I'm very worried that I-745 will have a severe and negative impact upon students, the disabled and low income families.

Many students, ranging from elementary school to college either are not old enough or do not have the financial resources to own or operate a vehicle. Because of this, the spending cuts called for in I-745 could cause serious complications for students trying to get to school or work. How do I-745 supporters respond to these concerns?

The disabled in our communities many not have the ability to operate a vehicle or the financial resources to own one. Many are dependant upon public transportation to get to the store, church and to doctor's appointments. If I-745 results in major route cuts for public transit, how will these people be able to survive. What do I-745 supporters have to say about these concerns?

Every area of our state has low income families, many are not able to afford a vehicle and are therefore reliant upon public transportation to meet their transportation needs. If I-745 results in major cost cuts that reduce transit routes throughout the state, how will the hundreds of thousands of citizens with out cars get to where they need to be? How do I-745 supporters address the concerns of low income families who cannot afford a car?

Your answers and comments are appreciated.

-- Charles Loosen (terrigena@home.com), June 28, 2000

Answers

to Charles: I haven't seen the full text of I-745, but, if it's like I-711, then it is probably poorly worded. Therefore, the impact of the initiative is unclear.

But, let's assume that 90% of the sales tax revenues which previously went to transit, would now go to building roads. Then, yes, you are probably correct in that low-income and disabled citizens will be royally screwed.

One response, however, may be the repeal of the modest sales tax, which, after all, the voters originally thought was going to transit. Therefore, the voters would have more money in their pocket and could afford to vote for a new tax to fund an intelligent program for the needy.

Currently, the transit agencies have little incentive to be efficient. I constantly see nearly empty buses on the surface streets of Tacoma and Gig Harbor.

We ought to help the needy, but we ought to do it in a cost-effective manner. I-745 may result in the transit agencies being more accountable to the taxpayers and the riding public.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), June 29, 2000.

Charles, The supporters of I-745 do not care about anyone. The only thing they care about is winning, no matter how bad the idea that Timmy comes up with. Yes, Public Transportation will be devastated. This will eliminate choices for people as well as force low income and the disabled back into "the system" such as welfare. If they can't get to and from work, what choice will they have? If you drive down I-5 during rush hour, take a look around. Does anyone really think another lane will help? What we need is faster, more convenient, public transportation. But yes, of course we need to invest in the infrastructure also. We need a sensible mix of both, not I-745.

""IF" you build it, they will use it" Got it right that time huh? Mike

-- Mike (mkpow62@silverlink.net), June 29, 2000.

Actually Charles, there are adequate resources to cover low income and disabled, If those who have no special needs (other than the desire for someone else to fund their transportation) will just quit draining the resources from the needy transit dependent. You might peruse the thread about Transportation choice advocates threatening to shoot the hostages for some background (http://greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch- msg.tcl?msg_id=0038vK).

Mike (above) is simply a transit union guy.

All he cares about is jacking up the wages of his union members (which is far and away the largest expense of transit) and increasing the number of transit jobs.

Like others of his ilk, he's more than happy to see the most needy lose their transit access FIRST, so that their pitiful plight can be held up as a reason for THEM to get more money.

Follow the money. These are the guys that wind up with it.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), June 29, 2000.