Seems like they'd do a lot better if they worked with people rather than trying to ram experiments down their throats in gerrymandered votes. Case in point, the Narrows bridge, approved by a vote of a great number of people who would use it infrequently, over the strenuous objections of the local people who would use it daily. By making the geographic voting area big enough, the local opposition was indeed diluted out of the vote, but remains a potent obstacle to implementation. What's worse, they appear to be ready to "Cry Havoc and unleash the dogs of War," or at least the dogs of Initiative.

Toll opponents kick off initiative drive to limit their use -- not just on bridges 

Thursday, September 7, 2000

By LARRY LANGE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER 





Highway toll opponents, unable to stop a new Tacoma Narrows Bridge, are now floating an initiative to limit use of tolls in general.

Three groups, all opposing the proposed new Narrows span, began circulating Initiative 247 petitions yesterday and will formally kick off their campaign today at a meeting of a special Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation.

The commission, appointed to look at new ways of approaching and financing the state's transportation system, has been discussing various forms of tolls to finance the work. It's not clear if they'll recommend tolls, but opponents are trying to ensure they don't.

"We would like (state transportation officials) to get their money via the Legislature and the gas tax," said Henry Paulman of TRUST, an Eastside anti-toll group. "We would like them to live within their current (financial) constraints."

Today's commission meeting is set for 4 p.m. at the Bellevue Regional Library, 1111 110th Ave., where public comments will be taken. Another session is set for Sept. 14 in Yakima.

The commission is to make recommendations to Gov. Gary Locke and lawmakers in late November. But Paulman and Randy Boss of the Congestion Solutions group in Gig Harbor said they aren't waiting. Their initiative would permit use of tolls on new facilities such as the second Narrows span. But Boss said it would effectively kill the new bridge because it would require continued toll-free operation of a road or bridge "that at any time was operated by the (state) as a two-way toll-free facility."

That means a toll could be charged for the new bridge, but the old one would have to be left open for toll-free two-way traffic.

The other group backing the initiative includes Citizens Against Tolls, also based in Gig Harbor.

The groups have until Dec. 29 to collect the 179,248 signatures required to send the measure to the Legislature, which could then enact it into law or put it on the 2001 general election ballot.

State officials said it's not clear that the measure would kill the Narrows project if passed.

"What we're talking about is a legal interpretation (of the initiative)," said Jerry Ellis, head of the state office coordinating the Narrows project. "I don't know the answer."

The initiative backers are getting ahead of the Legislature and the blue-ribbon commission's discussions of transportation financing, said Lynn Lampe, spokeswoman for the state Department of Transportation.

"I think tolls are part of the future, whether we want to face that or not," said Rep. Ruth Fisher, D-Tacoma, co-chair of the House Transportation Committee. "I don't know how we're going to fix some of the big projects (like the Narrows or Evergreen Point bridges) without the use of tolls."

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000

Answers

Statements like "Screw Transit - Build Roads" or "Don't subsidize transit and ferries", or "transit and ferries should be paid strictly by user fees", indicate a preference for road construction paid for by the users. That is what the Narrow Bridge is - road construction paid for by the users.

Why should we subsidize the lifestyle of those choose to live out on the peninsula or anyone who chooses to live "away from it all"?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

>>Seems like they'd do a lot better if they worked with people rather than trying to ram experiments down their throats in gerrymandered votes. Case in point, the Narrows bridge, approved by a vote of a great number of people who would use it infrequently, over the strenuous objections of the local people who would use it daily. By making the geographic voting area big enough, the local opposition was indeed diluted out of the vote, but remains a potent obstacle to implementation.<<

A wide group of people voting on funding for something they never use...sounds like 745's hijacking of King/Pierce/Snohomish County taxes for the rest of the state.

I'm assuming then that you'll immediately tell everybody in this forum that you are opposed to 745 for the same reasons you have expressed your opposition to the Narrows project.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

"I'm assuming then that you'll immediately tell everybody in this forum that you are opposed to 745 for the same reasons you have expressed your opposition to the Narrows project. "

You ASSume wrong, BB. I am not philosophically against another bridge, just think that both DOTs plan (for a net gain of one HOV lane each way) and their process (ramming it down people's throats rather than working with them) are simply dumb as dirt.

As for 745s alleged hijacking of taxes for the rest of the state, all they have to do is put 90% of the taxes against road needs and they can keep their taxes.

But basically, I agree with the statement that Zowie once made. It's time for the non-transit and non-HOV users to adopt a "scorched earth" policy towards further transit and HOV projects.
By that I mean that we should vote "NO" on any project that has any funding for HOV or transit, until equity in funding has been achieved. By equity, I mean that the funding of each mode should be proportionate to the person-miles carried by the mode. Moreover, it ought to be USER funded.

745 passing would greatly simplify this, of course, and make the scorched earth policy unnecessary.


-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

"Why should we subsidize the lifestyle of those choose to live out on the peninsula or anyone who chooses to live "away from it all"? " Questionable-

I agree. Will you vote with me in making ferries 100% funded by user fees?

As Craig said, why have a growth management act to force infill development, while simultaneously subsidizing people to live in such urban Meccas as Southworth, Winslow, Vashon, and Kingston?



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

to Questioning: You write: "That is what the Narrow Bridge is - road construction paid for by the users."

Actually, there are several objections to the proposed new Narrows Bridge. Typically, when one thinks of NEW construction one also expects NEW CAPACITY. Unfortunately, the DOT is unable or unwilling to guarantee that they will widen either I-5 or Hwy 16 in a timely manner, so, in the final analysis, there is no NEW CAPACITY.

Secondly, there is no cap on how high the tolls may go. Since we are being forced to use the new bridge (even though we'll be no more satisfied with the new bridge than we are with the existing bridge), this essentially violates the Washington Constitution prohibition of granting a monopoloy to a non-governmental agency. Perhaps this is why there is an existing law on the books stating that the State of Washington cannot re-impose tolls on the existing Narrows Bridge, as, for all practical purposes, the bridge is THE ONLY REALISTIC OPTION (i.e., A MONOPOLOY!!!) for traveling from Gig Harbor to Tacoma. Yet, the contract signed by the DOT expressly states that tolls MAY reflect costs of maintaining the existing bridge.

Finally, the HOV lanes themselves are a joke. I drive a vanpool van across the bridge on a daily basis, and I have no use for their proposed HOV lanes, as we already have an HOV entrance to the bridge. Ironically, because of the way the tolls will be set, the more people that carpool, the higher the tolls must be. Therefore, we will be the only community in the Puget Sound region to be financially penalized for carpooling.

I would support the new bridge if several conditions (in the following priority) were met: 1) An HOV lane is FIRST added to I-5 (northbound) between Hwy 16 and the existing HOV lane just past the 320th exit in Federal Way; 2) Hwy 16 (eastbound) is expanded between the proposed new bridge and I-5. This includes redesigning the interchange connecting Hwy 16 to I-5, which currently limits traffic speed to 35 mph; 3) expanding Hwy 16 in the westbound direction between the Narrows Bridge and just past the Purdy exit; 4) extending HOV lane on I-5 (southbound) from the Kent-Des Moines exit to Hwy 16 and; 5) finally, as a matter of principal, the DOT be required to redesign the Burley-Ollala intersection with Hwy 16, since the intersection is the most dangerous on Hwy 16.

When all of these conditions have been met, successfully, the DOT can then move forward on the bridge, but if, and only if, they declare a cap on how high the toll will go. Furthermore, the people of the region should be allowed to vote on the creation of a Regional Transportation Authority, which could offer the voters the option of shifting existing sales taxes, or re-instating some type of license tab fee, in exchange for lower tolls.

Oh, by the way, I have no objection if the DOT wants to charge vehicles a fee for using the HOV lane. I really do see the merit of charging people a user fee, if an ACTUAL BENEFIT is really being provided. I recommend charging an annual fee based on the vehicle's weight, age, and type of fuel (diesel-powered vehicles should pay more because of their disproportionately negative impact on the environment).

By the way, I attended the meeting of the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation, providing my two cents worth. I pointed out that scheduling a meeting in Bellevue, from 4 to 8 PM, speaks volumes on their overall cluelessness. My recommendation was that the Commission's current efforts be scrapped, and they start over with the requirement that they be forced to commute, on a daily basis, in the thick of congestion, both morning and evening. May the Lord have mercy on their souls!

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

Matt,

I only applied statements made by others against transit & ferries to what is a "road construction" project. I am sure that the bridge is the only realistic option for you, but then again, ferries are probably the most realistic option for some others. Transit might be the realistic options for still others.

Providing realistic transportation options is not what some of these initiatives are about. I-695 cut taxes. I-745 sets funding quotas. Neither identifies options or sets priorities on any project.

These initiatives succeed because it is easy to get a coalition of people to condemn something that does not provide them with a direct benefit. Once passed however, the coalition breaks apart because the groups within it fight for control. Everyone wants to prioritize his or her area first. Where should the money go? The Narrows Bridge? Southcenter hill? I-405 "S" curves? I-5 / I-90 Interchange? 520 Bridge? The list goes on and on.

I applaud you for taking the time to attend the transportation meeting in Bellevue. That is the best method for individuals to help set priorities. Unfortunately, your expectations need to be more realistic. You outline several projects that you identify as necessary before you would consider approving the Narrows Bridge. You would need to convince all of those separate groups that your priorities should outweigh theirs.

As you said to the Blue Ribbon Commision...May the Lord have mercy on your soul!

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 11, 2000.

to Questioning: I have no problem with other priorities coming first. We're more than happy to defer the new Narrows Bridge, as long as possible.

However, I disagree with you on your analysis of I-745. Although it is probably not the optimal solution, it does squarely let the politicians know that transportation is of the highest priority, assuming the initiative passes.

Right now, I cannot find a single political party that effectively addresses the issues. The Democrats (i.e., Gore) will not build more roads unless we agree to higher taxes and fees. The Republicans are only interested in cutting taxes for the rich, and, therefore, will not lower the gasoline tax nor will they use the surplus to address the issue, since the surplus is for the rich. Theoretically, the Libertarians might place road-building as a priority, but it's hard to tell. Still, if we weren't using our tax dollars to enforce archaic drug laws (which the Libertarians oppose), then we would have more money for transportation.

Personally, I believe it is the responsibility of the Federal government to fix our major transportation problems. I really don't care how they do it. Rail, buses, vanpooling, increasing road capacity, or some combination thereof. But, if I vote for I-745, I bet you I get their attention.

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

I agree with you in that I-745 will list the politicians know that transportation is a high priority. However, informing politicians that something is a high priority is not enough. Politicians need to prioritize what to tackle first and what to put off until later. That requires the people to do something beyond passing a simple initiative.

You did it when you attended the Blue Ribbon Commission meeting in Bellevue. You put in your two-cents worth there. More of us need to do that. We all need to campaign so that those making the final decisions know our concerns, but this is something that can be without the passage of I-745.

The problem is that most of the people expect their concerns to be automatically addressed with the passage of I-745. If people do not participate beyond voting in an election, then they will continue to be disappointed by the decisions that are made. You will get factions questioning why more funds are spent in the North when the South has the bigger problem (or vice-versa).

I think that everyone who votes to pass I-745 should be required to become a member of a citizens transportation group. This group would identify all of the necessary transportation projects, prioritize them and monitor them through completion. I-745 should not be allowed to pass unless the people who pass it are willing to commit to do what is necessary.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 12, 2000.

Matt writes:

>>1) An HOV lane is FIRST added to I-5 (northbound) between Hwy 16 and the existing HOV lane just past the 320th exit in Federal Way; 2) Hwy 16 (eastbound) is expanded between the proposed new bridge and I- 5. This includes redesigning the interchange connecting Hwy 16 to I- 5, which currently limits traffic speed to 35 mph; 3) expanding Hwy 16 in the westbound direction between the Narrows Bridge and just past the Purdy exit; 4) extending HOV lane on I-5 (southbound) from the Kent-Des Moines exit to Hwy 16 and; 5) finally, as a matter of principal, the DOT be required to redesign the Burley-Ollala intersection with Hwy 16, since the intersection is the most dangerous on Hwy 16.<<

Most of what you describe was in the planning stages prior to the passage of 695, which defunded the projects.

I've got an idea: instead of complaining that the state is not solving anything by not completing your proposed projects, why don't you take some responsibility for your decision to support the initiative that defunded the projects you wanted? You made the decision to support 695. It's time to live with the consequences of your choices.

You don't have any right to complain about the state not building highways if your vote helped defund efforts to build those very same highways.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 12, 2000.

Mark writes:

>>As for 745s alleged hijacking of taxes for the rest of the state, all they have to do is put 90% of the taxes against road needs and they can keep their taxes.<<

Bunk. There is no guarantee in 745 that the taking of transit taxes (that are only in place in certain counties) will keep all of that $ in the counties where they are collected.

Let me start by saying that I think all this talk is pointless, as 745 is so terribly written that it will quickly be found unconstitutional.

But basically all 745 does is take voter approved sales taxes for Metro and Sound Transit and redistribute them around the state (there's other transit agencies too, but Metro's the big gun with the most $). These taxes are only applied to people in King County (K-P- S for ST) but there is no guarantee in 745 that $ collected by these taxes will remain in King County. All 745 does is siphons off even more of the tax money generated in King County to the rest of the state.

If you want more money to go to empty Eastern Washington roads, by all means, vote for 745. Just don't think it'll help traffic at all in the Puget Sound region, because it won't.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 12, 2000.

to BB: You write: "Most of what you describe was in the planning stages prior to the passage of 695, which defunded the projects."

"I've got an idea: instead of complaining that the state is not solving anything by not completing your proposed projects, why don't you take some responsibility for your decision to support the initiative that defunded the projects you wanted? You made the decision to support 695. It's time to live with the consequences of your choices."

"You don't have any right to complain about the state not building highways if your vote helped defund efforts to build those very same highways."

BB, I'm not complaining about the state's effort to build highways. I'm merely pointing out that it makes no sense to build a new Tacoma Narrows bridge until the other projects are first completed.

I believe that the funding requirements (in order to make a significant difference in our transportation infrastucture) are on the order or TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars, not billions. Therefore, the only government entity which can meet my needs is the Federal Government. Does the Federal Government have tens of billions of dollars? YES IT DOES!!! So, cut the nonsense about there not being any funds available.

Furthermore, I now advocate converting the HOV lanes into special toll lanes. This represents a source of funding. Also, I believe that if the Feds were to invest tens of billions of dollars for new road capacity, then it is only fair to charge people a fee to use the NEW capacity, while the OLD capacity remains FREE. So, ultimately, the budget surplus used to fix the roads would be returned to the Treasury in the form of toll collections. And, people would have a clear choice - they can sit in traffic, or, they can pay a fee and save a few minutes on their commute.

We are now in a position to expand the transportation infrastructure without raising fees or taxes in a coercive manner. My vote on I-695 is consistent with my point of view of non-coercive funding of transportation.

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

"But basically all 745 does is take voter approved sales taxes for Metro and Sound Transit and redistribute them around the state" Hmm! Sounds like the sales tax equalization plan!

And I very much DO think that 745 will help traffic in the Puget Sound region by sending a message to the DOT that the voters are in charge, not the hired help, and the voters want ROADS. If the DOT wants to do railroads, buses, and boats, they can go to work for BNSF, Greyhound, or a cruise line.

It's time to take government back from those who try to tell the people how to live their lives, rather than respond to their requirements.

It is time to re-establish to the government employees THAT THEY ARE THE FRIGGIN' HIRED HELP, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE CHOICES THEIR BOSSES MAKE, THEY CAN PUT THEIR FAT ARSES ON THE ROAD!


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

to BB: You write: "Let me start by saying that I think all this talk is pointless, as 745 is so terribly written that it will quickly be found unconstitutional."

I agree, as I cannot understand the initiative the way it is currently written. However, it is then "safe" to vote for it, since it will never actually become law.

You also write: "But basically all 745 does is take voter approved sales taxes for Metro and Sound Transit and redistribute them around the state (there's other transit agencies too, but Metro's the big gun with the most $). These taxes are only applied to people in King County (K-P- S for ST) but there is no guarantee in 745 that $ collected by these taxes will remain in King County. All 745 does is siphons off even more of the tax money generated in King County to the rest of the state."

I disagree with your assessment. It is not clear what I-745 will accomplish. It does seem to take aim at the license tab fee, which funds Sound Transit. But, I think the fees and sales taxes used to support transit would simply be declared null and void. This would mean more dollars in people's pocket. More dollars in my pocket would mean I would be more able to afford the unlimited toll on the new Narrows Bridge. Hence, I have a reason to vote for I-745.

You also write: "If you want more money to go to empty Eastern Washington roads, by all means, vote for 745. Just don't think it'll help traffic at all in the Puget Sound region, because it won't."

I think the aim of I-745 is to force the construction of I-605, yet another bypass of Seattle, plus Bellevue. I have no objection to an I-605, but I think the most rational approach is to make it a toll road, and people can choose to use it or, they can choose to sit in traffic on I-5 or I-405. The revenue from such toll roads could then be used to eliminate the gasoline tax, one of the most offensive taxes on the working class. Over time, the toll would go up, as demand increases for a free-flowing roadway, and the gasoline tax would go down.

Recent pronouncements by governments throughout the world indicate that higher fuel prices are bad for their economies. Ergo, lower gasoline taxes, or even better, no gasoline taxes, are good for the economy.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 13, 2000.

Interestingly, only about 1% of the traffic on I-405 is through traffic. The rest either starts just outside and ends up within the corridor, or starts and ends within the corridor. The eastside does not have a parallel arterial, such as the way Hwy 99 is to I-5. In fact that's one of the problems with bus service and the HOV weave. There are some municipalities on the east side who are resistant to any arterial widening. (i.e. from 5 to 7 lanes)

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 13, 2000.

"It is time to re-establish to the government employees THAT THEY ARE THE FRIGGIN' HIRED HELP, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE CHOICES THEIR BOSSES MAKE, THEY CAN PUT THEIR FAT ARSES ON THE ROAD! "

What choices have their bosses made? R49? I-695? I-...? If this bulletin board is any indication, then their boss probably suffers from a bipolar personality disorder!!

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 13, 2000.

to Jim: You write: "Interestingly, only about 1% of the traffic on I-405 is through traffic. The rest either starts just outside and ends up within the corridor, or starts and ends within the corridor."

I'm not sure what you're saying. A "butt-load" of traffic comes across on the bridges, and a helluva of lot comes from Hwy 167. Only 1%?

You also write: "The eastside does not have a parallel arterial, such as the way Hwy 99 is to I-5. In fact that's one of the problems with bus service and the HOV weave. There are some municipalities on the east side who are resistant to any arterial widening. (i.e. from 5 to 7 lanes)."

Believe me, Hwy 99 is not much of a parallel arterial to I-5 between I-405 and Hwy 16.

If the people on the eastside don't want to build more roads, then so be it. I'm certainly not going to claim to know better than they. But, I would submit to you that there is a need for another bridge, and it should be tolled, but nobody should be forced to use it. I would also submit that the I-405/Hwy 167 interchange needs to be redesigned. The current design is just plain dangerous. The traffic backs up on I-405 southbound in the evenings, and, for general purpose traffic that leaves only 1 lane, which is usually stopped, too. So, basically, you have 1 (!!!) lane for vehicles with a single person, and 1 lane for vehciles with more than one person. Very pathetic, if you ask me.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 13, 2000.

Matt writes... "I think the aim of I-745 is to force the construction of I-605"

Sorry Matt! Like many other I-745 supporters, you think that I-745 will do more than it actually does. There are no specific projects identified in this initiative. If you think that it will do anything beyond what is specified in the actual write-up, then you are mistaken. That is the problem with how many supporters view Eyman's initiatives. They think that the initiatives will do something beyond what is specified in the write up.

Whether Sound Transit will be affected by I-745 should be up to the courts to decide. My non-legal opinion is that since Sound Transit was approved a while ago, that it should be exempt. If projects passed prior to passage are not exempted, how far into the past should we go to invoke the effects of I-745? 10 years? 20? 50? 100 years? It could be open up a big can of worms.

Mark offered this comment... "It is time to re-establish to the government employees THAT THEY ARE THE FRIGGIN' HIRED HELP, AND IF THEY DON'T LIKE THE CHOICES THEIR BOSSES MAKE, THEY CAN PUT THEIR FAT ARSES ON THE ROAD!

Government employees may or may not like the choices their bosses make, but WE need to do OUR job by getting off OUR fat A***S to tell them what OUR choices are! It is OUR job to put their fat A***S on the road if WE don't believe they are following OUR choices! Don't expect them to quit just because WE are unhappy. BUT before WE tell them to get their A***S on the road, WE had better make sure that WE did OUR job.

The passage of I-745 does NOT constitute OUR job. It is only a budget rule that WE want OUR government employees to follow. WE still need to give them SPECIFIC direction of what WE want. And "BUILD ROADS! SCREW TRANSIT!" is not specific direction.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 13, 2000.

"I'm not sure what you're saying. A "butt-load" of traffic comes across on the bridges, and a helluva of lot comes from Hwy 167. Only 1%?"

Matt, My reply was in response to your statement about creating "I-605", as a bypass for the I-5 & I-405 corridor. Traffic analysis and also surveys taken from truck drivers and trucking companies showed that if they were travelling through, they would just slog it out on I-5, since that way is actually shorter given that there is the same amount of congestion on both facilities. At one time, I-405 was a quicker way, but once development happened and exits were constructed. Also remember, SR-527, Hwy 9, SR- 522, SR-520, I-90, SR-169 and SR-167 all feed into it. The issue with "I-605" would then be Who does it serve, how many people does it serve, how much does it cost, who pays for it, and is it the same "Social Engineering" of the rural areas as High Capacity Transit is considered for the more urban areas?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 14, 2000.

"I would also submit that the I-405/Hwy 167 interchange needs to be redesigned."

I don't think there is anyone around who would disagree with you.

Of course, it is an old cloverleaf style interchange, probably done that way because it was cheaper, and the thought at that time was that people were using I-405 for the reason it was built, as a bypass around Seattle, so the main flow would be towards I-5.

It's just a normal metamorphosis of travel patterns.

Now the question is, how much will a suitable interchange cost? $25 million? $50 million? ????

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 14, 2000.

"What choices have their bosses made? R49? I-695? I-...? If this bulletin board is any indication, then their boss probably suffers from a bipolar personality disorder!! " Their bosses have repeatedly indicated that their travel mode of choice was the automobile, and generally the SOV at that. They turned down Forward Thrust twice and Sound Transit once.
The bureaucrats at DOT and the social engineering politicians said "screw the voters, if they won't let us build the mass transit that WE know is best, we won't build ANY more capacity at all, and eventually they'll give in and pass our proposals!"

This demonstrates a MAJOR disconnect in who are the masters and who are the servants in the taxpayer/politician/bureaucrat model!

Well I can play the scorched earth game too. I will camp[aign actively against ANY tax proposal that has one lousy dime of money for transit, until and unless auto transportation needs get funded at a level proportionate to the person miles of the mode. Since less than 5% of the person miles are on transit, I for one believe that &$% is being MORE THAN GENEROUS.
Is that straightforward enough for you?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

"But, I would submit to you that there is a need for another bridge, and it should be tolled, but nobody should be forced to use it. "

When I analyze the data, trying to come up with a mental picture that makes sense when comparing transit/rail to highways, I try to make as direct a comparison as I can.

Sometimes as a fun exercise, I take an idea to it's logical conclusion, which has quite interesting, although not necessarily practical results.

One of these was to privatize BOTH bridges. This would set up a great competitive structure. Advertising dollars would then flow into the economy to boot.

One company might decide that quicker throughput would allow higher tolls and create more profit. They could station pusher bars at strategic points on the bridge and if you break down,.... INTO THE DRINK!!!

The other might decide that more vehicles at a lower rate would be better. Cram them shoppers in!! Blue light specials, contests, coupons.... They could rent the area between lanes to entrepeneurs willing to sell things to everyone who, well, probably wouldn't be moving too fast.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 14, 2000.

To Questioning: You write: "Sorry Matt! Like many other I-745 supporters, you think that I-745 will do more than it actually does. There are no specific projects identified in this initiative. If you think that it will do anything beyond what is specified in the actual write-up, then you are mistaken."

No, I do not expect I-745 to do anything specific, from my point of view. However, by voting for it, I will exact some measure of revenge against the DOT for forcing tolls down my throat. As well as exacting revenge against those who remained silent as "taxation without representation" was foisted upon our community.

I do believe, however, that the authors and major proponents of I-745 fervently desire I-605 to be constructed. That was the point I was trying to make. Not that I want I-605 to be constructed. I could care less.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 14, 2000.

to Jim: You write: "The issue with "I-605" would then be Who does it serve, how many people does it serve, how much does it cost, who pays for it, and is it the same "Social Engineering" of the rural areas as High Capacity Transit is considered for the more urban areas?"

I recommend that I-605 and ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION be tolled, as long as the existing FREE roadways REMAIN FREE. This way, people will finally have a CHOICE. They can choose to sit in traffic, or, they can choose to PAY and move at a higher rate of speed. In fact, I recommend waiving the speed limit in the left lane of the tolled roads, so the idle rich owners of BMWs and Porsches could have a blast, making money for the rest of us. As for who decides where to build the roads (or rail, for that matter), that is a thornier issue, but at least no one will be FORCED to pay the toll.

You also write: "Now the question is, how much will a suitable interchange [I-405/Hwy 167] cost? $25 million? $50 million? ????"

The cost may well be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. But it is absolutely necessary, as the current design is UNSAFE. Again, the new interchange can be part of a growing network of special-fee roadways. And, people would have a choice: risk life and limb and waste precious time; or, pay the bucks and avoid the mess.

And you write: "One of these was to privatize BOTH bridges. This would set up a great competitive structure. Advertising dollars would then flow into the economy to boot."

I do not recommend privatizing existing roadways, but I have no objection to privatizing NEW CAPACITY, as long as the EXISTING CAPACITY REMAINS FREE. This creates the ideal situation, giving people a REAL CHOICE.

I do realize that in some cases, like the Narrows Bridge, it may not be economically practical to give people a choice, and we will be required to pay tolls against our will. But, even then, there are mitigating actions (see my comments way above on my criteria for supporting a new Narrows Bridge) which can help keep the tolls as low as possible.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 14, 2000.

Matt writes...

"I recommend that I-605 and ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION be tolled, as long as the existing FREE roadways REMAIN FREE."

Sorry Matt (again). While I-745 does not specify where the roads will go, it does specify that its funds will be used for new roads, new lanes and for road maintenance. While it does not specify whether tolls could also be collected, I'm sure that tolls would cause the majority of I-745 supporters would re-state their complaints about their taxes funding roadways that they are not allowed to use. They would accept only a single user fee - the gas tax. Mark,

Back to the original topic on the requirement of the new Narrows Bridge. Most people are not opposed to the new bridge, but to the need to pay tolls. Would you still oppose it if the bridge were entirely paid for by state transportation funds? Or would you stand on principal realizing that funding the bridge using state transportation funds would essentially be a subsidy to those who would use it most?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Mark writes:

>>Their bosses have repeatedly indicated that their travel mode of choice was the automobile, and generally the SOV at that.<<

You assume that there is a connection between the majority of people driving alone and the majority of people wanting more roads. This is not always the case.

Pretty much every major road expansion has faced widespread opposition. Look at I-90, 520, the Narrows, and 405 for just some examples. There are hundreds of others. Just because the majority of people drive, doesn't necessary mean that the majority of people always want more roads. It isn't particularly logical, but that's human nature for ya.

Also, R-49 had no $ for mass transit, yet people decided they wanted to defund it. How is this an indication that people want more roads, when they decide that they want to defund a couple billion in new road projects? Seems to me that if people want more roads so badly, they aren't doing a good job of expressing that desire by defunding road projects.

Regarding I-605: there is widespread opposition to this idea among those who live where it would go. Is the government supposed to ignore these people and build the road anyway? Wouldn't this be an example of the government doing exactly what people complain about, ignoring what the people want?

Why would building 605 be a better idea than adding capacity to I-5 and 405? Of course there's also widespread opposition to expanding those roads from those who live near them.

Regarding the 405/167 interchange: that was a project that would have been done under R-49. But those of you who voted for 695 decided you wanted to defund the projects that would have been done under R-49. Live with the consequences of your choices; the problem would have been on the way to being fixed already if you all hadn't defunded the projects.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

to Questioning: You write: "Sorry Matt (again). While I-745 does not specify where the roads will go, it does specify that its funds will be used for new roads, new lanes and for road maintenance. While it does not specify whether tolls could also be collected, I'm sure that tolls would cause the majority of I-745 supporters would re-state their complaints about their taxes funding roadways that they are not allowed to use. They would accept only a single user fee - the gas tax....."

That's ok, Questioning. The people should have the right to vote on the concept of NON-COERCIVE funding. I don't claim to know what is best for my fellow citizens. I am merely communicating what I would support. If people prefer paying a gas tax in order to fund the government's arbitrary decisions on where to place a road, then so be it. I think people would be excited at the prospect of eliminating the gas tax by funding NEW roads with tolls, while the existing roads remain free. Existing maintenance could be funded by the sales tax on vehicles.

You also write: "Most people are not opposed to the new bridge, but to the need to pay tolls. Would you still oppose it if the bridge were entirely paid for by state transportation funds? Or would you stand on principal realizing that funding the bridge using state transportation funds would essentially be a subsidy to those who would use it most?"

Yes, I stand on principle. If a new bridge is built, then those who choose to use it should pay a toll, while the existing bridge remains a free alternative. I do not believe this is economically feasible, hence we will, eventually, be required to pay some type of toll. But, I see no urgency in building a new bridge, now. Deferring the project for a few years is a viable alternative. Let those who want the project built as quickly as possible (i.e., east Pierce County) help pay for the new bridge. If they're not willing to help pay for it, then they should stop making demands.

I have provided a list of criteria (see way above) on when and how I would support beginning construction of a new bridge. The voters should be given a chance to vote on the issue of converting the HOV lanes into specially tolled lanes. This alone will dramatically change how we fund roads and manage congestion.

I drive a vanpool, so my supporting a user fee for HOV lanes is an example of my standing on principle.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 14, 2000.

"the problem would have been on the way to being fixed already if you all hadn't defunded the projects. " Bulls**t! The problem is the bureaucracy and the politicians. R-49 was put in place despite them, not because of them. Read the voters guide for that year, and look at all the power structure that was against R-49 so it wouldn't compete (notwithstanding your blather about "different funding streams") with projects that they favored. Now technically, IT WAS THE POLITICIANS, NOT THE VOTERS, WHO DEFUNDED R-49, since the courts over-ruled I-695, and the legislature and governor pulled the plug on the MVET.

But you START on the assumption that the state doesn't have enough money to do the job since I-695. I think they do, but they'll have to look seriously at contracting out, getting rid of the prevailing wage requirement, and a lot of other things that were mentioned after I-695 passed, that have now conveniently fallen off the radar scope.

But don't blame the demise of the MVET. The ruling class was screwing u[p transportation even when they had the MVET, and hiding behind bulls**t jargon such as "funding streams." Get a grip, Quack-guy!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 14, 2000.

Oh please BB....

"Regarding the 405/167 interchange: that was a project that would have been done under R-49. But those of you who voted for 695 decided you wanted to defund the projects that would have been done under R- 49"

Look at what I have been given for the last 20 years of my funding! No more please! I do not want to "stay the course" and continue forking over my dollars if this is what I'm going to get for the next 20. So far, the DOT has a terrible track record with me.

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

Mark / Doug / Matt,

Let's assume I-745 passes. What are you going to do to ensure that the transportation funds are spent on projects that you want and not on projects that you don't want?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

And when they conflict with your ideas, who gets to decide?

Who has ultimate authority? WSDOT, Sound Transit, the counties or the local jurisdictions?

When you go to these transportation open houses, what kind of questions do you ask?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 15, 2000.

"Let's assume I-745 passes. What are you going to do to ensure that the transportation funds are spent on projects that you want and not on projects that you don't want? "

That's a silly argument.
Whether I-745 is good or bad doesn't depend on whether I get EVERYTHING that I want, but whether, compared to the alternative, it moves the DOT in a better direction.

Right now, DOT spends significant amounts of money in trying to get people to shift their transportation mode. (They additionally spend a lot of OTHER people's money through forcing private industry to do commute reduction programs, but that's another story) This consists of taking money derived from (disproportionately) the vast majority of people who drive automobiles and using it to subsidize transit systems that carry a piddling-few percent of the total person-miles. This is a system that hasn't worked, and in fact CAN'T work, since if they really did get a substantial modal shift to transit, they'd lose their "funding stream (How'm I doing, BB?)" that they use to bribe people to use the transit systems in the first place.
If I can just get a situation where DOT has to provide resources in rough proportion to the services being provided (ie, don't expect me to fund a free ride for someone else), I'll be miles ahead of where I am now, from the standpoint of my satisfaction with the process.

As for building what I'd like to build, Hell, after 35 years of non performance and mal-performance, there's probably no way that we are catching up with what truly needs to be built, within the next 20 years or so. I'd be happy if we just stop going in the wrong direction.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 15, 2000.

A good case made for eliminating the gas tax.

Then, when Renton and Bothell decide that they want extra arterial lanes and freeway lanes to reduce congestion, they can put up a local vote and those citizens would be free to fund their choice of transportation mode.

Of course, they would have to convince Newcastle, Bellevue and Kirkland to go along with their decision.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 15, 2000.

Mark,

"Whether I-745 is good or bad doesn't depend on whether I get EVERYTHING that I want, but whether, compared to the alternative, it moves the DOT in a better direction"

How do you know that passage of I-745 will move the DOT in a better direction? Would you care if the DOT spent all of the money on bridges across Puget Sound, Lake Washington, Commencement Bay, Columbia River Gorge, etc. for the next several decades?

Still looking for a response from Doug & Matt to the "Let's assume I-745 passes" scenario.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 18, 2000.

>>So far, the DOT has a terrible track record with me.<<

Maybe the DOT has a terrible track record with you because you don't know what you're talking about. You've been given quite a bit in the last 20 or so years for your funding. To list a few:

520 completion from 148th to downtown Redmond. Highway 18 widening from Auburn to Maple Valley. I-82 from the Oregon border to west of the Tri-Cities. 182 from I-82 to Tri-Cities. US 395 separation through eastern washington. New bridge across the Columbia from Vancouver to Portland. 167 completion from Auburn to Puyallup. Giant I-90 project from I-5 to 405, including the new bridge. New I-90 bridge near Snoqualmie Pass. I-90 widening through Spokane. 705 in downtown Tacoma. 509 in Tacoma. New I-90/I-5 interchange. New 520/405 interchange. New 405 through Renton, smoothing the s-curves.

And on and on and on...

The idea that the DOT has done "nothing" is complete bunk.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 18, 2000.

to Questioning: You write: "Let's assume I-745 passes. What are you going to do to ensure that the transportation funds are spent on projects that you want and not on projects that you don't want?"

Well, there's nothing I can do. Presumably, the architects behind I- 745 are just trying to get I-605 built, which does nothing for me.

I already go to meetings like the Blue Ribbon Commission on Transportation. And, the other day, I went to a meeting of the Puget Sound Regional Council. What these people are proposing is sickening.

The bottom line is that decisions should be made on the basis of cost benefit analysis. As far as I can tell, no cost benefit analysis is ever performed in making a decision on where, when, and how transportation projects are selected.

I-745 may increase the probability that cost benefit analysis will be used to make transportation-related decisions.

I-745 may also send a message to D.C. that transportation is a major concern, since the preseidential candidates are ignoring the issue.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 19, 2000.

to Jim: You ask several questions: "And when they conflict with your ideas, who gets to decide? Who has ultimate authority? WSDOT, Sound Transit, the counties or the local jurisdictions? When you go to these transportation open houses, what kind of questions do you ask?"

Well, when I go to meetings, I point out where the actual bottlenecks are located, and I try to find out how the current proposals are intended to solve any of our problems.

For example, at a recent Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) meeting, they wanted to endorse the construction of HOV lanes (in Pierce County) on I-5 and Hwy 16. I tried to get them to understand that I-5 nortbound, between the Tacoma Mall and Fife, is of the highest priority because it is a major choke point, where I constantly observe accidents. Furthermore, the Hwy 16/I-5 interchange needs to be re-built, before they waste tax dollars on HOV lanes on Hwy 16. I also recommended they convert the HOV system into special fee-for-use lanes, since they're always whining about not having enough money to do anything.

Of course, the PSRC went ahead and endorsed the construction of HOV lanes on Hwy 16, even though they cannot guarantee the construction of Park'n'Ride facilities. IMO, HOV lanes without Park'n'Ride facilities are a huge waste of taxpayers' monies.

As for who gets to decide, I have no qualms with meaningful advisory votes. For example, if a project intends to add capacity to I-405, then let the people on the Eastside vote on the issue. If they truly don't want more road capacity, then I respect their decision. On the other hand, if the project is a bridge across Lake Washington, then both Seattle and the Eastside should vote on it together.

I would prefer to see regional transportation authorities - North Puget Sound Transportation Authority, South Puget Sound Transportation Authority, Peninsula Transportation Authority, etc.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 19, 2000.

to BB: You write: "The idea that the DOT has done "nothing" is complete bunk."

Although it is true that the DOT improved I-705 and Hwy 509 in the Tacoma area, they have done very little to address the major problem of congestion on I-5 between the Tacoma Mall and I-405. In fact, I-705 simply dumps more traffic onto I-5 southbound in the evening, when the existing infrastructure of I-5 simply can't handle it.

From my point of view, Hwy 509 & I-705 should be connected to Hwy 18, as part of a network of tolled roads. This would then offer people a means of avoiding the congestion on I-5 between Hwy 18 and Hwy 16. Since the roadway would not be crossing water, the "toll" need not be several dollars, but several quarters, instead.

Your claim that the DOT has done more than "nothing" does not say much. The commute on I-5 is as miserable as ever, if not worse.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 19, 2000.

Matt,

Good for you! At least you are participating in the system by attending the various meetings and forums hosted by the numerous councils. Active citizen participation is the most important part of the process. Unfortunately, it is also the part of the process that most people fail to use.

Citizens need to be proactive and participated in these meetings and forums. They need to follow up and hold their representatives responsible. Unfortunately, most people complain about politicians, pork barrel projects, special interests, etc. but don't do anything about it! I-745 is designed to appeal to these people. It appears to address a problem. In reality, it does very little. If people really want the government to do something, they will need to participate in the process, as you are doing.

Maybe you know the answer to this question... Since I-745 sets a 90-10 road/transit funding ratio, is there anything that prevents the government from maintaining existing transit funding and increasing overall taxes to cover the 90% for road construction?

That leads me to this 'fun' scenario... Assume the passage of I-745. What would happen EVERY transportation project deemed necessary by someone, were placed on a single election ballot? Then we could see what people really wanted!

Still looking for a response from Doug to the first "assume I-745 passes" scenario.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), September 19, 2000.

To Questioning: You ask: "Maybe you know the answer to this question... Since I-745 sets a 90-10 road/transit funding ratio, is there anything that prevents the government from maintaining existing transit funding and increasing overall taxes to cover the 90% for road construction?"

As far as I can tell, the answer is no. But, who in government is going to raise transportation-related taxes? I-745 also requires performance audits, which may require the beaureaucrats to actually perform cost/benefit analysis. You also write/ask: "That leads me to this 'fun' scenario... Assume the passage of I-745. What would happen EVERY transportation project deemed necessary by someone, were placed on a single election ballot? Then we could see what people really wanted!"

I have no problem with this, as long as we go to some type of regional transportation authority. Why should I in Gig Harbor vote on a bridge across Lake Washington? Likewise, why should someone in Bellevue vote on a ferry initiative in Kitsap County?

If a given community refuses to invest in its transportation infrastructure (i.e., roads, buses, rail, etc.), then maybe they should be prevented from adding NEW residential or commercial capacity. I don't have a problem with someone disdaining growth, but they should practice what they preach.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 19, 2000.

Mark writes:

>>But you START on the assumption that the state doesn't have enough money to do the job since I-695. I think they do,<<

This state has a budget of about $20 billion. Transportation needs in this state have been conservatively estimated at around $30 to $40 billion.

How exactly does the state have enough money to do the job post-695 when the need for funding is twice the total budget, roughly 20 to 30 times the current transportation budget (post 695), and will continue to spiral downward as gas tax revenues decrease against inflation?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 19, 2000.

To Matt, I was at an open house once, and on each flip chart for comments I was writing one point of view, and some other guy was following me and writing the exact opposite! I went over to the other one and wrote my (opposing, naturally) view on the flip chart he had finished writing on. The trouble is, all of these comments have a way of getting blurred together, so what meaning is gleaned from them is not necessarily an exact reflection of a particular viewpoint. There are 2 forces at work.

The first is that unfortunately politics rules. I don't care what level it's at, local, regional, or statewide, people act the same. With some of the committees I've been on with other citizens, we don't necessarily do things any better!

The second is that the plans might change only slightly in response to public input at these depending on the attendance. It's somewhat like trying to change the forward progress of a slow moving motor boat by dropping boulders on either side.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 19, 2000.

"I have no problem with this, as long as we go to some type of regional transportation authority. Why should I in Gig Harbor vote on a bridge across Lake Washington? Likewise, why should someone in Bellevue vote on a ferry initiative in Kitsap County?"

Then the next question is, where do you draw the lines? What if both those counties want to do something together? A different regional authority?

This just keeps getting more and more complex, doesn't it?

Many times when people think they are suggesting something radical and new, it turns out that the agency (for whatever project) has already studied it.

HOWEVER, you should not refrain from suggesting things. Sometimes a new, previously unheard of viewpoint is discovered buried in those comments.

Cost benefit studies are done on these projects in an EIS, it's just that it's not exactly easy reading. That tends to go against the soundbite culture we seem to live in.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 19, 2000.

"What would happen EVERY transportation project deemed necessary by someone, were placed on a single election ballot? Then we could see what people really wanted! "

I just wish road projects were put through the same rigorous process as Sound Move goes through. With a funding source that has the same characteristics.

We might get a hint of what people want, at the very least.

I know that Snohomish County has put road improvement projects on the ballot and they've been voted down.

THAT must be WHAT PEOPLE REALLY WANT !!!

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 19, 2000.

to BB: You ask: "How exactly does the state have enough money to do the job post-695 when the need for funding is twice the total budget, roughly 20 to 30 times the current transportation budget (post 695), and will continue to spiral downward as gas tax revenues decrease against inflation?"

Actually, there are limitless opportunities. I've already mentioned that society could turn the HOV lanes into a fee-for-use concept. That's one source of revenue. I suspect a new bridge across Lake Washington could easily attract VOLUNTARY toll-payers, so there's no problem there.

You claim that gas tax revenues will be declining relative to inflation. The gas tax should be ELIMINATED, permanently ending its decline. The solution, besides turning HOV lanes into a source of revenue, is to take sales tax revenue from the sale of automobiles and dedicate it to transportation-related spending.

Additionally, the state merely needs to make transportation a priority, just like education. The state should address transportation needs first, then see how much is left over for funding other programs. In many cases, the transportation projects could be self-funding, as the users would VOLUNTARILY pay fees to use the NEW CAPACITY (whether it be rail, buses, roads, etc.). If a project can't fund itself, then regional transportation authorities would have to get voter approval to implement dedicated sales taxes, or, perhaps some type of property tax on the car. Of course, it's highly dubious the voters would approve this, until they're convinced that the beaureaucrats have done their homework.

There are also non-automobile sources of VOLUNTARY funding that society hasn't yet tapped. For example, Washington could implement a domestic partnership law, granting the partners similar rights as a married couple. Of course, there would be a slight fee for the privilege, say $500.00.

Another way of raising revenues is to offer express service at government agencies. Instead of waiting in line, one could pay extra and get faster service. Or, charge more for doing business with the government via the internet.

There are no limits on how much money the government could raise by creatively marketing its assets and services.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 20, 2000.

to Jim: You write: "Cost benefit studies are done on these projects in an EIS, it's just that it's not exactly easy reading. That tends to go against the soundbite culture we seem to live in."

This is not true. In fact, the lack of a rigorous cost benefit analysis is a basis of the City of Gig Harbor's appeal of the EIS for the new Narrows Bridge.

Please explain how you can perform a cost benefit analysis of a toll project whereby you force people to pay a toll. Don't you think your conclusions might be different if the toll were $1 vs. $10? Yet, nowhere in the EIS for the Narrows Bridge does it ever mention how much is the toll, let alone perform a rigorous analysis of the economic impact to the community for various toll rates, traffic loads, etc.

I attended a meeting on the draft EIS, and I brought up these points. I pointed out that the loss of discretionary income will wreak havoc on the local economy. I estimated that sales tax revenues will drop by approximately one million dollars a year. Furthermore, depending how HIGH the toll climbs, property values could be adversely affected.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 20, 2000.

"Yet, nowhere in the EIS for the Narrows Bridge does it ever mention how much is the toll, let alone perform a rigorous analysis of the economic impact to the community for various toll rates, traffic loads, etc. "

Not having a copy of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge EIS, I will not argue with you what was in it. I know that in other EIS documents, I have found what would be the cost/benefit results buried in the narrative. It did take me a while to find and understand what was said, as opposed to having it in a matrix.

Do you attend other transportation public hearings besides the Narrows Bridge ones?

I only ask since I got involved in these transportation issues due to a road widening project in my area. 95% of the attendees at the meeting were against it. However, as I spent more and more time at Planning Commission meetings (just observing, not commenting), and at City Council meetings, I started to realize that there is no monolithic force out there controlling what is happening.

We have met the enemy, and he is us !!

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 20, 2000.

to Jim: You ask: "Do you attend other transportation public hearings besides the Narrows Bridge ones?"

Well, I've attended Blue Ribbon Commission meetings, although they claim that sending them e-mail is just as effective.

I've called and e-mailed Pierce Transit on some issues.

I've called and e-mailed the WSDOT on the HOV lanes up the Southcenter Hill. The WSDOT has an in-house policy that if the average speed drops below 45 mph in the HOV lane, then they will up the minimum number of people in a vehicle allowed to use the HOV lane. Even though we routinely travel at LESS THAN 20 MPH in the HOV lane south of I-405, the WSDOT refuses to enforce its own in-house rules.

I think people just want the government to clearly state what they're going to do, and, then, DO WHAT YOU SAY!!!

In general, all my involvement has resulted in nothing. My wife thinks I'm a fool for going to the meetings. So much for "being involved".

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 20, 2000.

"This state has a budget of about $20 billion. Transportation needs in this state have been conservatively estimated at around $30 to $40 billion."

I'd agree. The effect of DOT wasting money LEASING capability through a manpower/wage intensive push for mass transit, even where it cannot be made remotely cost-effective (the Okanogan comes to mind) rather than BUYING capability with new infrastructure capacity and TRANSFERRING tax funds to BNSF and others. "How exactly does the state have enough money to do the job post-695 when the need for funding is twice the total budget, roughly 20 to 30 times the current transportation budget (post 695), and will continue to spiral downward as gas tax revenues decrease against inflation? "
By cutting its bloated bureaucracy, contracting out services that can be done better and cheaper in the private sector, by getting rid of prevailing wage laws for capital projects, by seeing to it that those who wish to enjoy an idyllic rural existence in Bainbridge, Kingston, Vashon, Whidbey Island, and other areas PAY the total cost of their commuting expenses through their fares, rather than giving them frequent user discounts on a system that's losing money.

If, AFTER making these reasonable and prudent adjustments to their business practices, they still can't get the job done, they will have the CREDIBILITY that they now lack to come back to the voters with other options including tolls, taxes, congestion pricing, etc., that they don't have now. When they are screwing up the basics, nobody is EVER going to give them substantial amounts of additional resources, and they are now screwing up the basics rather badly.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 21, 2000.