Why are some posters so selfish?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

Why are some of those posting to this Forum so selffish and self absorbed?

I've been away from the discussion forum for a while. I've been sitting back due in large part to work load and waiting for some of the post-Superior court decision rhetoric to die down. But in reading some of the recent threads, I came upon some comments that literally raised the hairs on the back of my neck.

A specific example is Brad, who states in the "I-695 Ruled Unconstitutional Thread": "Ummm, what severe damage has I-695 caused? ...and ridership programs for the disabled were going to be cut. While unfortunate for those individuals, this is hardly the makings of a disaster."

HOW PRESUMPTUOUS, ARROGANT AND CAVALIER THESE WORDS READ. As a disabled person who, following a stroke, had to depend on those very ridership programs, I find these comments to be both hateful and ignorant. And how typical of SOME proponents of the "direct democracy" Initiative process.

There are thousands of disabled who have depended on this service. They are people, who due to some ill luck in their lives, were desperate for a means to repair their lives; desperate to find to a point where they could return to again becoming productive members of society; desperate to get out of the economic hardships that disability causes. But for far too many who've never lived that hardship, the disabled are just an "impacted statistic" easily subtracted from the "common good" equation - as meaningful in your mind's eye as a disposable lighter or a toothpick at the local restaurant. It convinces me more and more each day that our society's claim to honoring the notion of "a safety net for the unfortunate" is nothing more than claptrap sprung from the mouths of disingenuous proselytizers. It's always the poor and disabled who suffer from the social engineering of BOTH THE RIGHT AND THE LEFT.

There are some on this Forum who, though carrying a different view on the Initiative process than I, are still genuinely concerned about these impacts. Specifically I would name people like Marsha and Craig. I admire them because they understand the problems and express advocacy for the less fortunate. But for so many others, Brad's comments are the symbol of the entire factoid process - the disabled are only remembered when they fit the argument. Otherwise they are either forgotten, dismissed, or in the worst cases decried as part of a "socialized" problem.

I'd suggest that the naysayers need to spend a few hours on an access bus; or better yet spend some time in a rehabilitation clinic where there are faces on the disabled. It will hopefully be a hell of a lot harder to be so dispassionate when they've seen the ironic combination of pain and hope that most disabled persons deal with every day of their lives. Unfortunately that is highly improbable. So to all the Brad's of the world I can honestly say I wish you no ill will. But I can also say in good conscience I have very little respect for ANY of your opinions.

Rudy Taylor

-- rudy taylor (rtaylorcs@aol.com), March 23, 2000

Answers

Rudy,

I don't know how aware you are of disabled transportation around the country. Many communities have little or no disabled transportation.

The Transit Agencies themselves, are partly to blame. They are required to provide transportation that is not funded or under-funded and most agencies scramble to find the money. There is some grant money available. Not much. States and local governments are tasked with the job of funding, and as you can see, our state has not provided seperate funding for the two types of Transit service. They leave that to the Transit Agencies to budget for and comply with ADA.

Since there is no consensus, many transit agencies fund only the minimum required to comply with ADA. Not all Transit Agencies want the responsibility of providing the service, and some are quite annoyed by being forced into it. You are dealing with a deep prejudice not just among the general public, but of those required to provide the service.

Your particular Transit Agency has historically been a leader in disabled transportation. Many people migrated to the community because of the service available there. While your service has suffered a setback due to I-695, it will not remain so. The community you live in may have no sympathy for the general commuting public, but they have always voted to support disabled transportation, in part due to the large retired population who anticipate needing the service in the future. There is also an active support system for developmentally disabled citizens who have a voice in the community.

I hope this helps direct your efforts, and you become actively involved within the community on this topic. Those who can well afford to, should pay for the service. Those who can not, should be subsidized.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 23, 2000.


Rudy-

I agree with you. I believe that it is rational and reasonable, as well as being the honorable thing, for society to in effect "self insure" by providing for the transit dependent. Any of us can become disabled, and my gripe never was and never will be with those individuals who need assistance with transportation. It ought to be done efficiently and appropriately, which for most of the country means demand-response, but it ought to be done.

My concern is the people who "want choices" and not only want me to pay for their choices but, when it comes to the crunch, are more than willing to use the transit dependent individuals as hostages by cutting back on services to the transit dependent. This both gives them more resources for their subsidized services, while extorting additional funds from us all to replace the cutbacks that were levied against those who really don't have other choices.

To me this is as reprehensible as someone illegally using a handicapped parking place. But it's par for the course for those whose own subsidies and self interests are more important than basic humanity.

That is not to excuse those on the pro-695 side who ignore the legitimate needs of the transit dependent, but at least they make no pretense to be your friends as they steal your resources and hold you hostage.

Keep reading and posting. Nobody on this forum is going to suffer any from looking at the world through your perspective from time to time. They may not always agree, but everyone needs to re-examine their prejudices every now and again. A voice with another perspective can help do that.

Craig

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 23, 2000.


For Rudy,

COMMUTING Horluck may cut its fares By Ed Friedrich, Sun Staff

Kitsap Transit is planning to lower the price of its monthly pass, too. Most ferry passengers could soon be paying less, not more, for a lift across Sinclair Inlet.

Not only has Horluck Transportation withdrawn its request for a fare increase, but Kitsap Transit also plans to cut the cost of its monthly pass. There's a connection.

Eighty percent of Horluck riders use Kitsap Transit passes to board for free. Kitsap Transit reimburses Horluck per passenger. Horluck owner Hilton Smith pins dwindling ridership on Kitsap Transit doubling its pass price to $50.

If the Kitsap Transit commissioners approve, the agency will roll that increase back to $40 and trim reduced-fare passes from $25 to $20 for seniors, children, disabled and low-income persons.

Smith will wait to see if riders return. If not, he'll reapply for the fare increase.

"I thought I should give Kitsap Transit a chance to roll back the rates and see if their theory is correct, that it would increase ridership," Smith said.

"That generates revenue just as well as a rate increase. I don't want to raise rates precipitously and find out that ridership comes back."

Beginning in May, Horluck also hopes to entice riders by restoring Sunday service through the summer.

Horluck requested an increase from $1.50 for adults and $1 for children to $2.25 across the board. The state Utilities and Transportation Commission decision would have come next Friday. The amount wasn't going to approach the $2.25 Horluck was seeking, said the office's Danny Kermode.

Another factor in withdrawing the request is Horluck's new cost- cutting boat configuration. The company began one-boat service Wednesday with the Mary L, which requires less fuel and crew than either of the two vessels it replaced.

Kitsap Transit's budget, cut 43 percent by I-695's repeal of the state motor vehicle excise tax, is springing back faster than expected. That allows the pass prices to be reduced.

Besides the monthly passes, Kitsap Transit staff will recommend to the commissioners next month that the monthly worker-driver bus ticket be reduced from $60 to $50, said Service Development Director John Clauson.

The biggest boon has been sales tax equalization money, which is funded by MVET and was expected to be lost. It continues to come in at about $400,000 a month.

"It's not a lot of money, but it's enough to start doing these types of things to encourage ridership again," Clauson said.

"You can be in business for high profit and low volume or low profit and high volume. We're in the high-volume business. This will encourage additional riders to take advantage of some of the empty seats we're currently operating with."

Kitsap Transit ridership has dropped 28 percent since Jan. 1, when it cut service by 25 percent and doubled fares. Horluck, which trimmed its hours to match Kitsap Transit's, also lost 28 percent of its customers and more than $10,000 a month.

Horluck didn't help itself with boat breakdowns that shut the operation down a couple times. Two weeks ago, the Coast Guard tied up the only two ferries it had available for safety and environmental reasons.

Published in The Sun: 03/24/2000

Not "exactly" what I had hoped to see.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 24, 2000.


Rudy--

Only 1 time previously have I been flamed on this forum. Unlike the previous writer, you deserve congratulations for being both eloquent and rational.

Focusing on the issue you brought up, I'll attempt to restate the crux of our disagreement. You believe dramatically cutting resource intensive services that benefit an extreme few is a disaster. I don't.

To convince me I'm wrong, you'd need to convince me of all of the following (1 and 2 are likely to be related):

1) it's relatively resource-inexpensive on a per person basis 2) it's directly beneficial to a huge number of people 3) other reasonable solutions couldn't be implemented by the private (profit *or* non-profit) sector

If, as I suspect, you're arguing that, given the already difficult situations of these individuals, the above discussion is irrelevant than be honest and say so.

-- Brad (knotwell@my-deja.com), March 24, 2000.


Marsha and Craig, Thank you once again for rejuvenating the knowledge that there are still people on both sides of an issue, who understand there are needs deserving attention - needs which are sometimes lost in the heat of argument and personal opinion. I truly believe the working poor, poor elderly and the disabled are often quieted by a combination of prejudice against their status, a lack of their own voice and the absolute disconnect of politicians who use the less fortunate to further their own self aggrandizement as "moral standard bearers." (There are both liberals AND conservatives who fit this last description - albeit via different means but with the same result.)

Hopefully all this anger (from both sides of the public) about taxation and the fundamental purposes of government can lead to some meaningful change in both our own pe rceptions and the system itself. In the meantime, I'm buoyed by the knowledge that there are some forums like this where the greater part of the discussion is engaging and informative. I may have also found a means to further my own opinions and beliefs on this thread's topic - see "Brad" below.

Marsha, Thanks for information on transportation funding as well as the Sun article. Having only paid attention to Access in operation in Kitsap, Pierce and King Counties, your comments are an eye opener. As for the "smoke and mirrors" fare changes for buses, they're not exactly what I hoped to see either. I would like at least an attempt at private sectoring the passenger ferry services - i.e. we don't know if it works until we try. Maybe start by taking away the "NO competition" monopoly that WSDOT currently enjoys. But I'm also not too keen on a private operator whose boats have a 100 gallons of engine oil sloshing around in the bilge. It's a tricky change to say the least.

Craig, You're the only person to successfully force me to anaylze my own opinions on the entire issue of mass transit - and in some instances even change them! We still don't agree on everything, but I'm counting on you to keep me intellectually honest. In the meantime let's both work to effect change. Like you, I want to end the "extortion."

Brad, "Only 1 time previously have I been flamed on this forum." Please don't consider my comments a "flame" to you. My intent was to verbalize what I perceive to be a general malaise in many discussion forums - the use and/or abuse of the less fortunate to make one's point. I try not to attack the person or character of any writers, but I do take exception to their words. If I wanted to flame people, I'd probably be better off on another forum where "hatespeak" and the anonymous screen-name appear to be a pre-requisite for involvement. (Examples would be both the KIRO and KVI Radio Forums!)

As to why I specifically used your comment to start the thread, I don't know. I guess it just was the spark that set afire a long smoldering anger. My message was global - your words were just the example. Now that you've responded with a reasoned explanation, I have a better understanding of your rationale. And I am now better able to engage you in debate of our opinions. At the very least I owe you that consideration:

"If, as I suspect, you're arguing that, given the already difficult situations of these individuals, the above discussion is irrelevant than be honest and say so." No, I think the points you bring up are VERY relevant to the discussion.

"You believe dramatically cutting resource intensive services that benefit an extreme few is a disaster. I don't. To convince me I'm wrong, you'd need to convince me of all of the following (1 and 2 are likely to be related): 1) it's relatively resource-inexpensive on a per person basis. 2) it's directly beneficial to a huge number of people 3) other reasonable solutions couldn't be implemented by the private (profit *or* non-profit) sector "

LOL. I'll never convince you you're wrong because you place me in untenable position of meeting ALL 3 criteria. For me to argue that (Point 1) on-demand transit service is relatively resource- inexpensive on a per person basis is both ludicrous for me to attempt and somewhat disingenuous for you to even ask. I'm not an expert on the costs. Perhaps Marsha or someone else familiar with the actual cost could offer some insight. But I can intuit that free ferry trips or empty Metro buses running from North Bend to downtown Seattle are a few of the things less cost effective than the issue in question. But I can speak to Points 2 and 3.

2. On demand transit is beneficial to all sectors of society for many reasons. First, let me point out that there are two types of disabled riderships - those whose needs are temporary and those whose needs are permanent. The "temps" (such as myself) are those whose needs are to regain their status as productive (working) members of society. In my own case I was paralyzed on my right (predominant) side. Recovery has been a slow retraining of my arm and leg to perform at first even the simplest motor functions (walking, eating, bathing, dressing) and then moving to more complex functions (writing, holding a fork or pencil, and typing - as I am doing right now with BOTH my left AND right hand.) The thing you need to understand is that stroke and accident trauma victims make their most rapid recovery in the first sixth months. That requires intensive rehabilitative therapy and medical care. Few can afford the high costs of either long term residence care or the higher insurance premiums which cover that care. So we need to survive at home with dwindling or no money as well as debilitated physical conditions, This requires very specialized transportation to and from care centers. I used Kitsap Transit Access for about 3 months (approximately 40 "subsidized" round trips) until I was again able to drive. I know that without this service my recovery would have been less financially viable and less advanced. I had no other means to get to therapy. (Two years later, I still have only 80-90% full function and have probably plateaued in terms of full recovery - but I've also been working since 5 months after my stroke.) I shudder to think of the my current physical condition without the linkage that Access gave me to care. So as regards the temporarily disabled, the question becomes: are you against a short term subsidy which actually enhances (both in time and economic value) the ability of the temporarily disabled to become productive again? You could be paying a hell of a lot more than transit subsidies in the hidden costs of those who don't return to work! (Bankruptcies, disability income, unpaid personal and medical bills, aid to dependent children, etc. etc. etc.)

As for the low income permanently disabled (AND THE ELDERLY POOR), I would simply argue that without Access (or a creative alternative) there are only two potential answers: provide adequate (subsidized) home care assistance based on need which matches current services away from home; or condemn the disabled (and in many cases their families) to lives that are emotionally, physically and/or financially impoverished. If we choose the former we need to start writing the checks today - on-demand transit is a comparative drop in the bucket. If we choose the latter than we may need to rethink euthanasia. In some cases we would be forcing people pretty close to making that kind of a decision. I'm not tryng to be coy, facetious or dishonest. I find it morally repulsive that in a nation supposedly based on Judeo-Christian ethics, some still say "it's not MY problem." For God's sake, we subsidize everything from animal control to corporations! Why are the poor always in everyone's rifle scope first? So my question back is: Does reducing on-demand transit create a huge monetary benefit at the cost of creating a moral void?

3. Other reasonable solutions: FOR-PROFIT On-Demand Transit for the Disabled and Elderly POOR?: LOL No way am I going to touch that oxymoron. Neither will any business person.

Non Profit?: I don't know for sure, but I have several misgivings. Most of the non-profit transit today is very business organization / service specific (i.e Ronald McDonald House, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Salvation Army, etc.) I don't think Safeway or Value Village or Green Mountain Rehabilition Clinic are capable of (or willingly to engage in) the kind of fund raising campaigns needed to procure and then maintain a fleet of specialized buses with well trained (and probably poorly paid, if at all) drivers. It's unlikely that hospitals (or other large medical / client based) organizations would want to get involved because they're already tapped out on existing charitable drives.

So that leaves creation of a totally new type of charitable organization devoted solely to on-demand transit. Two potential problems here: first, the charity of this country is not (at least yet) a bottomless well of good will. People give to all sorts of charities (the arts, animals, kids, etc.) which is their right. There is also a lot of dot-com money currently being showered on this plethora of good causes. All of which is good. But what is not being told is that there is in essence the equivalent of a minor battle going on between the various non-profits to get dollars for their causes. Some agencies are actually seeing stagnation in their intake. For the most part these are "non-human" causes - museums, memorials, etc. But I think they portend a real problem if the economy takes a dip or if the number and type of charities grow at an exponential rate in response to what is perceived as the new wealth in this country.

Second, I think Marsha alluded to a new problem whereby the disadvantaged and particularly the elderly poor are already gravitating towards areas such as Kitsap County where they can find better transit service. With the exception of charities that deal in emergencies and disasters (e.g. Red Cross, World Vision, etc.) or a set of living standard criteria (e.g. shelter and training by the Salvation Army.), most charities are pretty localized and cause specific. Non-profit on-demand transit would require national support. Otherwise only some counties, where the support exists, end up taking on not just transit but the attendant problems of a massed poor and disabled populace. Marsha has pointed out that other areas of this state are hardly inviting the less fortunate to partake in even government largese. I like to believe that that is a misperception, but I think we've all seen enough NIMBYism in other social areas to know that Marsha's right.

If you have ideas or articles on non-profit transit, I'd gladly like to see them. I would support it if assurance can be provided that my above comments won't come to fruition. And thanks for taking the time to respond. It puts a face on a reasonable opinion.

-- rudy taylor (rtaylorcs@aol.com), March 25, 2000.



Rudy,

I have covered this topic before, so I will try to be brief and not bore the rest of the participants again. And let me point out that Craig mostly does not agree with the following....

I think transportation needs, including commuting, could be filled by changing fixed route work in residential areas to demand response. More of the general population could be served in this manner and it would greatly lower the cost to the public. I would like to see fixed route and disabled/elderly passengers incorporated into one dial a ride service. It would not be feasible in urban areas, but for the suburbs, it most certainly is.

Based on computer scheduling, and GPS technology, you could easily double the ridership. Or, more accuratly, double the passenger per hour count. Charging an appropriate fare of $3.00 to $4.00 (adjustable, for distance) would come close to covering operating expenses. Using smaller, more economical busses would also cost less to operate in and keep those behemouths out of residential neighborhoods.

Using a transfer system, commuters could utilize this to get work more efficiently than fixed routes allow. I think many would be willing to pay the higher fare for the convenience.

Since you are familiar with this type of service, I am sure you can see the advantages. What you have now is a duplication of service. A routed bus picks up passengers in a certain neighborhood, at the same time an ACCESS bus picks up passengers in that same neighborhood. Both sets of passengers are headed in the same general direction.

In 1998, ACCESS carried 4.28 passengers per hour. The total operating expense for each revenue hour was $60.13, for an average cost of $14.03 per trip.

As a comparison, Yakima Transit carried 4.26 passengers per hour. The operating expense per hour was $40.45, for an average cost per trip of $9.50.

Some demand response systems have even lower lower operating costs. Below $30.00 per hour.

Based on my personal experience with Kitsap Transit's subscription service, my knowledge of worker/driver busses and ACCESS work, I think you could serve at least ten passengers per hour. If you kept your operating expenses down, and this isn't difficult for a private, non union company, my idea is totally feasible.

And it would level the transportation playing field for the disabled.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 25, 2000.


For Matt,

In addition to the advantages stated above, demand response would eliminate the need for more Park and Ride lots. Cost savings! Demand response could also be used as a feeder service for fixed routes and vanpools. The cost savings of not running large busses in residential areas while they are nearly empty must also be acknowledged.. And did I mention the reduced pollution of all those who would not need to drive to a park and ride lot?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), March 25, 2000.


" are you against a short term subsidy which actually enhances (both in time and economic value) the ability of the temporarily disabled to become productive again?"

Matt- It doesn't matter if you approach this issue from a Judaeo-Christian (or Islamic, for that matter) perspective or from simple business sense. Just to take philosophy out of it, let's do the latter.

It is not unreasonable to look at support for transportation for the transit dependent as insurance, and for society to provide it through taxes as societal self-insurance. Anyone can become dependent on others for transportation, all it takes is a permanent or temporary impairment of vision or motor function. Any newborn child can be born transportation dependent (heck, they ALL are for the first 16 years, at least). I do not see it as a waste of my money to pay taxes to support this anymore than it is a waste of my money to buy liability insurance for my auto that I hope never to need, fire insurance for my house, that I hope never to need, or term life insurance that I SURE hope not to need, at least anytime soon. Nor do I believe that most people believe this to be a waste of their tax dollars (although the world still has a few un-rehabilitated Ebeneezer Scrooge's out there).

Marsha- I don't necessarily disagree with you regarding demand response. That's what taxicabs are, and in some high population density areas, they contribute significantly to transportation. In too many locales, these are artificially limited which drives up the cost excessively, but even in these locales they make a difference. Would a small van with good radio dispatch and GPS control provide better service (which equates to a larger niche of cost-effectiveness, very likely. There are indeed a lot of people who just aren't going to walk the 1/4 mile to the transit stop (in addition to those who CAN'T walk the 1/4 mile to the transit stop) who may be lured into the system by door to door service. I've no problem with that as long as those who are doing this by choice (rather than necessity) pay their own way. Economic constraints ensure that this will always be a niche market also, but if it's a big enough niche, there may even be economies of scale spill-over that make it possible to provide better or less expensive service to the transit dependent. My fear, however, is that those who "want choices" will so outnumber those who have no other choice that the system will continue to favor the former at the expense of the latter.

The biggest problem with any social service is that it eventually expands at the margins to the point that it loses popular support. Then when the pendulum swings against it, the bureaucracy hammers the people truly deserving of the social service with targetted cutbacks to try to cause a public uproar to maintain their budget line. I saw this ploy used time and time again when I was in government. I guess my preference would be to keep these two separate systems. One for the transportation dependent, that could be funded and brought up to a level of service necessary to meet the needs of the transportation dependent, and a totally separate system for the "we want choices" crowd who as far as I am concerned could commute by helicopter for all I care if THEY were willing to pay for it.

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


Moderation questions? read the FAQ