well I didn't think it would happen in my life time...but is it enough?

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), January 19, 2001

Answers

It has been in the works since I-695, so it should not have been such a surprise.

What are you feelings about FREE Bus service instead of Sound Transit's light rail?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 19, 2001.

to Questioning: What are YOUR feelings about free bus service (and paying vanpool drivers $4000/yr.) instead of light rail?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 20, 2001.

I would support bus service for free, even paying for those extra bus drivers.....just privatize the ferry service. Use the savings to set up one of those interest bearing accounts....for half what they want to blow on light rail might go along way...:). Whats really sad ...did you hear Cynthia Sullivans comment about the proposed free bus service? Something to the effect of " if anybody can ride the bus, some people might not ride the bus because of the kind of people who might be on them"...something like that...Woohoo don't want to sit next to the " unwashed " do we, get back in the lexus, acura, bmw, mercedes....

-- no chance (kingoffools_99@yahoo.com), January 20, 2001.

"What are you feelings about FREE Bus service instead of Sound Transit's light rail? "

How about all riders paying their own way on all "public" transportation, without subsidy except on the basis of need? We're talking 100% farebox recovery here. Why should some poor family pay increased sales or other taxes so that rich people can ride transit for nothing?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 20, 2001.

>>What are you feelings about FREE Bus service instead of Sound Transit's light rail? <<

Same as I feel about the FREE Roads.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 20, 2001.

>>What are you feelings about FREE Bus service instead of Sound Transit's light rail?<<

Talk about a moot discussion! (But that's what this forum is for, isn't it?)

I do not believe that FREE bus service would have passed if Sound Transit had proposed it in lieu of the light rail plan. It would have met BIG opposition from the anti-subsidy supporters who have made their point clear in this forum.

Personally, I like the bus. I like FREE bus service even better. I also like light rail, ferry service, monorail, and ROADS. The problem that I have seen here is that many contributors to this forum have played one transportation option against the other. We need to recognize that each has its niche and none of them is the one and only transportation solution. If we do this, we might come up with a workable transportation plan for the region.

Sound Transit's light rail is far from being the final solution. A lot more is still needed.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 22, 2001.

My position has evolved over the last year. If a region of voters decide to provide bus service with no fares, to ease congestion, that's fine by me. As long as I am not paying taxes from this region to provide it.

For the record, fares aren't paid in the rural transit district I live in, and the cost of each ride is far higher than the average metro/sound transit ride. But this is what the voters here wanted, back when MVET was available. With funding cuts, we will lose most of the service, (yea!) or be asked to pay a higher tax. (nay!) So far, the option to charge a fare has not received real consideration. Should be interesting when it comes to a vote.....If it passes, we will pay for it here with our local taxes.

We now expect Ferry Riders to foot the bill for the Ferry System, and Hwy 16 (mostly Gig Harbor) users to pay for an existing and new Bridge. So it is only fair that the congested areas along the I-5 Corridor pay for some way to solve that congestion, in whatever manner they choose. I would say they deserve to be told what options they have, and not be lied to. If they expect help from the rest of the state to build light rail, I say no way. Good luck getting more federal dollars out of the Bush Administration, ;-)

I am in favor of regionalizing Transportation Planning, more local control and for projects to be paid for by that particular regions taxpayers. If that means I pay for a new highway.....oh well. I will travel it often enough.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 22, 2001.

to Questioning: You write: "Personally, I like the bus. I like FREE bus service even better. I also like light rail, ferry service, monorail, and ROADS."

You're evading the issue. Which do YOU believe is the more cost-effective solution: light-rail or free bus/vanpool services?

You also write: "We need to recognize that each [transportation option] has its niche and none of them is the one and only transportation solution. If we do this, we might come up with a workable transportation plan for the region."

That's all very well and good, Questioning, but when you have limited dollars to spend, or if you are performing rigorous cost benefit analysis, then people to need to identify where and when a particular transportation option makes sense.

So far, I still don't a HUGE advantage of light rail over a dedicated roadway facilitating buses, vanpools, and carpools.

If light rail were cheaper to build than roads, then I could at least attempt to delude myself that light rail is a cost-effective alternative. But, light rail is more expensive, and it doesn't accommodate ALL of society. Roads can be used by commuters, truckers, EMERGENCY VEHICLES, etc.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 24, 2001.

to Jim Cusick: Your feelings on free bus service is: "Same as I feel about the FREE Roads."

Oh, yes, I forgot that there is NO GASOLINE TAX. I forgot that we pay NO SALES TAXES on the sale of used cars. I forgot that we pay NO INCOME TAXES as a result of the increased economic activity due to roads.

How could I be so blind as to not realize that ROADS ARE FREE!!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 24, 2001.

to Marsha: You write: "We now expect Ferry Riders to foot the bill for the Ferry System, and Hwy 16 (mostly Gig Harbor) users to pay for an existing and new Bridge."

No, there is only talk of ferry riders paying a greater share, not 100% of the bill.

Do our fellow citizens really expect (or want) users to pay for an EXISTING bridge. This is a desire of the Department of Transportation and those who will profit from building the new bridge. I'm not sure my fellow citizens believe it is right to charge a toll, long after the debt is retired.

You then write: "So it is only fair that the congested areas along the I-5 Corridor pay for some way to solve that congestion, in whatever manner they choose."

No, this doesn't follow at all. The ferry riders do not have regional transportation authorities, allowing them to vote on sales taxes and/or special license tab fees as a means of keeping ferry rates low. The people of Gig Harbor certainly did not CHOOSE a privately run bridge as the MANNER TO SOLVE CONGESTION. So, no community should have any say in their transportation destiny, until similar rights are established for the people on the Peninsula.

You also write: "Good luck getting more federal dollars out of the Bush Administration."

Yeah, I mean it's not like the federal government will have TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN SURPLUSES, is it?

And, I agree with you when you write: "I am in favor of regionalizing Transportation Planning, more local control and for projects to be paid for by that particular regions taxpayers. If that means I pay for a new highway.....oh well. I will travel it often enough."

I couldn't agree with you more. I'd much rather pay a special license tab fee (which I can deduct on my income taxes) rather than higher tolls. But of course, I'll never be given the opportunity.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 24, 2001.

Matt,

>>> What do I believe is the more cost-effective solution: light-rail or free bus/van pool service? <<<

If only ONE transportation option could be funded, then I would pick ROADS. If it were a CHOICE between rail and buses, then it would be BUSES. But I believe that the best solution for the region is not one or the other, but a little bit of everything.

I agree with almost everything that you said. We need rigorous cost benefit analysis. People need to decide where and when a particular transportation option makes sense. Rail is probably more expensive to build than roads and doesn't accommodate ALL of societies needs. I also agree that more roads (GP & HOV) are needed.

What we don't agree upon is if light rail has a place in the overall transportation system. I believe that the importance of light rail will become more apparent as time progresses, but the longer we wait, the more expensive it will become. The regions transportation problems will not be solved by picking one option over another. It will be solved by finding the best combination of options.

Now back to you... Do you really think that free express bus service will fly after all the discussion about raising user fees?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

"But I believe that the best solution for the region is not one or the other, but a little bit of everything. "

Let's see, a couple dozen Conestoga wagons, twenty stanley steamers, four Concorde's, 4-5 Clipper ships, 100 miles of stagecoach and buckboard trails..............

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 24, 2001.

to Questioning: You ask: "Now back to you... Do you really think that free express bus service will fly after all the discussion about raising user fees?"

No, I've already posted my opinion that the Ride Free program will not prove to be cost effective.

The most, cost-effective solution is to convert the HOV system into a fee-for-use system, with no exceptions. There's no reason why EACH of the people in my vanpool can't afford to pay $10 more per month in exchange for a less congested commute. Similarly, the riders of a Sound Transit express bus can pay $25 more per month. If they're not willing to pay, they can still commute via the more congested routes.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 25, 2001.