Buses handle 40% of rush hour traffic? Bulls**t! In the battle against I-745, transit advocates, while admitting that transit carries only 3% of the passenger miles, are stating that transit carries 40% of the rush hour traffic. That number is picked up by the Seattle (liberal) media, and goes pretty much unchallenged. But just how realistic is that? It isnt very hard to get the numbers for Metro King County Metro

What do those numbers say?

In 1998 the total number of unlinked bus trips on Metro was 64.4 million. Total passenger miles was 402 million. This is the number for everything. It counts Husky and Seahawk specials, Mariners specials, lunch time hops on buses in the free fare zone, school kids using Metro for their trips, absolutely everything. Actually, it double counts a lot, since a trip with a transfer counts as two trips. Lets, just for the sake of argument, say that all those miles and trips were during rush hour.
while that sounds like a lot, you have to remember that there are 520 rush hours. That would be 123, 000 people moved by bus (not counting duplicate counting by transfers), for an average of 6 miles per trip for each of those 123,000 people.

But there is a total of 1.74 Million people in that service area. Lets be conservative and assume that this is all families consisting of two parents and three kids. Thats 348,000 families. Assuming that there are NO two income families in this area, thats only 35% of the working population using the bus twice during the day, even if it was NEVER used at any time other than commuting hours.

Lets use another somewhat more precise analysis. The same national transit database figures provide numbers for weekday unlinked bus trips. That number is 216,000. If we assume that ALL OF THE WEEKDAY TRIPS ARE COMMUTE TRIPS DURING THE COMMUTE HOURS, that would indicate (ignoring double counting for transfers) about 108,000 potential commuters, out of a region producing (by conservative estimates) 348,000 commuters. This would knock it down further to 31%.

Lets do some more realistic guesstimating. Lets assume that, in the five person family groups, 1.5 of the individuals are full time workers. That increases our potential commuters to 522,000. Lets assume that 10% of the commuters use transfers, and 10% of the fares are for school kids. This decreases the potential bus commuters to 98, 400.

Given those conservative readjustments, that knocks the percentage of commuters using the bus down to 19%, and this again assumes that all of the trips on weekdays are occurring ONLY during the rush hour.

It is apparent that the liberal Gore-clone pro-transit anti-auto crowd plays just as fast and loose with the facts as does Gore himself.


-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 23, 2000

Answers

As usual, Mark, some idiot like BB will be debating what the definition of is, is.

They'll never let your facts overcome their prejudices. The only way to deal with them is to fight at every opportunity, no compromises!

SCREW TRANSIT, BUILD ROADS!!


-- (zowie@hotmail.com), October 23, 2000.

to Mark: I think buses do a good job of moving commuters during the rush hour commute. That is precisely when we should expect transit to shine. For example, I estimate that the Sound Transit buses carry between 5,000 and 10,000 people on I-5 in South King and Pierce counties.

However, I-745 would have little to no adverse impact on the situation, since the buses are full, and the fares collected should easily come close to covering the costs. If the fares are not high enough, then they can easily increase (to a point), since THE BUSES ARE FULL!!!

I-745 will simply apply pressure on the transit agencies to eliminate buses which are nearly empty most of the time. How can anyone oppose that?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 23, 2000.

"and the fares collected should easily come close to covering the costs. If the fares are not high enough, then they can easily increase (to a point), since THE BUSES ARE FULL!!! "

Fares cover about 15% of transit costs.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 24, 2000.

More than 4 million passengers in first year of ST Express bus service, Sounder commuter rail surpasses ridership projections

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Sound TransitBs ST Express bus and Sounder commuter rail are big hits among transit riders, with more than 4 million passengers boarding ST Express in its first year of operation and more than 29,600 commuters boarding the new Sounder commuter train in its first five weeks of service.

On Sept. 19, 1999, Sound Transit inaugurated nine new ST Express routes ahead of schedule and by the end of Sept. 2000 they have logged 4,083,136 passenger boardings, or 15,568 per weekday. The most popular ST Express routes are Bellevue/Seattle with 1,671,645 boardings; Lakewood/Tacoma/Seattle with 1,405,784 boardings and Everett/Lynnwood/Seattle with 477,052 boardings. These figures do not include the four new ST Express bus routes that began service this year.

Over the next few years, five more routes will be launched for a total of 18 limited-stop, long haul routes ST Express routes serving the three-county Sound Transit district.

Sounder commuter rail service is exceeding ridership projections and continuing to grow each week. Since the first day of service on Sept. 18, ridership on the two trips per weekday train has increased 23 percent, rising from 5,234 passengers the first week to 6,452 by week five, for a total of 29,682 passenger boardings. Daily average ridership has increased from 1,034 in the first week to 1,290 passengers last week, easily surpassing the projected 1,000 daily Sounder riders. These figures do not include the special Sounder Homerun trains to Seattle Mariners games.

Originally Sounder planned to have three trains on opening day and all seven stations open between Tacoma and Seattle. Sounder is currently running two trains and stations in Puyallup, Kent and Tukwila have yet to open. Once all seven stations are open and a third train is added Sounder should easily reach the original opening day projections of 1,500 passengers per day.

Voter-approved in 1996, Sound Transit is on track to implement a three-county regional transit system plan known as Sound Move. Sound Move is a seamless blend of three transportation systems: Sounder commuter rail, running 82 miles from Everett to Tacoma/Lakewood; Link light rail, a 21-mile system connecting the cities of Seattle, Tukwila and SeaTac and a 1.6 mile system in Tacoma; and Regional Express, featuring 18 new ST Express limited stop, long-haul bus routes and numerous improvements to transit centers, park-and-ride lots and HOV lanes.

For more information on Sound Move, please visit the Sound Transit website at www.soundtransit.org/, or call or write for more information at Sound Transit, Union Station, 401 S. Jackson St., Seattle, WA 98104, (206) 398-5000 or 1-800-201-4900. # # #

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), October 24, 2000.

to Mark: You write: "Fares cover about 15% of transit costs."

I disagree. I would expect fares to cover more of the costs when the buses are full. Also, fares will cover more of the costs if the bus route is shorter, and, the bus has passengers in both directions (i.e., no dead-heading). So, the Seattle-Bellevue bus probably comes the closest to paying its own way.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 24, 2000.

to Informed Citizen: You spout a lot of nice numbers, but you fail to provide the cost-benefit analysis.

Exactly how much is society paying to move the 5,000 to 10,000 people per day by bus? How much are we paying to move the 1,000 people by rail? What number of people using the rail used to use the bus?

I've written to Sound Transit, urging them to recruit their riders into vanpools, if the bus route is heavily subsidized. Needless to say, I've received no response from Sound Transit.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 24, 2000.

good one zowie. lets build more roads. Hello, have you been to california lately. that approach does not work. and where do you plan to build more roads in king county? maybe we could demolish half of downtown to add more lanes. Oh wait, that money does not go to purchasing property, only construction. Even if it did go to purchasing property, where do you sappose we get the money to buy out REI's new building or the trade center? How about fighting them in court over the issue of taking. The money won't come from property tax because 722 will definitely put a damper on that option. One more thing, where do you propose we put everyone when they can now drive their own car to work? This money does not go to building more parking lots.

Watch out I'm on a roll. tell me how we can get federal money for transit and other projects when most of it is leveraged by local money as a match? If they only have 10% for other stuff, it won't work. The minimum match on federal money often exceeds 20%.

As far as the road miles goes. You all like to say 47 miles since 1989. I don't know where you get that statistic, but in FACT WSDOT has added nearly 800 lane miles since 1992. That number does not include the hundreds of safety projects and mobility projects at bridges and intersections and onramps etc. Those things are the things you should look at.

One more thing. You all liked to spout off about big business opposing 695 and funding the anti campaign. How about the 1 + million that the asphalt paving industry has paid toward your campaign. You're no longer against big business are you? And that joke of a report that you claims 4% more roads would decrease congestion by 25%. Explain that. As you know, Kemper Development Co. paid for this so called study. Of course he's going to say this, he's been lobying WSDOT and state legislature to spend 12.8 billion on increasing highway lanes that leads to his businesses.

Wake up people, to solve trans. problems in washington, we need a range of options that fit LOCAL NEEDS and gives people the freedom to choose how they travel. Why not listen to the reports by the blue ribbon commission. Are you going to waste the money spent on their report by leap frogging them and throwing the report away. Building more roads and putting more cars on the roads means increased air pollution. It also leads to more pressure on communities to deal with sprawl and suburban development dependent on roads.

One more little thing. We are in a non-attainment area, how are we going to spend our required amount of transportation dollars on Transportation Demand Management.

P.S. the sky is still falling from 695, the one time fix from legislature will soon run out and we'll have to face the reality of a stupid initiative.

-- informed citizen #2 (ic2@ic2.net), October 24, 2000.

"And that joke of a report that you claims 4% more roads would decrease congestion by 25%. Explain that. As you know, Kemper Development Co. paid for this so called study. Of course he's going to say this, he's been lobying WSDOT and state legislature to spend 12.8 billion on increasing highway lanes that leads to his businesses." Now, be nice.

The report you're referring to is the "Reduce Congestion Now" report that Kemperer commissioned Bill Eager of TDA Inc to produce. If you're interested in the presentation made to the Blue Ribbon Transportation Commission go to http://www.brct.wa.gov/brct/docs/FullCom05-12-99.pdf and page down to the "Reduce Congestion Now" heading. Unfortunately, I can't find an online version of this report. I do have a paper copy. What 4% more roads equates to is 1400 lane miles. In the report, it actually splits that figure into 700 freeway and 700 arterial. While the report argues that Washington state costs are too high in direct comparison to the 48 state average, the report does not do a detailed analysis of what roads are necessary, and where they would go, and therefore does not make a direct argument as to the reason for the difference. Interestingly, people that I've talked to at WSDOT actually threw out a rough figure in a different conversation about roads in rural Washington state as to the cost being $10 million per lane mile. Others have said that in the Puget Sound region it ranges from $20 million to $200 million (Mercer Island style) per lane mile. Even if you use the $10 million figure, 1400 miles at that rate is $14 Billion. Where would that 1400 miles of highway go? If it's roughly 60 miles from Everett to Tacoma, then that 1400 miles would be equivalent to a 24 lane freeway. Obviously that's not a real answer, but even if you were to spread that out over that 10 by 60 mile region, you would be placing 4 new 4 lane north-south highways and and roughly 12 new 4 lane east-west roadways onto the map. What municipalities are going to accept that type of arterial creation? Is it up to the legislature to make them accept it? Forget the pro-transit, anti I-745 crowd. I think what's unfortunate is that the people who vote for I-745 with the belief that it will the panacea they're looking for will be quite disappointed.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 25, 2000.

I've heard it here, and in other places that 2 freeway lanes will move 50,000 vehicles per day, or at 1.2 persons per vehicle, 65,000 people. However, if the capacity of a freeway lane is 2100 vehicles per hour, that would mean that for a 24 hour period, 2 lanes of freeway would be capable of handling 108,000 vehicles (128,960 people).

Is it correct to draw the conclusion that when a freeway lane's usage approaches 50%, we need to build a new lane?

Well, actually not. The reason for the congestion is that the trips occur during the morning and evening hours, roughly paralleling peoples work habits.

This brings up an interesting observation. During the times that the freeway is not congested, what happens to the excess? What happens is that following distances increase. If it were possible to do, you could actually successively close off each lane when the total volume drops, and (theoretically) the freeway would still flow the same.

Aren't the unused areas of pavement the equivalent of an empty bus? In fact, it's on 24 hour standby availability. Is it really cost- effective to build a freeway lane whose function is to reduce the car count in the adjacent lane by 2100 vehicles per hour? Assuming six hours of congestion, then that lane would be handling 12,600 vehicles, (or approx 15,000) people per day. At that point, any parallel non-automotive system's performance should be measured against that criteria.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 25, 2000.

to Informed Citizen: You write: "Wake up people, to solve trans. problems in washington, we need a range of options that fit LOCAL NEEDS and gives people the freedom to choose how they travel. Why not listen to the reports by the blue ribbon commission. Are you going to waste the money spent on their report by leap frogging them and throwing the report away. Building more roads and putting more cars on the roads means increased air pollution. It also leads to more pressure on communities to deal with sprawl and suburban development dependent on roads."

Yes, a range of options is fine, as long as there is a cost-benefit analysis showing the option(s) to be RATIONAL. I-745 merely provides guidelines for communities to follow. If ridesharing is important to a community, then they should build HOV lanes. Why can't you handle that reality?

As for the Blue Ribbon Commission and their "report", I've been to a couple of their meetings. I've read their report. And, one thing is clear, the vast majority of the people on the Blue Ribbon Commission don't actually commute themselves during rush hour. And, if they do, you can be cure that they don't vanpool or use a bus.

You also say that building more roads and putting more cars on the roads leads to increased air pollution. This is not necessarily true. If we expand the HOV system and charge people a fee to use the HOV system, then we are building more roads, while, at the same time, facilitating ridesharing, which reduce air pollution. Furthermore, the fee for using the HOV lane can be lower for those who operate high mileage vehicles, which may also mean less air pollution.

You use the words, "air pollution", as if they have some meaning. The fact is that different vehicles produce different types of pollution. An empty school bus on the road is the biggest polluter of all. So, are you in favor of homeschooling, too?

I-745 merely requires transit to be more efficient. I-745 will not prevent the construction of HOV lanes or investments in car-carrying ferries. Please vote for I-745.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 25, 2000.

to Jim Cusick: You write: "Aren't the unused areas of pavement the equivalent of an empty bus? In fact, it's on 24 hour standby availability. Is it really cost- effective to build a freeway lane whose function is to reduce the car count in the adjacent lane by 2100 vehicles per hour? Assuming six hours of congestion, then that lane would be handling 12,600 vehicles, (or approx 15,000) people per day. At that point, any parallel non-automotive system's performance should be measured against that criteria."

Jim, you are on the right trail. That is an excellent criterion for measuring the performance of a non-automotive system's performance.

However, I would point out that if we added a new lane to the existing freeway system, and charged people a fee to use the new lane, then the cost to the taxpayer may be quite minimal, if not profitable.

Therefore, your criterion is only relevant if the fares collected by the non-automotive system are comparable to the fares (i.e., gasoline tax and/or fees) collected from users of the roads.

The sad reality is that mass transit has inherent liabilities, limiting its ability to charge a fee high enough to cover its cost.

A parallel network of tolled roads could make society money, eventually eliminating all taxes. A non-automotive system requires massive taxpayer subsidies, especially if the system incurs high operating & maintenance costs during periods of low capacity. In other words, an empty bus is not the equivalent of an unused road. A road has a capital cost, but, when nobody is using it, there are very little additional costs. Not true for an empty bus tooling around town.

A potentially lucrative parallel network of tolled roads, or, a potentially taxpayer-bleeding non-automotive system, which would you choose?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 25, 2000.

the words air pollution do have meaning. We are in a non attainment area. Those words have meaning as well. Like it or not, we have to spend money on TDM because of this non attainment designation. If we don't we do get fined, period. The BRC does make several statements to commuting, you need to read the draft report again. You still haven't answered any of my other questions, how come?

Here's one other. What money are we going to use to pay for environmental costs of these new lanes, and how can you say that NMFS or Ecology will even let us build them, (see i 405 issues currently going on).

-- informed citizen #2 (ic2@ic2.net), October 25, 2000.

>>A parallel network of tolled roads could make society money, eventually eliminating all taxes.<<

This is a nice libertarian fantasy; it's also totally unrealistic. Whenever I hear people talking about building a parallel toll road network, my response is two words: Orange County. Orange County (California) recently built quite a few toll roads in an attempt to reduce congestion on free highways. Like Matt, they assumed that people would be willing to pay more to drive around congestion. Like Matt, they were wrong.

A charitable person would describe the roads as underperforming; a critical person would describe them as an unmitigated disaster having the potential to ruin the finances of the county. There are nowhere near as many drivers as expected, and the tolls paid are not coming anywhere near paying the costs of construction and maintenance. So far there's been more than one refinancing of the debt incurred by construction to try and put off payment. It's pretty much accepted that the roads will never be paid off by tolls, and eventually will have to be subsidized by taxpayers.

Based on Orange County's experience, why would anyone assume that a parallel network of tolled roads would be a success?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 25, 2000.

"Here's one other. What money are we going to use to pay for environmental costs of these new lanes, and how can you say that NMFS or Ecology will even let us build them, (see i 405 issues currently going on)."

As opposed to the news reports, NMFS never said new lanes couldn't be added to I-405. Their original concern was that of the 3 Alternatives currently being drafted, (excluding 'No-Action'), all of them had at least one lane of freeway being added. They asked that another alternative be added, one with no impervious surfaces (and a little HCT thrown in).

New lanes can be added to I-405 with the proper mitigation.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 25, 2000.

"However, I would point out that if we added a new lane to the existing freeway system, and charged people a fee to use the new lane, then the cost to the taxpayer may be quite minimal, if not profitable.

Therefore, your criterion is only relevant if the fares collected by the non-automotive system are comparable to the fares (i.e., gasoline tax and/or fees) collected from users of the roads.

The sad reality is that mass transit has inherent liabilities, limiting its ability to charge a fee high enough to cover its cost. "

Remember the Snoqualmie Pass discussion that went on a while back? Gas Tax is not really a user fee, since where it is collected (i.e. where you drive) is not really connected to where it is spent. In other words, a Transit Fare pays towards that route, but how do we know if those who benefit the most from a new road pay towards it. In fact, it's usually the taxpayers in the local community who contribute, along with other non-automotive taxes, such as what comes from local real estate taxes.

Just out of curiousity, could you define the 'inherent liabilities' of transit? It's true, when there are periods of low ridership for a bus route, then operating costs are higher per user. However, maintaining a road, while free to the user is not without cost, and when the cost of building the road is figured against the number of users, even if you assign their portion of the gas tax to that road segment (1.5 cents per mile), the percent of contribution by the rest of the taxpayers is roughly equivelent to the 'subsidy' percent of transit.

On a heavily used road, you can figure that in about 30 years, that road will effectively be completely repaved, so roads essentially have a 30 year lifespan.

Actually, to make a true comparison, ALL roads should be toll roads. Then the economics of Mass Transit would be more obvious, since even airlines charge more for a first class seat than for coach.

There you go, give the roads to the trucking companies. Let them build and maintain them, just as railroads do with their right of way. Then they could both compete for our dollars!!!

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 25, 2000.

"More than 4 million passengers in first year of ST Express bus service,"
And at $5.90 a head subsidy each way (plus the cost of building and maintaining the park n rides), why wouldn't they ride. Try getting them to ride it paying the real costs, without subsidies from thise not using it.

"Sounder commuter rail surpasses ridership projections "
And in what world are you living. It is not only WAY behind where it was supposed to be in terms of operating trips, but those that they have running are not being filled even by their drastically revised (downward) projections. If you can bear having REALITY intrud on your dogma, you might do a little reading:
southcounty journal
Seatt le PI
Seattle Times


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 25, 2000.

Sound Transit only projected 416 riders per train with all stations and a full schedule.

Their low end estimate was for 12,500 boardings per day on 30 trains after the system was fully up and running. (18 in the south end, 12 in the north) 12,500 / 30 = 416.

With only 1/2 the stations available, they are at about 70% of what they were projecting per train for a fully operational system.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 25, 2000.

"If you can bear having REALITY intrud on your dogma, you might do a little reading:"

Did anyone else notice how Mark convieniently ignored the volumes of information in this thread about how building enough roads to solve our transportation nightmare is neither fiscally nor physically possible? I admit that it is off the original topic of his claim that not too many people ride the bus to work, but I assume by not claiming that 4 million people using just 9 routes isn't a lot of people, he's conceeding that argument.

Mark, try taking a little bit of your own advice and read some of the posts above. I'll freely admit that transit is an expensive part of trying to reduce congestion. But if you can't defend the argument that we can build our way out of this mess from the claim that it is both fiscally and physically impossible, then you're kind of peeing up a rope yourself aren't you?

-- Informed Citizen (IC@IC.com), October 25, 2000.

"Did anyone else notice how Mark convieniently ignored the volumes of information in this thread about how building enough roads to solve our transportation nightmare is neither fiscally nor physically possible? I admit that it is off the original topic of his claim that not too many people ride the bus to work, but I assume by not claiming that 4 million people using just 9 routes isn't a lot of people, he's conceeding that argument. "

By not going after every bogus argument you make to get this thread off track, you would claim that I forfeit the argument? Bulls**t again, my friend! That's not volumes of information, it's piles of dogma, and I choose not to step in them.

"Mark, try taking a little bit of your own advice and read some of the posts above. I'll freely admit that transit is an expensive part of trying to reduce congestion. But if you can't defend the argument that we can build our way out of this mess from the claim that it is both fiscally and physically impossible, then you're kind of peeing up a rope "

Go piss up your own rope. You want an off the subject example to contradict your dogma? Here's one for you: Washington Post Article
What does it show? The most expensive (and heavily subsidized) heavy rail transit system built in the last 30 years is becoming congested.

The problem is not that you can't build your way out of congestion, either with transit or with roads. The problem is that you can't add population density (remember Smartgrowth? Smartgrowth is about adding population density.) without adding transportation capability to support it. You idiots keep chanting this ridiculous "you can't build your way out of congestion" mantra, as if saying it would make it so.

If you are going to add population density you damn well better add transportation capacity. The only real issue is what's the most cost effective way to add that capacity, and I'll tell you, it damn sure ain't light rail.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 25, 2000.

To Informed Citizen: You write: "the words air pollution do have meaning. We are in a non attainment area. Those words have meaning as well. Like it or not, we have to spend money on TDM because of this non attainment designation. If we don't we do get fined, period. The BRC does make several statements to commuting, you need to read the draft report again. You still haven't answered any of my other questions, how come?"

I'm not sure what you're getting at in terms of non attainment. Why is light rail superior to HOV lanes in terms of non attainment? Are you simply advocating economic decline? Is that what you ultimatley seek as the means to non attainment.

As for the Blue Ribbon Commission's report, I've read it, and, as I recall, there were 64 recommendations, many of which contradicted each other. I was shocked and outraged at what I read, in most cases. The Blue Ribbon Commission seems hell bent on raising fees and taxes. This is unacceptable without approval from the voters.

As for answering your questions, I'm not sure, but I think your questions addressed two areas of concerns: 1) How are going to pay for new roads and; 2) How are we going to address environmental concerns.

With I-745, we are going to pay for roads with the money which used to be thrown away on empty buses, plus we will pay for roads the same way we pay for light rail. Turn the question around, how are we going to pay for light rail.

Again, I will present you two choices. Choice #1, you use the Sound Transit money to build light rail. Choice #2, you use the Sound Transit money to build a new bridge across Lake Washington. Which do you honestly think will offer a better rate of return to the taxpayer?

As for environmental mitigation, if the fee for using the new bridge takes into account the vehicle's age, weight, and fuel type, then you will give people some incentive to drive more environmentally friendly vehicles. As far as I can tell, vanpooling is the most cost-effective form of mass transit.

Screw Light Rail, Build HOV Lanes!!!

You also write: "...4 million people using just 9 routes...."

This is deliberately misleading. The number of people riding the Sound Transit buses is in the 5,000 to 10,000 range. Which, is the similar to the number of people using vanpools. Vanpooling requires subsidies of $500/yr. per passenger, whereas (according to Mark's figures), the Sound Transit buses require subsidies of $1500/yr per passenger. Of course, if a bus is only half full, instead of completely full, then the bus subsidy soars to close to $3000/yr.

Don't try to make 5,000 to 10,000 seem like 4 million. It undermines your credibility.

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

to BB: You write: "This is a nice libertarian fantasy; it's also totally unrealistic. Whenever I hear people talking about building a parallel toll road network, my response is two words: Orange County. Orange County (California) recently built quite a few toll roads in an attempt to reduce congestion on free highways. Like Matt, they assumed that people would be willing to pay more to drive around congestion. Like Matt, they were wrong."

I apologize. I shouldn't use the word, "toll". I recommend an annual fee (paid monthly). Citizens should NEVER be charged a fee based on the miles driven. But this is basically what Orange County is doing with toll roads. It's insulting and oppressive. No wonder their road system is a failure. When you join a health club, you pay a flat fee, every month. They don't adjust the fee based on how much you sweat.

Also, I never advocated borrowing money to pay for the new network of roads. I recommend the government build the network with surplus funds. I also recommend starting with projects which will have a high demand (i.e., a new bridge across Lake Washington).

Finally, if you took the time to carefully read what I post, then you would see that I recommend converting the HOV lanes into a fee-for-use system. Then, we could find out with real-life data how much people are willing to pay. Furthermore, I recommend the fee be based on the vehicle's age, weight, and fuel type (it's time to get diesel vehicles off the road).

Imagine if someone living in Tacoma, by paying an annual fee, could commute to Bellevue in 45 minutes or less. And, by being able to go to Bellevue, they were able to increase their income significantly. I don't know about Orange County and the cost of housing vs. distance from high paying jobs. But, here in the Puget Sound, the closer you are to the high paying jobs, the more you have to pay for a similarly sized home with comparable schools.

Let's try out the concept of charging a fee for use of the HOV lanes and see what happens.

But, I do agree with you, if society borrows money to pay for toll roads, then there is definitely risk. Therefore, all assumptions for such an endeavor should be on the conservative side, and, of course, the voters should have the final say.

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

to Jim Cusick: You write: "Just out of curiousity, could you define the 'inherent liabilities' of transit? It's true, when there are periods of low ridership for a bus route, then operating costs are higher per user. However, maintaining a road, while free to the user is not without cost, and when the cost of building the road is figured against the number of users, even if you assign their portion of the gas tax to that road segment (1.5 cents per mile), the percent of contribution by the rest of the taxpayers is roughly equivalent to the 'subsidy' percent of transit."

Transit has many inherent liabilities. I will admit, for me anyway, that rail is superior to buses, but, it too has inherent liabilities. First, the problems with buses. Buses, expecially the articulated buses, are quite uncomfortable (almost nauseating, in fact). Second, buses offer no seat belts (not that this is really inherent to a bus), so there is a safety problem, which ultimately gives rise to a significant number of lawsuits when a bus is at fault in an accident. Third, waiting for a bus is a miserable experience, and, in some cases, you can be putting your personal security at risk. But, from my point of view, the biggest, inherent liability with buses is that you do not know who your fellow passengers will be. This is not a problem with vanpools. When I get on a bus, I don't know if the person sitting next to me is an escaped felon; a mental case; a wino; etc. This is an inherent liability of rail, as well.

As for your claim that roads receive taxpayer subsidies comparable to transit, this may or may not be true. The bottom line is there is no justification in a transit agency running empty buses. With the economy as strong as it is, we should convert the HOV lanes to a fee-for-use system and privatize bus routes. Communities like Seattle and Tacoma can also set aside lanes on their wider roadways as being part of the fee-for-use system. By privatizing bus routes, we will eliminate the condition of empty buses contributing to congestion on our roadways, as well as the spewing of toxic diesel exhaust.

You also write: "On a heavily used road, you can figure that in about 30 years, that road will effectively be completely repaved, so roads essentially have a 30 year lifespan."

I think you're being quite generous, but I agree that roads have a limited lifespan.

You also write: "Actually, to make a true comparison, ALL roads should be toll roads. Then the economics of Mass Transit would be more obvious, since even airlines charge more for a first class seat than for coach."

I'm against charging people a fee for miles driven. The fee should be for preferred access to a useful network of roads. Furthermore, the airlines' pricing schemes take into account how far in advance you're willing to purchase a ticket. So, I'm not sure your analogy is particularly useful. Also, a first class seat doesn't arrive at the destination significantly earlier than an economy seat. It's more about comfort than saving time.

You finally conclude: "There you go, give the roads to the trucking companies. Let them build and maintain them, just as railroads do with their right of way. Then they could both compete for our dollars!!!"

You analogy is faulty, since the railroads ALWAYS built and maintained their infrastructure. As a part owner (I am a taxpayer) of the roads, what compensation am I going to receive in return for the trucking companies getting ownership of our existing roadways?

Private ownership works best if there is competition. If different road segments are owned by different companies, then your scheme MIGHT work. I think the best approach is for the government to build a parallel network of roads, which would be auctioned off as a 5-year franchise. The investor(s) would then have to compete with the highly congested "free" network of roads.

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

>>Citizens should NEVER be charged a fee based on the miles driven.<<

Why? Seems to me that this is the fairest way (in a hypothetical dream world) to determine who pays for roads. You use them more, you pay more.

Why don't you find this fair?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), October 26, 2000.

">>Citizens should NEVER be charged a fee based on the miles driven.<< Why? Seems to me that this is the fairest way (in a hypothetical dream world) to determine who pays for roads. You use them more, you pay more.

Why don't you find this fair?"

I-695 made it apparent to me what makes it not fair. The way that CT cut a major portion of their budget was to eliminate weekend service. Now what used to be transit fares that increased farebox recovery now become 'contributions' via the gas tax to the road system. (Also, the total VMT of the population goes up. This is then used as justification for the likes of I-745).

A VMT tax is like the Gas Tax.

Is there any other commodity tax that is used exculsively for creating a means to use more of that commodity?

Road MAINTENANCE is a valid use of a VMT or Gas Tax, NOT for building NEW lanes/roads.

New lane/road projects should go through the same vote/public input process/taxing structure that any other major project goes through, with the same level of scrutiny as is given to any other project. These capacity increases should be bundled into a project that defines the costs and benefits on a system level, not piece-meal as has been historically done.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 26, 2000.

to BB: You write/ask: "Why? Seems to me that this is the fairest way (in a hypothetical dream world) to determine who pays for roads. You use them more, you pay more. Why don't you find this fair?"

I've already provided one example in terms of health club membership. You don't pay dues based on how much you sweat.

A similar example can be seen with the Internet. We don't pay fees based on how much we e-mail, or how long we've been logged on.

We don't charge people for how much "clean air" they breathe. Roads are necessary to our civilization. We cannot function without them. We can function just fine without light rail.

I am simply communicating what I believe are the consumers' preferences. You've already seen for yourself what an abysmal failure the Orange County approach is, and, that is what they are doing - charging people for miles driven. It doesn't work. Consumers don't like it!!!

In any case, the current gasoline tax is already charging people a fee based on miles driven. I personally would like to see the gasoline tax go away. With the huge government surpluses, this is now an achievable goal.

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

to Jim Cusick: You write: "A VMT tax is like the Gas Tax."

This is true. So why have a VMT tax? In the age of huge surpluses, I recommend eliminating the gas tax.

You also write: "Is there any other commodity tax that is used exculsively for creating a means to use more of that commodity?"

Don't know the answer to that. Not sure I care. I recommend eliminating the tax.

You also write: "Road MAINTENANCE is a valid use of a VMT or Gas Tax, NOT for building NEW lanes/roads."

Again, the tax should be eliminated. Roads are necessary to our existence. We have no choice, but to have roads. NON-COERCIVE FEES or are the best way to pay for roads. The next best choice is to use revenue from Federal income taxes.

You also write: "New lane/road projects should go through the same vote/public input process/taxing structure that any other major project goes through, with the same level of scrutiny as is given to any other project. These capacity increases should be bundled into a project that defines the costs and benefits on a system level, not piece-meal as has been historically done."

I certainly would have no objection to Regional Transportation Authorities, allowing the people directly affected by the projects and taxes to have more of a say.

As for taxes and fees, we already pay a gasoline tax, sales tax when we buy the car, sales tax on maintenance & repairs, etc. We also pay income tax to the Federal government. If we charged people a fee for using HOV lanes, perhaps we could eliminate the gasoline tax, permanently.

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

and if we charged people fees for giving us poorly written pieces of crap like 695,722 and 745 that will waste all of our time and money in courts just to be found unconstitutional we could solve our health care problems. Mark, you are not a transportation planner, simply someone who can read a biased report and have a chip on your shoulder about transit. Anyone can find research to back their claim. I can make a pretty convincing argument that Elvis is alive from recent reports. If you want the truth, contact any transportation planner at wsdot and they have to give you unbiased answers to your questions. Go to WSDOT.WA.GOV and click on planning to find someone to speak with.

-- noitall (noitall@no.net), October 27, 2000.

Matt,

Never take advice from a jerk who is afraid to identify himself. It almost sounds like one of those Bus Driver/Union Officers who are afraid of losing a job. The type who stands to lose ALOT if more people rideshare.....

I see that you have continually refined your opinions. Keep working on it. Someone who has already made their mind up will always attack your ideas, instead of rethinking their own. Notice how you're told YOUR ideas won't work, but they never seem to have a better one?

Like Craig said, "it's still the demographics." That IS where you need to focus, that's where the solution will be found.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), October 27, 2000.

"Roads are necessary to our existence. We have no choice, but to have roads."

There's the rub. What size and how many? Does a municipality have the right to say "we'd like to stop at 5 lanes for this arterial", or to say NO to having to designate more local roads as arterials? Do those who live on the outskirts of the more densly populated areas have the right to demand more real estate from those 'downstream', and to make them pay with local taxes and returned gas tax revenue?

Numerous municipalites have already said "No more". Seattle comes to mind as one. Hang out at your local council meetings. I have yet to hear someone say "PLEASE!! I beg you to widen the arterial I live on."

Everybody wants more and bigger roads, but not in THEIR neighborhood.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 27, 2000.

wsdot....unbiased thats a good one....transit planner....unbiased another good one...gee I work on planes....guess what my studies show....planes are the answer....weeeeee

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), October 27, 2000.