We've all heard about that statistic that says that only 47 miles of road have been built over the past 10 years, but does anyone know where that came from? It's been repeated enough that everyone accepts it. But is it true, or is it just a kind of urban myth?

Well according to the DOT, its not only wrong, it is WAY wrong. Between the years of 1986 and 1997, there was a 70 mile increase of state highway centerline miles (from 6,973 to 7,043), city streets have increase 1,728 miles (from 11,191 to 12,919) and county roads have seen a decrease of 283 miles (from 41,360 to 41,077). This is due to the incorporations of several cities which makes county roads city roads. So in reality, the total number of centerline miles constructed in the last 10 years was 1,515 miles.

In terms of lane miles the trend continues. Lane miles of state highways increased 70 miles, city lane miles increased 3,911 miles, and county lane miles decrease 594 miles for a total increase of 3,387 lane miles.

It sounds as if there HAS been quite a bit of road construction over the last decade.

All this information is available on request from the Department of Transportation. I don't believe it is available online.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 20, 2000

Answers

It's not available online. . . .at least not through the Avenues I've ever tried.

However, those who are interested may be able to obtain the full report (by mail) through WDOT.

-- Common Sense (1@hotmail.com), January 20, 2000.

Let's see... An "Urban Myth?" Or your typical gift for exaggeration?

The most popular source is the editorial of the Eastside Journal of January 2, http://eastsidejournal.com/sited/retr_story.pl/9202. The ESJ bases their numbers on a study by the Washington Roundtable. Exclusive of the credibility of the sources involved (Gee... Patrick and his agenda... or the ESJ and their agenda... who do we believe....?) Let's take a look at the "WAY wrong" number.

The fact is that DOT increased the number of HIGHWAY MILES by 47 between 1987 and 1996. (Patrick, having paid his usual attention to the issue, uses 1986 thru 1997, not 1996.) That is 47 miles out of 7,043 miles. As a percentage, 47 miles equates to an increase of around 6 tenths of one percent. Or, if you prefer, 70 miles, which equals right around 1 whole, entire percent.

Even if Patrick WERE accurate, the issue is that while we have sustained, according to the ESJ, a 35 million mile per year increase in driving by 1997, (an increase of around 30%) we have supported it with... why... HOW much of an increase in Highway road miles built? 1 percent or less?

"WAY more?" Please.

No one is suggesting that there hasn't been "quite a bit of" TOTAL roads built. But when these studies are considered, are they studying the newly built 4th Plain extension in Vancouver? The roads in the newest development? Or are they studying the HIGHWAY system first and foremost?

While there have been many miles of roads built over the years, a blind man should be able to see in a minute that they haven't been built in the right places; haven't been built by the state, and have, in fact, resulted in a predestined goat screw of the highest order. With state construction expenditures at less then half of the levels they were in 1986 (as a percentage of budget) while dubious expenditures for mass transit related wastes of money skyrocket, the outcome is clear, and experienced every day.

Patrick, all you've done is proven the axiom about figures that don't lie. NO one with the least understanding of transportation can stand up with a straight face and attempt to tell us that DOT has even made an effort to keep up with the expansion in the number of vehicles over the design limits of out highway system. The state's response has been abysmal, and, if the democrats continue to try and block transportation development of highways like they buried their collective heads in the sand over 695, the outcome for Eyman 3 is assured. The legislature can, in that regard, land the plane with the wheels up; or fly it directly into the ground. Hiding your head in the sand, as your bizarre premise here does, solves nothing and will do nothing but further infuriate an already angry populace.

Actually, I do hope that you democrats continue your state of denial. The longer you're in it... welllll November's gonna get here real quick... ain't it?

Westin

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

Bonus:

Is Al Gore's brain damaged as a result of drug use?

http://www.drcnet.org/wol/gore.html

-- Westin (jimwestin@netscape.net), January 20, 2000.

Or did he do drugs BECAUSE his brain was already damaged? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Chicken? Egg?? Turkey??

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 21, 2000.

Just as a clarifying note, the reason why I used the numbers from 1986- 1997 is because those were the years and statistics provided to my by the DOT. Perhaps the ESJ used the years 1987-97 because 1998 saw several large lane improvement projects (I-5, SR167, SR18) completed that year which would have increased that 47 mile number of theirs.

And that increase of 35 million miles? That's TOTAL number of miles driven Westin, NOT just highway miles. Which of course means a whole bunch of miles driven on... surprise!! new county and city roads to and from the new housing developments. Of course they are going to have to consider building the county and city roads first before the highways are considered. First, because there certainly isn't enough money to consider both at the same time. And second, because people don't exactly buy homes when there aren't any roads around their property.

But let's go back to that funding issue, because there are several topics there to cover. A sizable portion of the city and county roads constructed can be attributed to funding assistance from the state, more specifically the Transportation Improvement Board. The TIB provides up to 80% of the funding for local projects, and likes to help out on ones that specifically help movement towards state roads, the expansion of Canyon Road near SR 512 in Pierce County for example.

Now let's cover the decrease in new road construction by the DOT since 1986. Was this because they decided to start throwing their money at transit projects or is it because their funding source has remained pretty much at the same levels since that time? Well even though a lot of people on this board would like to believe it's the first answer, it's actually the second.

You know all that MVET money that you all were complaining about going to various transit districts, ferries, and what not during the 695 campaign? Well that never was road construction money. Back in 1990 when the legislature reworked the MVET valuation schedule it also tweaked the distribution of the tax. Instead of it all going into the General Fund, accounts were created for distribution to transit, rail, ferries, and other programs. Road construction money was NEVER diverted to fund transit systems. Could they have used that MVET money for road construction purposes? Yes, and they were planning on doing that to a degree until 695 passed.

So what does the DOT spend their money on? Pretty much trying to keep the current system from falling apart from old age. If you check out the DOT website, most of their construction notices have words like "retrofitting" and "rehabilitation." All those bridges and overpasses they built in the 1960's are reaching the end of their lifespans. And seeing that the DOT's main source of funding hasn't increased in a decade, OF COURSE their new construction is going to decrease. When you don't have the money to buy new, the cost of upkeep is going to take up an increasing share of the pie.

Does that mean that the DOT doesn't WANT to build new roads? No. They've got all sorts of great plans. The completion of SR 167 from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma, the completion of SR 509 to I-5, the North/South Freeway in Spokane, the Cross Base Highway at Fort Lewis, the replacement of the Hood Canal Bridge in Kitsap County before it pulls a Titanic. Of course several of these projects would take up at least a half of the DOT's existing two year budget. So it really does come down to a decision of "do we spend half our budget on one local project, or do we make it so 1/4 of our overpasses can survive a 4.0 earthquake?"

So you aren't by chance talking about Benton's transportation funding proposal are you Westin? That has to be one of the most hilarious pipe dreams to come out of Olympia for some time. Let's see, first we would have to fudge the budget numbers a little because the bonds that Benton claims are almost ready to be retired are in fact several years away from doing so. Then we throw about $70 million in money we have today into some more bonds, and PRESTO! we've got enough money to do some projects for two years. The only catch is that it would probably take about 20 years to pay off the bonds, and by that time we would have paid FOUR TIMES AS MUCH money in interest payments. But hey, we'd have 2 years of projects paid for. And why shouldn't we pay four times as much for them, as well as make our children pay for projects that were obsolete a couple years after completion.

Or perhaps you were also talking about the various proposals to open up the HOV lanes? I'll bring that subject up in a new thread in the near future. Suffice to say that such an act would most likely INCREASE conjestion.

You know, you personify EXACTLY what is wrong with the transportation debate today. It used to be that the entire debate was nonpartisan with the goal of reduced congestion on the minds of everyone. But just like your master Benton, you've got to twist it into ideological warfare. We could have been well on our way in the biggest road construction binge since the 60's. In 97 the legislature was considering increasing the gas tax to pay for literally HUNDREDS of miles of new highways (yes, single occupant general purpose lanes). What happened? Well right wing demogagues like John Carlson at KVI got people all fired up over the nerve of legislators actually making people who drive cars pay for new construction. Next thing you know, opportunists like Pam Roach were out whinning about how an increase in the gas tax would cost the Republicans their majority. So even though a majority of the then Republican legislature was ready to pass a gas tax increase to pay for THE LARGEST ROAD CONSTRUCTION BINGE IN THIRTY YEARS, the Republican leadership squashed the idea out of fear that it would cost them their majority. They lost it anyway. Pity.

So unlike you Westin, I really don't care about what happens in November. Only cowards who care about themselves are looking to parlay this into political capital. We are experiencing a MAJOR crisis, and we need people with the courage to make sound PRACTICAL decisions to get us out of it. Such decisions may end up being unpopular, but if they get the job done, then we need to bite the bullet and DO IT. People like Eyman and Benton are making POLITICAL decisions designed to make themselves more popular. At best both of their proposals would be a single finger in the dyke with a million cracks. At worst they will bring the dyke down even faster. Are the Democrats any better by waiting for the blue ribbon panel to tell us what everyone KNOWS is the only long term solution to this problem (a gas tax increase)? No, they're being pretty cowardly too. But then again, with probably a majority of the people currently against such an increase too, I'd say that the public is being pretty cowardly about the issue too. Even a conservative study using very conservative numbers designed to figure out how to reduce congestion by building roads in the Puget Sound region showed that we need about $6 BILLION more money than we have now to even scratch the surface. People need to wise up and come to terms with the reality that if we want to get out of this crisis, we need to stop dinking around with the feel good sound-bite political banterings of a watch salesman and an overweight egotist of a legislator and actually PAY UP.

I want to SOLVE this problem any reasonable way possible, politics be damned. How about you Westin?

Then again, if ideological politics is the only way you can see things, the the cold hard reality that the legislative session is now 1/4 over and none of those bills (or their wording) have even passed ONE of the houses should keep you thinking skippy.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), January 26, 2000.

My recommendation is we build tolled "bypass arteries" around known choke points. The roadways wouldn't be that long, just enough to get people around the choke point. The state would auction off a 5-year franchise to operate the road. If the auction does not collect enough money to pay off the construction bonds, then a special gas tax (approved by the voter) would guarantee the shortfall.

The operator of the roadway would charge whatever they want. After all, it's their investment.

Initially, the auction process would probably not yield enough money, and there would be a modest rise in the gas tax for the affected region. But, as investors learn how lucrative the investments can be, then they bid up the prices the next go around, and, perhaps, any increase in the gas tax is avoided.

Some of the projects could be a new roadway across Lake Washington; A new Narrows Bridge; some type of bypass road near I-5 nortbound and I-90; etc.

The aproach I recommend may require a change to the state constitution, because of the potential increase in the gas tax. I'm not sure if a constitutional change is necessary, since the tolled arteries would be no different from ferry.

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

Matthew,

This actually sounds pretty good, but I have a few problems with it.

As congestion is reduced at the choke point, more people would choose to return to the chokepoint, to avoid the toll bypass, decreasing it's revenue. At what point does it become cost effective for the toll operator? If I were a private company, I would be leery of this.

The other thing that occurs to me is that all that you may really accomplish is to create a different choke point when traffic from the bypass returns to regular traffic.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

NO Matthew We don't need tolled by-passes. People who have actually ventured into the REAL world know that logic and common sense (not the common Sense that has been renamed Junque Sighense)have prevailed and bypasses were PLANNED and built long ago because the planners KNEW that everybody didn't have the same destination. Everybody didn't want to visit the Space Needle. MILLIONS of people wanted to bypass Seattle (or insert the name of the major congested urban center here) and travel on to a more desirable destination.

How much congestion do you think your 'tolled' bypasses would produce?? And they would have to be engineered by someone from a different state because the engineers here like to deceive people into thinking that extra lanes will give some relief when they are just designed as massive collectors to funnel three times as many vehicles into ridiculous bottlenecks. And existing roads that COULD be used as a bypass are siphoned off into limbo (like 99)

Why don't you just tell it like it is? You would like all car owners taxed into oblivion so we would go away

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

to Marsha: If the bypass is too short, then, yes, you'd probably be just shifting the choke point. At first, potential operators of the road would not be willing to invest a lot. The state might have to operate the bypass for a year, in order to provide data to potential investors.

To me, the most obvious choice for a project would be a bridge across Lake Washington. If it doesn't work out, the residents of King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties pay an increased gas tax, but the region has increased capacity.

You could also try out the bypass in a couple of carefully researched areas. If it doesn't work, then you abandon the concept. One area I think would make a good bypass is connecting Hwy 18 & I-5 to I-705 & I-5, bypassing the Fife traffic and the Tacoma Dome. I-5 by the Tacoma Dome has to be one of the most dangerous strecthes of roadway I've ever witnessed in my life.

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

to maddjak: I don't what car drivers taxed into oblivion. My concept makes paying a toll optional, although, admittedly, it might result in more congestion for those who don't pay a toll, I can't say for sure. Look, we wouldn't do it unless the voters approved it. I drive a car, too. At least I practice what I preach. I will soon be paying a toll, and I won't even have a choice!

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

Matthew, you WILL have a choice on whether you pay a toll or not. 695 gave you a voice on situations such as these. Has the public decided there will be a toll? If they say NO there will be NO toll

-- maddjak (maddjak@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

What's wrong with a tolled bypass? Say from Olympia to Everett.

Oklahoma has essentilly done this with I-44 from Tulsa to Oklahoma City. It costs $6 for 110 miles for a pickup and horse trailer - passenger cars were charged less, semis, more.

For the $6 you get to bypass 6 or 8 little towns (and associated speed traps) along the old Rt. 66. And, it's a very nice drive.

-- Curious George (---@---.---), January 26, 2000.

Patrick,

"overweight egotist of a legislator?" This is the second time you have referred to Benton in this manner. What has being overweight got to do with it? Do you also insult developmentally disabled? This is bigotry at it's worst. If you are not intelligent enough to find a better description, then you are truly an ass. I find your bigotry offensive and I believe your posts should be boycotted with no response, unless you apologize.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 26, 2000.

to maddjak: I hope you're right about the Narrows Bridge and I-695. But, I suspect the DOT will argue they signed the contract prior to I-695 passing, and the courts could buy the argument. If so, the tolls have to rise as much as necessary to pay off the bondholders. Now, I certainly agree with protecting the rights of the bondholders. And, it's conceivable that the toll won't rise significantly higher than $3, which is probably a fair amount.

So, I'm not expecting much help from I-695. And, I don't think my proposal for an optional tolled bypass would work with the Narrows Bridge, because, by definition, those of us who moved to the Peninsula are "cheap". I mean we're not willing to pay cost of housing for a commensurate piece of property. So, most folks would opt to sit in traffic rather than paying a $3 or more toll.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 27, 2000.

Matthew,

What are the prospects of discounts for frequent users? Has this been considered?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.

to Marsha: The company which will operate the bridge is adamant that the toll be constant. No congestion-based pricing. No special tolls for Friday and Saturday or Sunday, when many of us might want to go to Tacoma.

The problem is the bondholders have to be paid. Perhaps, after they see what kind of revenue stream they have, then they can relent on their position.

Basically, the private company can do whatever it wants, all in the guise of protecting the interests of the bondholder. The public will basically have no input, as long as the revenue stream is within expectations. If the revenue stream drops, then the private company will have no choice but to insist on increasing the toll. The revenue stream will probably never exceed expectations, because the private company will find ways of spending the money (e.g., office supplies, company vehicles, etc.) rather than paying off the bonds at a faster rate.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 27, 2000.

Matthew,

I have a new name for you! Hostage!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), January 27, 2000.