I have my doubts......but thanks for adding fuel to Craig's energy pool.

Build the roads!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 13, 2000.

"During peak hours, buses go from residential areas to work centers FULL. Don't think so? Ride one some time. They come back from the work centers to the residential areas empty, or nearly so. They pick up another full load, and so on, until peak hours pass. Then most head back to the bus barn until the afternoon peak." And here you have one of the fundamental problems with transit. Even when there is truly a demand, the bus rides empty (except for the paid driver) half the time. A sixty passenger bus, even on a high demand run, never caries more than about thirty passengers on the average. The buses cost $435K and either ride or sit empty more frequently than not. They simply can't get good utilization, because of geometry.

It's about time you got hit with 50% fare increases. Even that won;t get you up to the national average. The national average is 40% farebox recovery. Snohomish is 18%. If they had doubled the fare, it wouldn't have gotten Snohomish Transit up to the national average for farebox recovery.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), January 13, 2000.

 

Can we build our way out of congestion? Sure!

 

http://www.nap.edu/issues/15.3/samuel.htm

 

 

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 25, 2000.

to Craig: I went to the website. I liked it very much. The author writes: "The best chances for success in introducing road pricing are in situations where congestion is worst; the toll is linked to new capacity (extra lanes or a new road); and some "free" alternatives are retained."

Basically, the author is advocating a parallel network of tolled roads.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), March 26, 2000.