Why is Eyman out to get transit?

The easy answer is that he ISN
fT out to get transit, he
fs out to restore a little bit of balance in the way government funds transportation. The congestion problem is the result of two things. 1. The first is the SmartGrowth program whose goal is to increase the population density for the purpose of decreasing growth outside of the urban growth area. We can debate the wisdom of this, but the aim is to increase population in the urban area by "in-fill development." As the population per square area goes up, the congestion will go up, unless the per capita use of transit goes up disproportionately to the increase in population density. The latter IS NOT HAPPENING. By the benchmarks being followed, there is no significant increase in growth in transit use per capita since 1986. (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/ Indicator 42, page 134) If you back out of the benchmark figures the free rides being given in the downtown areas that weren
ft in the figures previously, King County is like most urban areas, a significant LOSS of market share for transit, despite higher population density and more congestion. 2. The second thing is a systematic underfunding of capital funds for roads, with transfer of these resources to transit. Take a look at the King County six-year capital budget for this year, for example. http://www.metrokc.gov/budget/budget99/adopted/#capital Despite the FACT clearly shown in the benchmarking above that transit only accounts for about 5% of commuter travel (and about 2% of passenger miles in the County), the Roads CIP totals $298 million for the 1999-2004 six-year period, including a 1999 new appropriation of $59.1 million. (C-13) while the 1999-2004 Public Transportation (Transit) Fund Capital Improvement Program totals approximately $928 million dollars. (Pages C-15-16) Despite 98% of the miles and 95% of the commuting being done by roads, three times the capital money is being dedicated to transit that is dedicated to the roads on which everyone (including the 30 ton transit buses) run. And this doesn
ft count Sound Transit capital costs. And this doesn
ft count the $200 million a year operating expenses for Metro.

I am not personally against transit, but it, like most things, has a niche where it is cost-effective, and in King County it has been pushed WAY beyond that niche. Sound Transit, in particular, pushes transit far beyond the point of diminishing returns. For several weeks I have issued a challenge to just explain the cost effectiveness of the Tacoma portion of Link. The most recent thread detailing this is at: http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=0022GM The point is to find one transit advocate who can give a satisfactory explanation as to why we should pay $65 million to replace one bus run, on an L-shaped route of total distance of 1.6 miles. I
fve issued this challenge several times and the closest anyone has ever come to saying that it made sense was a very qualified well, if it can someday, somehow, hook up to the rest of the Link, or be extended, or But those things are real unlikely. It is over 20 miles (as the crow flies) from the south terminus of LINK, Sea Tac. From downtown Tacoma, it really can
ft go directly South, the topography (hills) exceeds what you can do with light rail, at least not without a considerable amount of expensive tunneling. Besides, if LINK doesn
ft founder altogether, the plan is to expand the main track NORTH, not South, And given that light rail moves at the outstanding speed of 14mph, it would take an hour and a half to get from Tacoma to Sea-Tac, three hours to get to the UW, what would be the demand for slow transit. It
fs inferior to the bus service already available from the Tacoma Dome station.

Now the truly terrible thing about this 1.6 mile long $65 million dollar boondoggle that no one on this site has been willing to defend is this: Ridiculous as Tacoma-Link is, IT IS THE MOST COST-EFFECTIVE PART OF LINK. The per mile cost of Link-T is a "mere" $40.6 million per mile. The REST of Link averages $100 million per mile, two and one-half times the rate of the Tacoma segment that no one has been willing to defend. The US DOT studies indicate that people will walk approximately a quarter mile to and from a transit pick-up/drop-off location. With five sites spread over 1.6 miles, Link-T MIGHT ACTUALLY REPLACE the one bus route. With 20 stations (if more aren
ft eliminated due to running over budget) over 20 miles, the main LINK won
ft even be able to replace the bus lines that now run where the LINK is to be built. It will require that the current runs be kept in place simply to transport existing transit customers to the station. They get to wait to be picked up by the bus to be taken to the Link station where they can wait for Link. US DOT has numerous studies (http://www.bts.gov/tmip/papers/mode/transfer/ch5.htm for example) that show the tendency of people to use transit goes down sharply with the number of mode transfers. Basically, it
fs hard to get people to take transit if they are going to have to transfer. Not only does the transfer increase the total trip time, which tends to run longer than competing modes with transfer anyway, but also the customer
fs perception of the time spent in the transfer is even greater than the reality (which is bad enough). Unlike their Tacoma counterparts, for most of the bus riders in King County, their trip time will actually be considerably greater after Link is in place, than before. At least in Tacoma, Link won
ft slow the system down.

So you see, the issue here is not pro or anti transit. I
fm pro-transit, when it makes sense. But transit in King County has been pushed well past the point where it made sense either economically or logistically. It now makes sense only in terms of a pay-off for special interest groups. Link is even worse. It will hurt current transit users. It makes sense ONLY as a big public works project to bring $2 billion in tax money to contractors and unions. But in the meantime, capital funds that could do something about the congestion problem get poured into this boondoggle. It was turned down by the voters numerous times, and succeeded ONLY after road infrastructure was systematically underfunded for several decades to over-fund transit. The new initiative proposal attem

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 20, 1999

Answers

Came across an interesting site in my web-surfing. Thought I might share.

http://www.rppi.org/ps245.html#Heading1

The Congestion-Relief Myth The Myth: We cant build our way out of congestion through highway construction. Instead, we can mitigate highway congestion by diverting more highway funds into mass transit. The Reality: Transits effect on highway congestion is insignificant in most American cities. Of the many things that can be done to reduce congestion, expanding transit capacity is one of the least effective. The Congestion Myth is based on the observation that new urban highways quickly fill up with cars. Economist Anthony Downs explains this by saying that most urban areas have a "latent" demand for transportation. When new capacity is opened, that latent demand quickly turns into real demand. Many cities have concluded that if they can't build enough highways to keep up with demand, they should stop trying. Instead, they are funneling transportation dollars into rail transit. This is the same as if Ford decided to make Edsels instead of Tauruses because Tauruses sell so fast. If Downs's theory of latent demand is correct, then transit can't reduce congestion any better than highways. Any cars taken off the road by new transit services will simply be replaced by other cars. But the premise that we can't keep up with congestion--and therefore shouldn't try--is absurd in the first place. The cities with the worst congestion tend to be the cities with the fewest miles of freeway. The average American urban area has 114 miles of freeway per million residents. At just 53 miles per million, Los Angeles has the fewest freeway miles per capita of any major U.S. urban area. This goes far toward explaining why Los Angeles is also one of the most-congested urban areas in the nation. The Texas Transportation Institute's annual survey of urban congestion shows the fastest-rising levels of congestion in cities such as Portland, Oregon, which has installed no major new highway capacity in over a decade. Meanwhile, cities such as Phoenix and Houston, which are building roads to keep up with urban growth, enjoy reduced levels of congestion. Can transit substitute for new roads as a way of reducing congestion? Outside of a handful of urban areas, the answer is no. In 1990, New York City was the only U.S. urban area where transit carried more than 14 percent of commuters. Transit carried more than 10 percent of commuters in just four more urban areas--Washington, D.C., Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia. And it carried more than 5 percent in just 11 other areas. The average transit usage in all other U.S. urban areas was 2.2 percent.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), December 20, 1999.

It does appear that Tim Eyman is out to get transit. Why? I'm not so sure. The voters voted for Sound Transit, consistent with the principles of I-695. What right do the voters in Spokane and Vancouver have to dictate how folks in the Puget Sound spend their transportation dollars? Tim Eyman's transportation initiative makes no sense. It takes local control away, and gives even more power to an incompetent DOT. Why?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), December 21, 1999.

It doesn't give squat to DOT. It takes control out of the hands of the social engineers, and gives it back to the people.

A majority of people voted against light-rail proposals repeatedly going all the way back to the Forward Thrust initiatives of the early 60s. None of these decisions of the people were accepted as final by the social engineers. It finally won when people voted for it in desperation because it was the only game in town. There's a new game in town now. If there's only one name to vote for on the ballot (didn't the USSR used to work that way) that isn't an election. It's confirming the anointed.

And it's time voters had a clear choice between the philosophy of social engineering that TELLS voters what they must do and the philosophy that government should SERVE the voters.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

Is the new soundbite of the month going to be "social engineering"???? Only if it fits your agenda, it seems.

For example, providing alternatives to the car is called "social engineering" by the Eymanites. However, in the same breath, the Eymanites want to eliminate transportation choices, effectively forcing more people to drive. And this isn't "social engineering?" Give me a break!

-- Curious (aaa@bbb.ccc), December 21, 1999.

Warning: Don't get too riled, since this is just speculation.

With Eyman's latest initiative aimed at directing funds to solve traffic problems...

Most of the people posting messages here seem to prefer reducing ferry and transit subsidies and prefer more funding be directed to highway construction. So adding additional highways and bridges to link the Puget Sound area sounds like the preferred solution.

So, to improve the link to and from the Olympic Peninsula, should there be an additional 8 lanes be added with a bridge built from Gig Harbor-to-Vashon and another bridge from Vashon-to-Seattle? And maybe another bridge across the sound connecting Bainbridge-to-Mukilteo to take care of the North end commuters. Now those people can commute like the rest of us.

To handle the North-South commuters, doubling the capacity of I-5 through the Seattle area should take care of things. Additional roadway could be built on to of the existing roadway in some areas. In other areas, it would probably need to be built along side displacing existing homes and businesses. Of course, you could dig down and build under the existing roadway, which is a more expensive option, but it looks much nicer.

There are also some North-South commuters that need to by-pass Seattle completely. So some similar projects need to happen with I-405 and Highway 167 all along the eastern side of Lake Washington and down through Tacoma. Maybe highway 167 could be extended to by-pass downtown Tacoma.

Of course, to handle the East-West commute, the 520 bridge really needs another 4 lanes each way. And I-90 could use a couple more lanes. In these cases, it doesn't seem reasonable to build on top of the existing floating bridges, so we probably will have to displace some homes and businesses to build along side the existing roadway.

That should solve the traffic problems in Western Washington. And Western Washington residents should thank Eastern Washington residents who will help foot the bill.

-- Gene (Gene@gene.com), December 21, 1999.

If making government more accountable for wasteful spending is social engineering, then guilty as charged.

However, your assertion that the Eymanites want to eliminate transportation choices, effectively forcing more people to drive, is incorrect. I saw nothing that would eliminate busses, ferries or carpooling/vanpooling. Those are a few transportation choices, are they not? The choices are also in need of better roads and freeways, as is the freight industry. Things have become unbalanced, and "Eymanites" are just trying to set things right. You have a problem with citizens who disagree with government policies?

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION The use of public transportation for the journey to work has declined consistently over the past several decades. According to Census data, the transit share declined from 12.6 percent in 1960 to 5.3 percent in 1990. Even more significant is the fact that the absolute number of commuters using transit also declined from over 7.8 million workers in 1960 to nearly 6.1 million workers in 1990. This occurred despite a 39 percent increase in population and a 78 percent increase in the total number of workers over the same time period. From a strict policy perspective, it is reasonable to question whether continued investment and support of public transportation is an appropriate and effective use of public funds. This policy question is acknowledged and considered by many in the literature. Development patterns that exist in America today are not conducive to wide-spread transit use. For this reason, it is important to have a clear and thorough understanding of specific market segments that are most inclined to use transit.

http://www.bts.gov/ntl/DOCS/CAUS.html

And it hasn't gotten any better since 1990 according to the 1997 National Transportation Survey. My guess is that not only the market share, but the total number of commuters using transit will be down agian at the 1999 census, despite billions spent annually in transit subsidies. King County Metro alone burns about $300 million a year, recovering only about 20% from farebox revenue.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 21, 1999.

Oops- 2000 census. That's a hard number to get used to. Say it ten times and it's yours, 2000,2000,2000,2000,2000,2000,2000,2000,2000,2000, ....well maybe.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 21, 1999.

I really wish you "eyemanites" would stop using that rediculous "social engineering" phrase. It's so overused and not the intention of the DOT. The state wants to solve the traffic problem by offering alternatives to our overburdened system that isn't working. No matter how much you think new or more roads is going to solve the problem the more time you waste and the more stupid you look.

-- (laughing@eyman.com), December 21, 1999.

I wish you "social engineers" would stop using the term "eymanites" It is so over used and not the intention of Tim Eyman at all. Tim wants to solve the traffic problem by offering alternatives to our overfed transit system that isn't working. No matter how much you think new choo-choo trains are going to solve the problem the more money you waste and the more stupid you look.

Sorry, Zowie, wasn't trying to steal a technique, but this one was ripe.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), December 21, 1999.