Some people apparently think so.

Once again Eyman has his finger on the hot button. According to lawmakers from across the state, including suburban King County, their constituents are clamoring for more roads while bashing mass transit. These road ragers may give Eyman what he needs to put I-711 on the ballot and carry it to victory this fall. The state GOP will once again be faced with supporting an Eyman initiative that gives many of its leaders deep pause; if the GOP swallows its reservations and throws its support behind the measure, I-711 could enable Republicans to pick up enough support to at least win control of the currently deadlocked State House of Representatives. Republican Bill Finkbeiner, whose district includes neighborhoods in Kirkland, Carnation, and Woodinville, notes that his constituents voted for the Sound Transit plan to build a bus/rail system to cover most of Puget Sound. Still, Finkbeiner believes his voters might be attracted to a proposal that promises to bejewel their towns with more pavement. "I think they're going to react positively," he says. He says most of his constituents drive, and three years after Sound Transit passed they're still stuck in traffic. "People are saying, 'Do something to fix it,'" says Finkbeiner. Representative Phil Fortunato of Kent says 60 percent of constituents who responded to a survey he sent out wanted their transportation dollars to go to road maintenance and construction. According to lawmakers, desperation for new roads outside of the Puget Sound region is increasing as well. Politicians representing fast-growing districts outside Sound Transit's area say their constituents are grumbling that Seattle has received too much transportation support at everyone else's expense. For example, Bellingham has become the 21st fastest-growing city in the country, says Bellingham Representative Doug Ericksen, a Republican. But only half the gas taxes Bellingham generates come back to the city in the form of transportation projects, he claims. "We have a huge need for road expansions," says Ericksen. Some lawmakers are saying that their constituents feel a huge need to get into the HOV lanes as well. Representative Laura Ruderman, D-Redmond, believes that if her district signs onto the initiative it will be because of the HOV provision. "The HOV issue is a religious war on par with IBM vs. Apple," she says. HOV lanes are also controversial in Fortunato's district, and in Vancouver, whose senator, Don Benton, has introduced a bill to open HOV lanes to all drivers (it died in committee). Lawmakers say drivers are irked that in light of the congestion many suburban areas are facing, the state won't allow them to drive in lanes that often appear empty. I-711 may eventually have the same mass populist support that I-695 did. Would Republicans get behind it like they did the last initiative? Some certainly would rather not. Luke Esser of Bellevue concedes that his constituents may approve this initiative. He thinks it's a bad idea, though, to give people outside the Puget Sound region a chance to veto Sound Transit. "With most Republicans [local control] is a popular concept," he says. He's not the only one who's miffed. Representative Tom Huff of Gig Harbor says he's "not enthused" with the initiative. Huff is co-chair of the powerful House Appropriations Committee, which, in the wake of I-695 cuts, has a tough job ahead of it finding money for roads and transit. Huff has re-emphasized throughout the session that lawmakers need to respect I-695 and keep taxes low. Now, he says, it's up to lawmakers, not Eyman, to work out a way to fund both road and transit projects at appropriate levels. But even Republicans who don't like the initiative can see its value as a bargaining tool as they try to secure as much road money as they can in the budget. http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0010/features-tarpley.shtml

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 26, 2000

Answers

Yeah, too bad there are two very large misconceptions there:

A) Seattle sucks all the transportation dollars away from other parts of the state.

B) I-711 will actually help reduce traffic congestion by unleashing billions of dollars of "wasted" funding.

You think people are angry over Sound Transit not being fully operational after 3 years. Just wait to see how people will react if I-711 passes and they're STILL stuck in endless congestion.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

If citizens in this state don't take control of transportation issues, we are destined to far worse than the Sound Transit debacle.

So much money has been spent in this state for all forms of transit, (in spite of the demographics) that the prospect of forced use of transit isn't that far off.

If capacity isn't added now, and the "message" isn't sent, you can expect the pro transit government of the future to either force transit use and/or force you to register for ridesharing, regulating and controling your movements in some way to control congestion. Look at the history of transportation funding in this state, and you will see where we are headed.

We are at a crossroad with transportation in this state. You can chose Patrick's path, and you will be free to chose transportation alternatives that don't include SOV's, or you can choose Craig's path, and have the right to decide what method you personally, are willing to pay for.

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

"You can chose Patrick's path, and you will be free to chose transportation alternatives that don't include SOV's, or you can choose Craig's path, and have the right to decide what method you personally, are willing to pay for."

Hmm, either a bald face lie, or a totally ignorant view of my "path." I've stated several times that I support the continued construction of SOV lanes.

Also a very poor characterization of Craig's "path." By supporting I- 711 you actually run the risk of ELIMINATING your choice. People HAVE the choice now of whether they want to fund methods other than just road construction. I-711 will place a cap on that ability.

Just out of curiousity, does anyone actually KNOW how much transportation money non-road construction funding takes up? You're all so convinced that there's this massive pot of money that will be unleashed by the passage of I-711. I have YET to see any real numbers. We're over 5 months into the I-711 campaign and it appears that a lot of your support is based on a hunch. So how bout it guys, how much money is spent on non-road construction funding (as defined by I-711), what percentage of total transportation funding is this, and how much, if any, funding would be transfered to road construction with a 10% cap? It seems to me as if you all should have asked these questions a long time ago, or at the very least, the campaign should have presented these numbers themselves.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

'It seems to me as if you all should have asked these questions a long time ago, or at the very least, the campaign should have presented these numbers themselves. " These numbers have been posted on this board (by me) innumerable times. They vary by locality. King County's 6 year capital budget for Metro greatly exceeded what they intended to spend on road construction. Basically, transit (which carries 2% of the passenger miles) gets near 25% of the dollars raised from highway user fees (gas taxes) nationwide.

"Also a very poor characterization of Craig's "path." " I happen to think it's an excellent characterization of my path.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 27, 2000.

Patrick-

I was becoming concerned that you may have gotten run over by a transit bus or something, because of your long silence on the "Maybe transit isn't the best way to help the poor. Maybe we should help them buy cars!" thread.

If you are so concerned about transportation choices, why don't we assist the low income in getting the choice they REALLY desire, a vehicle of their own?

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

Patrick,

Your continued support for the boondoggle of Sound Transit, in spite of Craig's and Mark's attempts to educate you, including the history of it's passage and your continued bashing of I-711, does not lead one to the conclusion that you are pro road building or SOV use.

My memory of some of your comments regarding I-695 and the need for the previous level of transit subsidies also lead me to the conclusion that you are "anti" SOV's.

Citizens are being given transportation choices, but not the ones they most want to see. Your continued support for mass transportation goes against the demographics.

Like it or not, your path of continuing transit subsidies will lead to forced transportation goals by the government.

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

To Craig: Well you have some general numbers there. But of course that begs the question as to whether the 10% limit is a statewide limit or if it applies to local levels as well. Such a distinction would be extremely important to the debate. However, as I have stated before, the initiative is very vague in that regard. Such an error could either kill the thing in court, or allow a county like King to continue spending a large portion of funds on transit as the rest of the state spends less. Again, some real numbers might help make supporters of this initiative sound a little more reasoned in their support of the 10% limit. And you may like Marsha's characterization, but that doesn't make it accurate.

To Zowie: I'm touched that you've missed me. I never even read the thread, but I'm glad to see that you think my opinion is so important that you're disappointed when I don't enter into one of the many debates here.

To Marsha: You're oversimplifying a very complex issue into a black or white argument. I have always stated my support of a multi-modal system. That does mean that I support both the funding of transit AND SOV road construction. Believe it or not, you can have both.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

Patrick,

The balance between funding transit and funding road building has leaned heavily on the side of transit for many years. We are at the point that one transportation agenda must give way to the other. Otherwise, more drastic measures will be necessary. I don't think it is realistic to expect both to be funded adequately... If it didn't happen in previous years, it is unlikely to happen now. In fact, if that had happened, we wouldn't have the need for those roads today. Go ahead and ignore history, ignore the failure to plan 20 years ago.

It's OK with me if you choose a losing side, again...

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

Craig writes:

>>King County's 6 year capital budget for Metro greatly exceeded what they intended to spend on road construction.<<

Isn't this comparing apples to oranges? King County is only responsible for road construction in unincorporated King County, aren't they? Metro, on the other hand, is a countywide system.

Seems to me that the more logical comparison would be road funding for the entire county, including every city (and maybe even every state) dollar spent on roads in King County, compared to Metro, not just King County's road funding.

Either way, the fact that you're having to post Seattle Weekly articles from over a month ago makes me think that you're getting a little nervous about 711's chances, Craig.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

"Either way, the fact that you're having to post Seattle Weekly articles from over a month ago makes me think that you're getting a little nervous about 711's chances, Craig. "

Contrary to popular opinion, I don't read every major daily paper in this area weekly, let alone every weekly weekly.

I am not personally connected to this campaign (other than signing the petition and circulating it to a few friends). I rather imagine that those in charge will keep their signature numbers pretty closely held until the last, just like they did with 695. I'd save the gloating until you see for sure that it really doesn't get on the ballot, BB.

But as long as we are on the subject of initiatives, I'm really pleased to see the growing number of initiatives being circulated, even the ones that I would not personally support. I believe that it stimulates voter and citizen interest in civic affairs, dilutes the power of the bureaucracy and special interests, and forces the legislature to actually have to confront issues rather than give the various state agencies what they got last year plus 5%.

Win, lose, or draw, I think the PROCESS is helpful.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 27, 2000.

"The balance between funding transit and funding road building has leaned heavily on the side of transit for many years."

Again, numbers please. Besides, the idea that transit has been shifting money away from road construction is actually false unless you count federal money, which isn't affected by I-711. Transit funding has come from three sources over the years: fares, sales taxes, and MVET. NONE of these three sources were originally dedicated to road construction.

But AGAIN, if someone would like to show some numbers where a certain source or sources of road construction funding was erroded by transit funding be my guest.

And BB definitely has Craig their with his statement about King County's funding. The county is in charge of only county roads. So you factor out all freeways, state highways, and city roads. That's a HUGE chunck of the roads in King County that the county government doesn't have to deal with, but the county IS in charge of the transit system across the ENTIRE county. Comparing road funding to transit funding in King County is not a matter of looking at the raw numbers, as they don't have a common denominator.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 27, 2000.

Well, that didn't come out real well. Go to the URL and look at graph 5. It shows buses only covering about 40% of their own highway costs, worse than anything else but a few HUGE trucks, and tied with them.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 27, 2000.

to Mark: So, it sounds like light rail and vanpooling pay for themselves just by getting buses off the roads.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), April 28, 2000.

"to Mark: So, it sounds like light rail and vanpooling pay for themselves just by getting buses off the roads. "

No matter what diagnosis zowie may give you, Matt, he can't say you have no sense of humor!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 28, 2000.

Mark doesn't even understand what we're talking about here, yet I'm supposed to be the putz.

You and Craig have a great time cutting and pasting stuff on this board about how mass transit is so inefficient, but that has little to NO impact on the most basic issue that should have been addressed before anything else was.

I-711 would put a cap on STATE AND LOCAL non-road construction spending of 10% of the total transportation funding. The very first question that should have been asked was whether this would have any impact on the current system. As I said, no one has offered any evidence to show that funding at the state and local level adds up to more than 10% of total funding. Your amazing talent at being able to copy the source code of a federal study (which by the way is a big fat waste of space given that the tables and graphs aren't also copied unless you link them to this site, which takes a little bit more knowledge of HTML than just hitting Ctrl C) does almost nothing to address this issue. About the only information of even remote value shows that the ratio of user fees to costs for buses at the state level (and remember this is the average for all states, not just Washington) is 0.8. Which means bus user fees account for 80% of the costs associated with them being on the road at the state level. That might be significant if not for the fact that buses account for 0.3% of all vehicles on the road. So other vehicles do pay for the costs associated by buses being on the road, but those costs are so insignificant that they're pretty much moot.

Again (maybe if I repeat this enough people might understand the concept) I have yet to see any data that shows non-road construction related funding to account for more than 10% of total state and local (and Mark, again, federal funding doesn't count here) funding. I am not claiming that it doesn't account for more than 10%, just that evidence needs to be presented BEFORE any other further issues are brought up. Otherwise we can't even be sure if this aspect of I-711 would have any impact at all. In other words, I see little point to debating the pros and cons of transit systems and Sound Transit in the context of I-711 if I-711 won't have any impact on the funding of these systems anyway. We might as well be debating the rationality of building a $60 billion missle defense system that most likely would never be used, and even if used, might have the same effectiveness as the percentage of the farebox return rate of Grays Harbor Transit.

Perhaps it would have been constructive for Permanent Offense to do this little bit of number crunching before hand. Imagine if the amount of current transit funding turns out to be somewhere near 8%. I guess I-711 could then be interpreted to mean that people want to INCREASE transit spending.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

Well here's a quick and dirty review of the transportation numbers out of the state budget passed yesterday. I will conceed to Mark that the Governor has not signed it yet, so he could, in theory, veto the thing in a fit of rage and call the legislature back for a third special session.

Total funding: $3.282 billion (note this is $766 million less than originally planned due to I-695)

$114 million for the existing state transit liability (3.47% of the budget)

$80 million to reduce impact of MVET loss to local transit districts (2.44%)

$5 million for freight rail grants (.15%)

$30 million for freight mobility projects (.91%)

$12.7 million for King Street Station and projects with AMTRAK and Sound Transit (.39%)

$500,000 for a train car to carry produce from Seattle to Chicago (.02%)

$750,000 fot the Agency on Coordinated Transportation (.02%)

Now I might have missed a small program or two, but these were the big non-road construction items as defined by I-711 in the budget. The grand total percentage of the budget?

7.4%

Hmmm.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

". About the only information of even remote value shows that the ratio of user fees to costs for buses at the state level (and remember this is the average for all states, not just Washington) is 0.8."

Actually Patrick, that's 0.4. That is, (like huge trucks) buses don't even make up for the wear and tear they do to the roads BEFORE YOU START SUBSIDIZING THEM. This does NOT include operations or capital expenses.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 28, 2000.

"Well here's a quick and dirty review of the transportation numbers out of the state budget passed yesterday"

This wasn't the BUDGET. This was the supplemental to bail out the loss of the MVET.

This is a non-quick and dirty view of the state transportation budget prior to 695: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/commission/Documents/Budget.pdf

Actually, the big thing taking money away from roads in the DOT budget at the state level is the ferries. But clearly, if you get into the details of the road budget, it is significantly over weighted toward capital expenditures for HOV and transit. And that's before you start paying the direct and indirect costs of such things as Sounder and Link.

But Patrick, if YOU believe that 711 will have no effect on transit funding, because you believe that it is already under the 10% limit, than I guess you have no reason to oppose it?

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswind.net), April 28, 2000.

Mark, I clearly identified that I was speaking about the STATE portion. Since federal money isn't affected by I-711 that's moot, and since the local portion is the average of all local governments in the country that doesn't exactly fit unless you can find where Washington's local governments are close to the national average. And as I also said, the state ratio is an average of all states too, so trying to make it apply to Washington is a little difficult unless you can show evidence that Washington is close to the average.

Craig, once again you show why you should avoid the political debates. Given that I-695 blew a hole in the existing 1999-2001 transportation budget, the legslature had to essentially start from scratch for the remaining part of the fiscal biennium. What I posted is a rewrite of the existing budget until July 2001. Those items were funded at different (higher) levels in the previous budget, but those funding levels were changed (lowered) in this budget. Did you honestly think that they ADDED $3.282 BILLION dollars to the budget? Or that they ADDED these items to the budget when they lost about 3/4 of a billion dollars due to 695?

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 28, 2000.

Additional note to Craig: Ferries are specifically mentioned in I- 711 as road funding. They aren't part of that 10% lid, so it doesn't really matter how much of the budget they take up.

Also, have you forgotten about the HOV section of I-711? That's enough for me to oppose it. But if I'm not mistaken, didn't you downplay the elimination of the HOV system as why you support I-711? So if the elimination of HOV lanes isn't an issue for you, and transit won't be affected by it, why would you support the thing? Seems like an awful big waste of your time and resources.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 29, 2000.

"Additional note to Craig: Ferries are specifically mentioned in I- 711 as road funding. They aren't part of that 10% lid, so it doesn't really matter how much of the budget they take up. "

Gee Patrick, you appear to be attacking me for agreeing with you. All I was saying is that a lot of the diversion of road money is to subsidize the ferries. I realize that 711 doesn't address that, but if you've read my postings, I have been consistent in my opposition to subsidizing ferries as well as other "transportation choices." I have no problem with someone believing their quality of life will be improved by joining the 18,000 people living in Bainbridge (the largest single route user of ferry capacity is the Seattle Bainbridge run) , but I'm at a complete loss to understand why the people of the rest of the state should be highly subsidizing their "transportation choices"

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 01, 2000.

"All I was saying is that a lot of the diversion of road money is to subsidize the ferries."

I'll accept that. I just wanted to make sure that the viewing audience was aware that I-711 would do nothing to change that fact. It seems to be getting very apparent that a lot of the promises made by Eyman and Co. about how I-711 would solve a bunch of our transportation problems are at best just non-educated guesses, and at worst just downright false claims.

You asked why I don't support I-711. Perhaps as a long term goal I should. If this thing passes, and as I expect, traffic problems get worse, there will be a lot of finger pointing going on. And I doubt that even Mr. Eyman will be able to fast talk his way out of getting most of them pointed at him.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), May 01, 2000.

"You asked why I don't support I-711." I did?

"Perhaps as a long term goal I should. If this thing passes, and as I expect, traffic problems get worse, there will be a lot of finger pointing going on. And I doubt that even Mr. Eyman will be able to fast talk his way out of getting most of them pointed at him. "

Patrick, traffic problems ARE going to get worse. Building ANY major new transportation project is going to take time, and we have neither consensus nor plan at present.

The transportation establishment sold Sound Transit as if it would decrease congestion. They know it won't. Their EIS says that it won't. But they over-promised to get the votes they needed to get their public works project. Even if LINK would make a significant difference in congestion (and it won't), it won't be on line until 2006. That's over a half decade of getting worse, no matter what. So I think the blame is going to go to the transportation gurus who got us here, the people who attempted to push transit outside it's niche of cost-effectiveness, the people who dumped money into subsidizing the Bainbridge commuting crowd, and the people who directed the limited transportation dollars toward such boon-doggles as Link-T, the $65 million downtown Tacoma amusement park ride (which strangely enough is the most cost-effective part of LINK!). So Patrick, I think it is very likely that you will see increasing frustration on the part of the populace with regard to our long neglected need for additional ROADS that will translate into increasing skepticism on the part of the voters, and increasing support for people with even more Draconian plans than that of Mr Eyman. We have built what in my tactical aviation days was referred to as a "square corner." We have not yet hit the mountain, but we are close enough and going fast enough that no amount of pilot input at this point will keep us from hitting the mountain.

If you are right, perhaps some of the people who are truly at fault will be able to demagogue Mr. Eyman to dodge some part of their share of the blame. Of course, since all of 695 was declared unconstitutional and the MVET was legally abolished by act of legislature (upon the advice of and with the approval of the governor), it might be a LITTLE hard to blame 20 years of neglect on a watch salesman whose efforts were promptly overturned by a judge.

;-)

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 01, 2000.

to Patrick & Craig: Why do you guys say that I-711 treats spending on ferries as equivalent to spending on roads? I don't get that when I read the text of I-711. If that's the case, then I-711 really sucks. I want to see privatization of the ferries as a way of shafting the folks who are forcing tolls (with no limit as to how high they can go) down our throats.

If I-711 isn't going to put the screws on the ferries, then that's yet another reason not to support the initiative.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 02, 2000.

"Why do you guys say that I-711 treats spending on ferries as equivalent to spending on roads? " Because a court ruling some years ago equated the two, allowing ferry subsidies to continue to be funded out of dedicated highway funds.

While I still support 711, I agree with you that the massive subsidies to the ferry system are systematically depriving the state of resources that are derived from and ought to return to the highway system.

If some one CHOOSES to live in Bainbridge and commute to Seattle (not unreasonable, when you look at what SmartGrowth is doing to the Seattle real estate market) they ought to expect to pay their commuting costs, not have the entire state subsidize them. And before Patrick chimes in and says they pay taxes too, yes they do. They pay gas taxes that are user fees for the roads they are on at the time they burn the gas. That's a far cry from saying that their user fees cover the roads they drive on AND the subsidy of their ferries.

Let's be honest. The 18,000 or so Bainbridge residents are more economically well off then the average residents of the state, but make the greatest demands per capita on the ferry system that is paid for by all of us. This isn't an issue of the transit dependent poor. This isn't an issue of air quality, either. Marine diesels are HIGHLY polluting, even on a per passenger mile basis. This isn't an issue of saving fossil fuels. Again, marine diesels burn... well, diesel, of course, and a lot of it. The energy costs of pushing a ship through the water are high. It would be much cheaper energy- wise for them to DRIVE, or if you truly believe SmartGrowth is the way to go, to just live in Seattle.

None of the usual transit excuses in any way justifies ferry subsidies, and if you believe in congestion pricing, we are doing precisely the WRONG thing in having discount passes for commuters. There ought to be a congestion surcharge during high demand times.

Goes to show that politics is really just about politics, the alleged environmental and anti-sprawl issues being used only as a rationale to justify the politics. When the politics conflicts with these things, the politicians discard them quickly enough.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 02, 2000.

to Craig: SO what you're saying is I-711 does not explicitly equate the ferries with roads. It is something you're inferring from prior court decisions.

When I read I-711, I see the ferries as loser.

I'm familiar with the fact that the state constitution allows the gas tax to be used for ferries, but not for vanpools. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that I-711 can't limit spending on the ferries.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), May 02, 2000.

"to Craig: SO what you're saying is I-711 does not explicitly equate the ferries with roads. It is something you're inferring from prior court decisions. When I read I-711, I see the ferries as loser.

I'm familiar with the fact that the state constitution allows the gas tax to be used for ferries, but not for vanpools. But, that doesn't necessarily mean that I-711 can't limit spending on the ferries. "

Patrick-

You're up! He won't listen to me.

the craigster

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), May 02, 2000.