I've been reading all the threads on I-711 and am amazed that all the attention is devoted to the pros and cons of mass transit (which appears to constitute 10% of DOT expenditures - assuming passage of the initiative.) Does anyone have any idea (or even a clue) of what the other 90% is going to pave and where it can be done? Is there even a plan? The silence on size, cost, routing, construction impacts, potential traffic effectiveness, project time, etc. on highway construction is deafening. If everyone is so concerned about where their money is going, they might want to check out the bigger wallet hit as well!

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 22, 2000

Answers

There are a number of ways to check where your money is going transportation wise.

The Transportation Improvement Board released its project list last month. You can find it here http://www.tib.wa.gov/newspubs/FY2001/ FY2001selected.htm

You can also find out about various projects from the state DOT by looking at the various regions on their website http:// www.wsdot.wa.gov/

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

Patrick, Thank you for the website information. Both sites are very informative. I sincerely appreciate your input.

However, I still feel my real question remains unanswered. I will try to rephrase it. Given the hypothetical that I-711 passes, DOT has no plan to deal with it's impact. And initiative supporters have offered nothing as well. If the RTA (Sound Transit) is to be abandoned in favor of a bare bones bus system, it is very unlikely that opening HOV lanes will have anymore than a short term positive impact to either the I-5, I-405 or two eastbound corridors. (It will have no positive impact from Des Moines thru Pierce County where there are no HOV lanes.) Meanwhile population growth projections for the Puget Sound Basin range from 25 to 30% by 2025.

Is is both disenguous and shortsighted to say that opening HOV lanes will relieve pressure on traffic until we can build more roads. The I-5 corridor wasn't completed until around 1970. Now 30 years later it is obselete in terms of traffic movement - I-405 in even far less time. Both took approximately 10 years of design and construction time to complete (and have since undergone additional modifications.) Now we are led to believe that all problems will be solved by some amorphous promise that spending the bulk of our money on road construction will solve all our woes.

So I ask again what is the size, cost, routing, construction impacts, potential traffic effectiveness, project time, etc. for all this highway construction. It's so amazing that we'll argue down the dime the cost and impacts of mass transit, but when it comes to spending for future freeways we don't even need a plan.

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 22, 2000.

"Is is both disenguous and shortsighted to say that opening HOV lanes will relieve pressure on traffic until we can build more roads. The I- 5 corridor wasn't completed until around 1970. Now 30 years later it is obselete in terms of traffic movement - I-405 in even far less time. Both took approximately 10 years of design and construction time to complete (and have since undergone additional modifications.) Now we are led to believe that all problems will be solved by some amorphous promise that spending the bulk of our money on road construction will solve all our woes.

So I ask again what is the size, cost, routing, construction impacts, potential traffic effectiveness, project time, etc. for all this highway construction. It's so amazing that we'll argue down the dime the cost and impacts of mass transit, but when it comes to spending for future freeways we don't even need a plan. " When making assessments of which way to cast your vote, you oftentimes wind up taking the lesser of two evils. If you look at where the DOT was taking us, pre-695, you note that they never had much of a plan either. They had a fanciful notion that they could make intercity passenger rail work, and were willing to put up to $1.2 billion of your money into passenger rail between Oregon and BC that, even if it had worked, would have served only a relative handful of cities for a small fraction of their transportation needs. They were willing to keep subsidizing ferries to undermine the Growth Management Act, while apparently hoping that the Growth Management Act would do SOMETHING, they never were quite sure just what, about the traffic congestion. It became obvious that THEY didn't have a plan, and the voters voted for initally prop 49, and later for 695.

But you are right. They've screwed up for 30 years, and it's going to get worse before it gets better, no matter what we do.

But show me any plan that DOT had that could have supplied the capacity to do the job, even before 695. Most of what few plans they did have depended upon funding from someone NOT PARTICIPATING IN THE PLAN. If passenger only ferries really were able to eliminate the need to have a personal vehicle, THEY ELIMINATED THEIR OWN FUNDING SOURCE WHICH WAS MVET. Transit is heavily subsidized BY GAS TAXES THAT ARE ONLY GENERATED IF YOU DON'T USE TRANSIT FOR THAT TRIP.

So it is not just the pro 711 forces that, don't have a plan, DOT hasn't had a viable plan for thirty years. They've had wishful thinking and nurturing of constituencies that'll help them maintain their empire, but no other plan.

Since the situation is going to get worse before it gets better anyway (that is inevitable. Nothing will reverse the three decades of neglect in the next 5-6 years.) We might as well get back on the right track. What 711 does is hold hostage the things that the bureaucrats value because they can buy consituencies (transit and ferries) and force them to do the things that work (roads). Yeah, it's kind of crude, politics is like that sometimes. Bureaucracies are like that always. But it will work if we stay the course, and if you look at the projections prior to 695, we were (are) headed for gridlock if we don't change how DOT is doing business.

If YOU have a better plan, don't hold back. We'll be glad to read your post. But the DOT didn't (and doesn't) have a better plan.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 22, 2000.

Welcome to the forum. You must be new here, or you would have posed your question differently. "Subject: Why is the discussion only mass transit?"

There has been some discussion of projects and costs in the past. Sorry you missed it. One example is the thread titled "Is it time to build I-605?

http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002SQg

All old threads can be found if you want further forum reading in the uncategorized section at the bottom of the new questions page.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 22, 2000.

The DOT has an office dedicated to figuring out future transportation needs in the state. You can find all sorts of stuff there to draw your own conclusions about whether the DOT is planning for the future. You might want to pay special attention to the section labeled "Our Products." Here's the link http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ppsc/planning/trends.htm

The DOT does all of its large scale planning on a six year cycle, which allows for the design, acquisition, and construction of projects. Beyond that, they also develop 20 year plans that point in a general direction.

One of the more common complaints I hear (not necessarily on this board) is that the DOT never builds anything with future capacity in mind. The problem is that building for future capacity adds more costs to the projects, and then people complain about how much money was "wasted" on something that makes it look like now there isn't any traffic.

"If passenger only ferries really were able to eliminate the need to have a personal vehicle, THEY ELIMINATED THEIR OWN FUNDING SOURCE WHICH WAS MVET."

This doesn't exactly make much sense. No matter what new capital project it is, odds are you aren't going to be able to generate initial funding for the project using a funding source related to that project. It's the entire chicken/egg question. How can you fund the startup costs for a passenger ferry service with passenger ferry funds if the service doesn't exist yet? Besides, the goal of the passenger only ferries IS NOT to totally eliminate the need for personal vehicles, it is to eliminate the need to have them cross the Sound and add to congestion.

"Transit is heavily subsidized BY GAS TAXES THAT ARE ONLY GENERATED IF YOU DON'T USE TRANSIT FOR THAT TRIP."

Come again? Transit districts (before 695) were funded by three sources: farebox revenue, local option sales tax, and the MVET. Amendment 18 to the state constitution specifically restricts gas tax revenue to road construction/maintenance/safety and for ferry operation. Gas tax revenue DOES NOT subsidize transit.

As a side note, Article 40 of the state constitution makes the following statement about ferries in reference to why they can receive gas tax revenue: "operation of ferries which are a part of any public highway, county road, or city street." For those of you rooting for I-711 to make the funding for the ferry system fight for the other 10% of non-road construction money, it ain't gonna happen that way. Since ferries are specifically mentioned as part of the highway system in this state, they would be part of that 90% of the total transportation funding. Perhaps if Tim had bothered to read the constitution he would have included a provision including ferries on the 10% side. Oh well, I guess ignorance really doesn't pay.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

""Transit is heavily subsidized BY GAS TAXES THAT ARE ONLY GENERATED IF YOU DON'T USE TRANSIT FOR THAT TRIP."

Come again? Transit districts (before 695) were funded by three sources: farebox revenue, local option sales tax, and the MVET. Amendment 18 to the state constitution specifically restricts gas tax revenue to road construction/maintenance/safety and for ferry operation. Gas tax revenue DOES NOT subsidize transit. " I beg your pardon! Transit travels on ROADS that ARE built and maintained with gas taxes. Absent these roads, you don't have transit, you have a parking lot. The fact that a court decided that ferries were roads, does not make them roads, and to the exttent that they decrease vehicle miles travelled, they decrease their own revenue source.

"This doesn't exactly make much sense. No matter what new capital project it is, odds are you aren't going to be able to generate initial funding for the project using a funding source related to that project. It's the entire chicken/egg question. How can you fund the startup costs for a passenger ferry service with passenger ferry funds if the service doesn't exist yet? Besides, the goal of the passenger only ferries IS NOT to totally eliminate the need for personal vehicles, it is to eliminate the need to have them cross the Sound and add to congestion. " so sell bonds. But more seriously, you certainly can run paasenger ferries with user fees. And to the extent they eliminate the need for autos (and that's the desire of the combined transit and ferry passes, to eliminate the need for autos) they certainly did bite the hand that fed them, even before 695. Transit and ferry funding has always been a negative feedback loop to the extent it is subsidized by non-users. Were the non-users to use it, they would increase operating costs without a commensurate increase (and frequently with a DECREASE in revenue to sustain their operations). Anything not funded with USER FEES is pretty precarious.

"One of the more common complaints I hear (not necessarily on this board) is that the DOT never builds anything with future capacity in mind. The problem is that building for future capacity adds more costs to the projects, and then people complain about how much money was "wasted" on something that makes it look like now there isn't any traffic. " Nobody complained about this through the 50s and 60s and they haven't built substantial excess capacity in anything since the 70s. When would this have ever come up?

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 22, 2000.

"Transit travels on ROADS that ARE built and maintained with gas taxes."

And of course what do most buses run on? According to some of your past posts, they do a fairly good job using up gas at a good clip. Besides, where is it written in stone that the majority of road funding HAS to be paid for by gas taxes? Your entire theory rests on the idea that IF large chunks of the population were to move to transit, the government would do little or nothing to replace the lost revenue in gas taxes. That does seem to fly in the face of the prevailing opinion on this board that the government is always looking for new ways to raise revenue.

"The fact that a court decided that ferries were roads, does not make them roads"

That's right. But the fact that the state constitution says that ferries are roads DOES make them roads in the view of ANY state law. I never said anything about the court making that decision. The PEOPLE made that decision.

"Anything not funded with USER FEES is pretty precarious."

Like any service provided outside of the major Puget Sound region such as electricity, phones, and for that matter, roads? We've been through this before, and as you've said, the rural areas are subsidized in order to provide services to the urban areas. So how about transit? Where would all those businesses be (who collect the sales tax that supports transit) that rely on employees that earn such a low wage that they can't afford a car? Remove transit as an option for these people and they can no longer find dependable transportation to work. They can't get to work, and suddenly the businesses can't find people to fill the low wage jobs. They have to raise their wages to attract people who can afford their own transportation. With the increase in wages comes the associated increase in prices. So in the end, the money you saved in not subsidizing transit gets taken anyway in the form of higher prices.

"Nobody complained about this through the 50s and 60s"

It was sold as something needed for national defense. Part of that "throw money at anything that might stop the Reds" campaign during the early days of the Cold War. It was also heavily pushed by the Big 3 and tire companies who were also busy buying up and eliminating mass transit companies in a massive social engineering effort to get people out of the streetcars and into automobiles.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), February 22, 2000.

"Where would all those businesses be (who collect the sales tax that supports transit) that rely on employees that earn such a low wage that they can't afford a car? Remove transit as an option for these people and they can no longer find dependable transportation to work. They can't get to work, and suddenly the businesses can't find people to fill the low wage jobs. They have to raise their wages to attract people who can afford their own transportation. With the increase in wages comes the associated increase in prices. So in the end, the money you saved in not subsidizing transit gets taken anyway in the form of higher prices."

This has been covered AD NAUSEUM. There is a small and constantly diminishing number of people that is transit dependent based upon economics. I have never griped about supporting them because, frankly, there aren't enough to really amount to much money. They certainly are not the ones we are building multi million dollar parking garages to attempt to attract into the transit pool. Basing maintenance of the current system (or God forbid, expansion) on service to these people is demagoguery of the worst kind. We can buy them a car for less than the price of buying them a parking garage stall. I have even more sympathy for the transit dependent due to physical disability, although they are probably best served by demand response services. But what we are really talking here is trying to get peoplewho are both economically able and physically capable of driving to use transit, because the existing services are more than adequate for the others.

"Nobody complained about this through the 50s and 60s" It was sold as something needed for national defense. Part of that "throw money at anything that might stop the Reds" campaign during the early days of the Cold War. It was also heavily pushed by the Big 3 and tire companies who were also busy buying up and eliminating mass transit companies in a massive social engineering effort to get people out of the streetcars and into automobiles."

Do ou have some FACTS to support this, or is this all paranoid ideation. Can you document a tire company conspiracy to get rid of trolleys? What would they have against buses, seems to me many buses have tires as well?

Seems to me you are making up a Red scare of your own here Patrick.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 22, 2000.

to Craig: I kind of recall a story where a trolley line was dismantled in favor buses. This supposedly occurred in New Orleans. Unfortunately, the buses run on diesel, covering many of the buildings along the former trolley line with a sooty film. Why were the trolleys abandoned for buses???

Now, New Orleans is attempting to bring back the former trolley line, as a smaller sample in the French Quarter has proven quite popular with the tourists. And, there is the added benefit of not having the darn soot from the diesel-powered buses.

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

Wow, I didn't think my thread would bring such a reaction from both sides. LOL. But's it's good to see that people are at least trying to formulate logical and thought out arguments to support their viewpoints. I had hoped to talk about a possible "plan" (as well as some fears) regarding future highway construction. But so much has been written since, I think I'll hold off for a future thread and hit a couple of the points discussed by Craig and Patrick. Sorry if this is a bit of a ramble, but I'm trying to touch on points the two of you discussed.

- I agree with Craig that DOT has been just about anything but far sighted in it's planning. In a sense they're a lot like the military in that they are slaves to too many bureaucratic masters and always a step behind in technology and planning. It's funny because right now there's nothing better out there. The private sector will never take over transportation management because there is too much capital risk and contractor's in particular would never relish the political hassles. If this weren't true then Flour Daniels, Becthel, Hochtiev, et al would be out there paving America as we speak. I personally would prefer to see public/private consortiums covering everything from planning and design through construction and then leaving maintenance to DOT. The private sector would be more time and results oriented, while the public side would keep contractors from paving Lake Washington. It's only recently that the State has begun to use the new CMGC (Construction Manager/General Contractor) where the contractor works alongside the designer instead of behind him. There have also been public/private consortiums for the projects themselves. While the results have been less than perfect, they do deserve discussion and study. (Excepting the Mariners stadium which was both a political and economic anomoly), this form of project management has shown benefits to all parties.

- I disagree though that light rail should be abandoned "as a social engineering project gone bad." All the arguments seem to be based on current conditions. No one is looking to the future. If ever there was a case for an area needing rail and bus, it's the sands of time squeezing through the narrowing geographic funnels of Seattle and Bellevue. The nuclear half lifes of I-5 and I-405 would seem to indicate that double decking would then require a third deck for I- 405 by 2025 and engineers would simply give up in Seattle. (Note that double decking in Seattle would require demolition of substantial portions of the current freeway along Capital and Beacon Hills just to meet seismic constraints. Also costs for the Seattle portion of construction could run as high as $80 to $100k per lineal foot - i.e $400-$500 MILLION per mile!) I know that there is some thought that a new Snoqualamie Valley I-605 would alleviate pressure, but the I- 205 bypass around Portland seems to prove otherwise. (Just try getting to and from Portland across the Columbia River I-5 bridge during rush hour.) The problem with the light rail as currently designed is actually what Craig has stated in previous posts - people want easy access with no more than one transfer. Northgate to the South 200th Park and Ride is a pretty limited vision. Unfortunately, if we'd have passed Forward Thrust in the 70's the issue would now more realistically be upgrading this system and extending it North, South and East. The design as it now stands is mostly warm and fuzzy - kind of like having a one mile long monorail. (Funding for my "dream" - LOL - is a different issue to be discussed later.)

- I for one am still confused about the votes For Prop 49 and then For I-695. Prop 49 specifically stated that highway funding was to come from MVET and then I-695 emptied the pot. A good example of this multiple personality voting is the new Narrows Bridge Project. The funding mechanism for the bridge itself is still in place (with the public/private consortium) but all the infrastucture (widening SR 16, revamping access ramps, etc.) have disappeared with MVETS bankrupting of Prop 49. All there is now is the pork barrel bickering of Democrats and Republicans alike for an ever shrinking piece of highway pie. I see lots of paving overlay projects and little else. The future postcards of the twin bridges will be pretty just so long as they don't show two lanes of cars backed up on 16 from Jackson Street to the Tacoma Dome! What scares me is this: did voters really know what they were voting for in either issue. They seem to have contradicted themselves. And we're all now voting on every cost issue in the state! Please note, I'm not questioning the validity or right to vote as one pleases but rather the dichotomy between the two votes.

- Trolleys: Patrick is partially right about the trolleys. The old Seattle Transit System is a good example. Originally the system was electric trolley cars on steel tracks. These ran East/West and tied the the North/South run of the Interurban Electric Train route (Tacoma/Seattle/Everett). The auto industry put some pretty heavy subsidies into convincing Seattle Transit to switch to rubber tired electric trolley buses. But even without the push, rubber tires would have prevailed simply because the newer buses were lighter, easier to maintain and it was a lot cheaper to set only new overhead wire when you wanted to extend or modify service routes. Then the auto industry pushed diesel buses over the electric with even more subsidies. The diesels could go to the suburbs without any capital outlay for overhead wire. Pretty simple actually. The auto industry probably only sped up the process with subsidies because it was in essence fait accompli. The Interurban Train died when the post war economics of the late forties and early fifties saw everyone buy a car for the first great migration to the suburbs. I last saw an interurban train run through the Duwammish cut (just north of what is now Southcenter) in 1954. At that time the Duwammish, Kent and Auburn Valleys were still almost entirely farmland. I was only 5 at the time but I still remember all the earthwork equipment slowly removing an entire hill where the south metro bus yard now stands. That hill and all the equipment digging at it were owned by an Italian family that later went on to own the Seattle Sounders Soccer team. The dirt from that hill is now the base of much of I-5 from SeaTac to downtown Seattle. Pardon the trivia and nostalgia, but for me that symbolizes the population shift from city to suburb and from transit to the automobile.

- Freeways: actually Patrick is right on this one. They were obviouyly built for public use and the transport of goods. But their additional purpose was as a national defense mechanism. We need to remember that America in the late forties and early fifties was a lot different than now. Eisenhower saw in Europe how Hitler had completely outwitted France and England prior to WWII with an incredible series of road building projects. Ostensibly they were to bring Germany out of a depression economy, But the reality was that you get a hell of a lot of military equipment down a four lane road in a very short time - particularly if the road is relatively smooth and straight. In the late 30's Roosevelt was pushing for the same thing, but the war effort put a delay to it. Truman restarted freeway projects in the late forties but with less impetus. With the onset of the Korean war, the growing "menace" of Communist China and the growing cold war with Russia, Eisenhower reinvigorated the process after realizing that less than 25% of the intended system was complete. Part of his concern was to put returning servicemen to work. But defense was also a huge issue. Projections were that the remaining 75% of the system would take 20 to 25 years to complete. Eisenhower wanted it done in ten and pushed for a 50-50 split of federal and state funding to speed up the process. There were all kinds of objections from every special interest group imaginable. But one of the things that pushed it through was a speech by then vice president Nixon (approved by Esienhower) warning of among other things "the dangers of catastrophe or war.." The speech was apparently electrifying and soon after the Federal Highway Aid Act of 1956 was passed. It seems kind of crazy to us now, but look at Europe as an example. In the sixties and seventies, NATO and the Russians had enough short range nukes to destroy one another 1000 times over, but they amassed thousands of tanks along the German borders. They still felt even then that no one would dare push the button. So they felt they could run their tanks up and down the German border. As late as the early seventies, American tanks were still conducting tank manuvers between Frankfurt and Munich in the right lane of the German autobahn. (I can attest to how chewed up the roads were! LOL) It sounds paranoid to us, but given two recent wars (WWII and Korea) it makes sense that a military guy like Eisenhower would see the freeway system as a defense asset.

- Oh well, sorry about the ramble. Thanks to both of you for your comments though. I look forward to continued discussion.

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 23, 2000.

Rudy-

"- I disagree though that light rail should be abandoned "as a social engineering project gone bad." All the arguments seem to be based on current conditions. " But it's more than just that, Rudy. You have a form of transport that goes 14mph. That's never going to handle more than local traffic needs, just from the time factor. UW to Sea- Tac alone would be an hour and a half, not counting boarding and de- boarding times at either end. Add in mode transfer (either park n ride or from a bus) and it just becomes too cumbersome. Besides, as repeatedly demonstrated the demographics are against it. They have great political pull as public works projects (look at Link-T, a $65 million amusement ride that will directly replace one bus route with one light rail line for a distance of 1.6 miles) but the demographics, speed and geometry (not to mention cost) keep them from moving the numbers needed to really provide substantial contributions to the transportation infrastructure, relative to what roads move.

"What scares me is this: did voters really know what they were voting for in either issue. They seem to have contradicted themselves. And we're all now voting on every cost issue in the state! Please note, I'm not questioning the validity or right to vote as one pleases but rather the dichotomy between the two votes. " What I believe you saw in both the prop 49 vote and the RTA vote was desperation. "Let's do SOMETHING, even if it's wrong." As congestion increases, people know intuitively that SOMETHING has to be done. I think in the I-695 vote you got a number of different issues. One was a very visible and commonly perceived to be unfair tax. Another was a growing irritatiion that government was getting bigger, but things weren't getting better. Another was that the legislature could find the resources to solve the problems of interest groups (including the Seahawks/Mariners) but not the bread and butter issues of the electorate. I think that the i-695 forces were a coalition of populists, anti-government people, people disgusted with DOT non-performance, and a not insignificant number of people who simply didn't want to pay the money. To imply that the state now lacks the money to pay for the needed services because i- 695 passed is erroneous. The state is rolling in surpluses. What's needed is the consensus to spend it on things that will be effective, as opposed to spending it to pay off various constituencies for past and future political support. That's a leadership problem, not a money problem.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 23, 2000.

to Rudy: You write: "The funding mechanism for the bridge itself is still in place (with the public/private consortium) but all the infrastucture (widening SR 16, revamping access ramps, etc.) have disappeared with MVETS bankrupting of Prop 49."

There was never a plan, even under Prop 49, to widen Hwy 16 to I-5. Furthermore, any widening of Hwy 16 would be to add a carpool lane. I vanpool fairly often, and I testified at a DOT hearing that a carpool lane was totally unnecessary, since we already have a carpool entrance to the bridge in the westbound direction. Did you know there is not a single non-stop express bus which goes from Gig Harbor to I-5?? So, why would we want to build a carpool lane. Most of the vanpools leave before 6 AM, when there is significantly less congestion on the bridge.

As for light rail, the only project that makes sense is a subway system like they have in D.C.

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

Mathew, We must be "approximate" neighbors! LOL I live on the "K Pen" as well! (Central Kitsap)

Your right about the HOV. But SR16 was scheduled for a two lane widening from Purdy to Union St. in Tacoma - as well as interchange improvements at I-5/SR 16 (Nalley Valley) - HOV or not. According to both the Bremerton Sun and WSDOTS own website, the WSDOT/UIW consortium only covers the new bridge itself. The other roadwork was covered by Referendum 49 and then killed by I-695. IMHO this road widening needs to be done or we're just changing bottle neck locations. As an example, the a.m. commute: Can you imagine 3 or 4 lanes of westbound bridge trafic serviced by two lanes at Gig Harbor and then funneling back down to two at the Jackson Street? 4 lanes to 6 to 4 seems a little weird. It will be a race across the bridge to see who's first to the SR16 backup on the Tacoma side. That should save about 1 or two minutes off the commute if the speed limit on the Narrows is changed from 50 to 60. LOL

I, like you, was impressed by DC's subway system. But it is pricey. I would prefer to see something similar to the relatively new Chicago electric (light, high speed) rail system going from Ohare Airport to the Loop. It starts as a subway at the airport, becomes ground rail in the middle of a freeway and changes to the El downtown (all in one line.) It was fast because it had high speed, air shock cars and fewer stops than the proposed Seattle RTA. I rode it in 1991 and as I recall, even with (short) stops, we were downtown in only 22 minutes. The best part was that we were going faster than the adjoining traffic on the freeway.

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 25, 2000.

Craig, This thread is getting pretty long. Maybe it's time to send it to the ether god before it becomes too cumbersome. But I did want to talk about a couple things in response to your last comments:

I'd have to agree that you're probably right. I-695 is a pretty loose "coalition" of people whose disenfranchisement is based on on a lot of differing and it would seem at times conflicting reasons. I don't for a moment doubt the message, but I am still uncomfortable with the communication. The problem seems to be that when we give the government a hatchet job message, they respond with a hatchet job response - Republicans and Democrats alike. Nothing really gets accomplished and so the people least able to defend against it are the most hurt by it. The first (and only) rule of communication is that a communication requires sending, receipt and response that assures understanding. We have none of that yet.

So everybody is quasi happy with $30 tabs, EXCEPT: as one example, Kitsap Transit has doubled it's fares and raised elderly passes 150%. So now the working poor pay approximately $500 more per year and the elderly and additional $180. I don't think they're too happy with reduced license tabs any more than they are with reduced service and the prospect that with immediately declining fare box revenues Kitsap Transit is considering another fare hike just to stay in existence.

So the new message to Olympia is "screw mass transit and give us back our HOV!" Another obscure message. Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon to highway hog heaven and Democrats are a trying to save every useless morsel of what they can salvage. Neither side gets it.

Craig, you hit the nail on the head. "The problem isn't the money, it's the leadership." But it's not just Locke and Morrison et al, it's also Clive Ballard et al. Mass transit vs. concrete. Wow, what a choice. How about a little of both instead and a reduction in the DOT. That would be my choice. I think that the voter's continuing angry message (I-711) is again being spoken and heard in different languages by people who are deaf. (Do you think I'm also becoming disenfranchised? LOLOL)

When Jesse Venture was elected governor, my first reaction was what a joke. But now I think at least he's not a bull shitter. I sure would prefer him to the initiative process. Someone needs to end all this madness. The HOV arguments (pro and con) aren't even a statewide issue. They don't even involve Pierce County. And placing mass transit aginst mass freeway is disengenuous at best and a future disaster at worst for the I-5/405 central corridor.

The saddest part of all is that the RTA rail is a poor and ineffective design. It probably guarantees the failure of any really good system whether 711 passes or fails. (We only seem to be able to vote on rapid transit every 30 years or so. By 2030, it will probably be too late to repair the damage of either a poor system or no system.)

This is depressing. :( Oh well, maybe that's why the thread should die. LOL I heard that there are some websites out there about restructuring DOT. So I'll look around a bit and cheer myself up. Time to start a new thread.

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 25, 2000.

Rudy,

A reduced fare monthly pass for Access is now $25 per month. For those who ride the service to work and back, 40 trips per month, it cost them .63 per trip. Still a good deal!

If an elderly passenger lives in Port Orchard and needs transportation to Bremerton for a medical appointment, (common trip) are you saying a $4.00 round trip fare is too high? The average unlinked trip operating cost was $14.03 in 1998 for an approximate total operating cost for both unlinked trips of $28.06. If this passenger also included a shopping trip to the Silverdale Mall on this day and bought a day pass for $5.00 they are still receiving a good value, as it then comes out to roughly $1.66 fare per trip. As the approximate operating cost per unlinked trip becomes $42.09 for the three unlinked trips. Since this approximate cost included a higher proportion of shorter trips than what my scenario includes, the actual cost would be much higher. Now if these fares seem too high to you, or to passengers, I would say it is because you have been conditioned (spoiled) to think that way. The amount of subsidy here is still quite high, and Kitsap Transit needs to work on getting the operating cost DOWN to keep the service available for all.

In addition, no Access passengers have lost service. Some in remote areas have seen a decrease in available travel times, that is all.

In addtion, I am interested in how you come by the information that Kitsap Transit is considering another fare increase? My sources tell me this is not true. A sales tax increase for passenger only ferry service will include an increase for bus operating expenses.

Forum participants are quite used to long threads.

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@hotmail.com), February 25, 2000.

Rudy-

I think we disagree immensely more than you think we do. That doesnt mean we cant be civil and learn from one another, but I just dont think you see the world with the same view that I do.

I'd have to agree that you're probably right. I-695 is a pretty loose "coalition" of people whose disenfranchisement is based on on a lot of differing and it would seem at times conflicting reasons. I don't for a moment doubt the message, but I am still uncomfortable with the communication. And I think that this is a good thing. Oftentimes things dont really get fixed because people really are reluctant to admit that theres a problem. IN RETROSPECT (and even as the vote on I-695 approached) our political leadership fell all over themselves to communicate that the MVET was really screwed up, and they should have fixed it years ago. The fact that these same politicians had been in office for decades and enjoyed milking the MVET for all it was worth, notwithstanding. Sometimes a kick in the butt can be effective communication.

The problem seems to be that when we give the government a hatchet job message, they respond with a hatchet job response - Republicans and Democrats alike. So vote the ba****ds out. They are PUBLIC SERVANTS, not an aristocracy. This is the system weve chosen. It requires citizen involvement. Its hardly like they are asking us to storm the beaches at Normandy or Imo Jima or anything. Educate yourself, be involved, hold them accountable. If we dont, Democracy will noit work and will ultimately be replaced by something else.

Nothing really gets accomplished and so the people least able to defend against it are the most hurt by it. The first (and only) rule of communication is that a communication requires sending, receipt and response that assures understanding. We have none of that yet. I couldnt disagree more. The first rule of communication is that you get the other persons ATTENTION. I-695 accomplished that admirably. Now weve got to keep their attention and communicate the messages. If the response of the elected leadership is to go after those who are the most unfortunate, that is little more than extortion on their part. Sort of like the old Cal Worthington commercials, that said buy a car from me or Ill kill this puppy, except he did it tongue-in-cheek. If the response of the politicians is to go out and kill the puppy rather than turning to privatization, contracting-out, or simply drawdowns that are targeted to SPARE rather than maximally impact the poor, thats THEIR shame, not mine. Im not going to give in to this sort of blackmail, but I will do everything possible to turn out of office the shysters who do it. But Im not going to buy a car from Cal Worthington simply to keep him from killing puppies, no matter how much I like puppies. In fact, if he really did kill puppies, I wouldnt ever buy from him at all. Of course, being in the private market, he knew that. Time for the politicians to learn that there are consequences of attempted extortion.

So everybody is quasi happy with $30 tabs, EXCEPT: as one example, Kitsap Transit has doubled it's fares and raised elderly passes 150%. So now the working poor pay approximately $500 more per year and the elderly and additional $180. So this was a CHOICE of the politicians. Since they were only covering about 15% of costs from farebox revenue, they CHOSE to make the poor and elderly pay more so they could continue to subsidize the non-poor and elderly with below market fares for the services provided. They could have CHOSEN to keep the fares the same for anyone over 65 or meeting certain economic criteria. They instead opted to keep the commuter/park n ride crowd. Your gripe is with Kitsap Transit, not with the people who passed I-695.

I don't think they're too happy with reduced license tabs any more than they are with reduced service and the prospect that with immediately declining fare box revenues Kitsap Transit is considering another fare hike just to stay in existence. All problems can be solved if the general public covers the cost of the transit dependent (and it isnt that hard because there really arent that many) and those arent transit dependent but who just want transportation options PAY for their transportation options. I feel a societal duty to fund the former. I feel no duty to fund the latter.

So the new message to Olympia is "screw mass transit and give us back our HOV!" Another obscure message. Republicans are jumping on the bandwagon to highway hog heaven and Democrats are a trying to save every useless morsel of what they can salvage. Neither side gets it. I think that the message is to keep transit in the niche where it is cost-effective. And youre right, both sides would rather have business as usual and play the masses for their own political gain, rather than make efficient choices. But thats too bad. Im sick and tired of paying excess taxes to build their political empires, rather than to efficiently provide the goods and services that need to be provided in common with other members of society. And Im sick and tired of them playing the class card, the race card, the better person than you card, and all the other bu****it they do to justify their own politically motivated pork projects.

Craig, you hit the nail on the head. "The problem isn't the money, it's the leadership." But it's not just Locke and Morrison et al, it's also Clive Ballard et al Its a system where politicians are allowed to further their own careers with taxpayers money, with little accountability. We need to restore that accountability.

Mass transit vs. concrete. Wow, what a choice. I thought we wanted choices. Each has a niche. But just because I want to save the whales and the spotted owl, doesnt mean I think they are interchangeableMASS TRANSIT WILL NOT WORK FOR THE VAST MAJORITY OF TRAVEL BY VAST MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE IN THIS STATE BECAUSE OF DEMOGRAPHICS AND POPULATION DENSITY ISSUES, and pretending it will is as stupid as trying to put a whale in a birds nest. Where it can be used effectively, transit is great, but we passed that point decades ago. Thats why market share (and absolute number of trips) by transit is decreasing in this country, and that decline in market share is a worldwide phenomenon.

How about a little of both instead and a reduction in the DOT. That would be my choice. As to the DOT, I dont think transportation effectiveness in this state would be harmed if someone towed them out to sea and sank them with naval gunfire. And I believe in BOTH, but right now we have WAY TOO MUCH TRANSIT compared to the demographic niche it can survive in.

When Jesse Venture was elected governor, my first reaction was what a joke. But now I think at least he's not a bull shitter. Youve never watched professional RASSLIN, have you?

I sure would prefer him to the initiative process. Want him to be King, or what? He can wear his feathered boa rather than a crown, I guess.

Someone needs to end all this madness. The HOV arguments (pro and con) aren't even a statewide issue. Excuse me, but if state money is being used, its an issue to every taxpayer.

They don't even involve Pierce County. And placing mass transit aginst mass freeway is disengenuous at best and a future disaster at worst for the I-5/405 central corridor. This is nonsense. All potential modes of transport SHOULD compete against one another. Why would you INTENTIONALLY choose the least effective?

The saddest part of all is that the RTA rail is a poor and ineffective design. I absolutely agree. It is only marginally better than previous proposals, which were also unmitigated disasters. Unfortunately (and against all odds) people were desperate enough due to decades of DOT incompetence and social engineering to vote yes this time.

It probably guarantees the failure of any really good system whether 711 passes or fails. (We only seem to be able to vote on rapid transit every 30 years or so. By 2030, it will probably be too late to repair the damage of either a poor system or no system.) What it guarantees, is that the existing bus system will be sub-optimized to feed the light rail, giving the taxpayers even LESS transit for the money than they would have otherwise had.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 25, 2000.

Matt,

I 'm confused. You say there was never any plan for an added HOV third lane. But the Transportation Improvement Board website says it was slated for Purdy to Union Street in Tacoma. And the WSDOT website says it was defunded by I-695. Actually whether it's defunded or never existed is inconsequential because without a third lane in both directions the new Narrows Bridge will be a $350+ Million boondoggle in traffic relief. (In fact it could probably be declared a corporate welfare project for United Infrastructure whoever in the hell they are!!!!!!)

The flow of sand through an hourglass is NOT increased by adding a slight bulge to the center if both ends of the new bulge remain the orignal size. The same holds true for cars on SR16.

P.S. If you do get locked out of Tacoma for awhile, there's a great restaurant for breakfast in East Bremerton called Pat's. It's just across the Warren Avenue Bridge (Highway 303) at the Value Village parking lot. (Second traffic light after bridge - a little beyond the NW corner of Wheaton Avenue and Sylvan Way.) Everyone I've talked to who's been there loves it.

Rudy Taylor RTaylorCS@AOL.com

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 27, 2000.

Craig,

I think your right that on some issues we do probably disagree immensely. (But before I get into that) I do want you to know that I also wish to keep the discourse civil. And as you so aptly put it, we can in fact learn from one another. I respect your opinions for a couple of reasons. First, you offer compelling reasoning for your beliefs; and secondly, you are the first Pro 695/711 person I have heard from who acknowledges the needs of the poor, disabled and fixed income elderly. I thank you for both. I also enjoy that your input causes me to test my own opinions. (In some instances they've even changed!)

That being said let's continue our agreement to agree to disagree in an agreeable manner under agreed upon terms. (LOL) Here comes Round 3 (or is it 4?):

HOV Lanes: I still think that this is a local issue. The Eyman proponents are (on the political level) pushing the demise of HOV as a "traffic improvement issue." As such it is "value neutral" to anyone in the state except the population centers of King, southern Snohomish and southern Clark (Vancouver) counties where HOV exists. Pierce County has seen (as yet to be incorporated or built) HOV put on hold by I- 695. So everyone in the state is voting for (maybe) better traffic in a rather limited area for a select group of end users.

As a money issue, there's no return on past taxes (unless we sell the lanes.) Maintenance of existing HOV is a drop in the bucket compared to what is already been spent. I think that this is really another rather transparent attempt to divide and conquer - i.e. fuel the election day contempt other western Washington counties have for the Everett/Seattle/Tacoma corridor and the bitterness eastern Washington has for all of King County in general. It's interesting that through all this vitriol, no one wants to point out how much KingCo supports other poorer counties with redistributed sales tax revenues.

My preference would be to see a 3 to 6 month test for opening the HOV lanes. (Actually 2 tests - one for non peak hours and one for all hours.) Have a private testing agency collect the data and publish it. Then let the voters in the three affected counties vote up or down. They need and deserve to see the impact (if any) on transit, traffic relief, etc. in order to make an appropriate decision. In other words, maybe HOV works for I-5 but SOV is the better methodology for I-405. Let the people impacted make the intelligent choice. I hate letting people in Spokane or Yakima decide my commuting fate just as much as I think it would be a crime for King County to stop funding money that goes to Police and Fire Departments in say Pend Orielle or Okanagon County

Jesse Ventura: My comments in the previous post were somewhat tongue in cheek. But I think the voter outrage message of "it's the leadership, not the money" is at the very least as well served by his election as by I- 695. My problem with I-695 has never been the people sending the message, but rather that it was given to the very people who set the problems in motion. From my perspective, I-695 has merely allowed Republicans to backpedal from their two inventions (the MVET and Referendum 49) and the Democrats to say "we''ll put a few more blue ribbon commissions and administrators on it right away while we gauge the effect of cut services." A dance macabre to say the least. I don't have an answer, but if you decide to run for governor, I'd volunteer to campaign for you conditioned on your promise that I could run (and therefore shakeup!) WSDOT! LOL Jesse isn't exactly my idea of a role model, but I believe what he says is what he truly believes. There are a lot of politicians who are neither role models nor honest. That puts Governor Ventura at least one step ahead of some in my view.

By the way, when I was a kid I used to watch a show sometimes on TV called "Northwest Rasslin' ." I seem to recall wrestlers named Tony Boren and "Shag" Thomas or something like that. Thank God pre- pubesence passes for most of us. Unfortunately WWF with it's glitz, sport's theater, borderline sadomasochism and less than subtle hate parables has pushed mental pre-pubesence to a much wider and older Nintendo based audience. AND THEN THERE'S THE ACTUAL WRESTLING WHICH IS JUST AS BAD!!!! I'm fairly confident you probably agree with me on the social value (or lack thereof) of the WWF.

Subsidies for Transit Patrons: We're in total agreement here. "Societal duty" is in my opinion not a moral option but rather a requirement if we want to call ourselves a great nation. But with regard to subsidies "only the needy need to apply." (I like your idea of demand transit as well. Access programs have their downsides, but could be an effective frontline start towards this idea.)

Mass Transit vs. More Highway: I agree that the demographic data you offer is statistically correct. Transit ridership is down nationally. And that's primarily because of the "convenience factor." But Metro ridership is not down from what I've seen and heard. (Any statistics to the contrary would be both welcome and read.) It's also somewhat anecdotal to compare ridership because it assumes that all cities are alike, both when it comes to geography and car saturation. The I-5/405 corridor is begging for a straight line, high speed, heavy rail, electric system between Everett and Tacoma with as few stops in it's entire length as are currently planned for the SEATTLE light rail system. (Let's call "a spade a spade!") Those stops should feed park and ride / bus route centers. If I were the Transit King, I'd run trains right down the middle of I-5 and I-405 where car commuters could see them whizzing by. The capital cost would be high but it will be far more efficient than either the current RTA conglomeration or trying to widen I-5 and I-405 (or worse yet trying to run new freeway routes.) Save the concrete money for the rest of the state where it can be used to get more value for the buck. In essence I want to see a 50 year plan, not a 30, 20, 10 or 5!

My ideas though would only work if a lot of thinking could be changed in the way transportation needs are both planned and funded. The RTA is a good example of how not to do it. I compare it to something I saw in Detroit called (of all things) the "People Mover!" The PM is kind of a bastardized monorail with only two cars that crawls along at the speed of an ox drawn cart. But both the failures of RTA and a different plan for mass transit are topics for a future post. I gotta go to bed. LOL More to come.

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 28, 2000.

HOV Lanes: I still think that this is a local issue. The Eyman proponents are (on the political level) pushing the demise of HOV as a "traffic improvement issue." As such it is "value neutral" to anyone in the state except the population centers of King, southern Snohomish and southern Clark (Vancouver) counties where HOV exists. Pierce County has seen (as yet to be incorporated or built) HOV put on hold by I- 695. So everyone in the state is voting for (maybe) better traffic in a rather limited area for a select group of end users. And I again say, that if an individuals taxes are going into supporting an activity, they ought to have a vote on it. This country has a history of at least one WAR based on this issue, and I dont think its something we ought to play games with. As a money issue, there's no return on past taxes (unless we sell the lanes.) Maintenance of existing HOV is a drop in the bucket compared to what is already been spent. I think that this is really another rather transparent attempt to divide and conquer - i.e. fuel the election day contempt other western Washington counties have for the Everett/Seattle/Tacoma corridor and the bitterness eastern Washington has for all of King County in general. NO, but there is cost avoidance in the future if we maximally utilize those things that we do have. And if someone is potentially going to be contributing their tax money to pay, if the cost is not avoided, then they ought to have a vote.

It's interesting that through all this vitriol, no one wants to point out how much KingCo supports other poorer counties with redistributed sales tax revenues.  I dont see this as a lot of vitriol, I see it as a legitimate concern of tax[payers affected by the decision. But clearly, if the people of the Puget Sound Basin have the desire and the votes to decrease their subsidy of other parts of the state, they should, subject to the restrictions of the state constitution, be permitted to do so.

My preference would be to see a 3 to 6 month test for opening the HOV lanes. (Actually 2 tests - one for non peak hours and one for all hours.) Have a private testing agency collect the data and publish it. Then let the voters in the three affected counties vote up or down. Sorry, if they are going to take state money, I still think the state should get a vote. But you certainly have the option to put together a statewide initiative for this proposal if you desire.

They need and deserve to see the impact (if any) on transit, traffic relief, etc. in order to make an appropriate decision. In other words, maybe HOV works for I-5 but SOV is the better methodology for I-405. Let the people impacted make the intelligent choice. If others are paying taxes for this decision, then they too are impacted.

I hate letting people in Spokane or Yakima decide my commuting fate just as much as I think it would be a crime for King County to stop funding money that goes to Police and Fire Departments in say Pend Orielle or Okanagon County Then fund it entirely with local money. Divert the money that goes from this area to Yakima and Spokane if you have the votes.

 From my perspective, I-695 has merely allowed Republicans to backpedal from their two inventions (the MVET and Referendum 49) Explain to me why you believe the MVET is a Republican invention?

 There are a lot of politicians who are neither role models nor honest. That puts Governor Ventura at least one step ahead of some in my view. Thats damning him with faint praise.

By the way, when I was a kid I used to watch a show sometimes on TV called "Northwest Rasslin' ." I seem to recall wrestlers named Tony Boren and "Shag" Thomas or something like that. Yeah, and Haystack Calhoun and Dano McDonald and Gene Kineski and a few others. We were all eleven or twelve once. Probably watched roller derby then too.

Subsidies for Transit Patrons: We're in total agreement here. "Societal duty" is in my opinion not a moral option but rather a requirement if we want to call ourselves a great nation. But with regard to subsidies "only the needy need to apply." (I like your idea of demand transit as well. Access programs have their downsides, but could be an effective frontline start towards this idea.)

Mass Transit vs. More Highway: I agree that the demographic data you offer is statistically correct. Transit ridership is down nationally. And that's primarily because of the "convenience factor."  I think if you look into it, youll find that convenience factor is an inadequate explanation. The hugest factor driving this decrease in both transit use and car-pooling has been the increase in the number of women in the workplace. Fifty years ago, this was relatively uncommon. This drives a need for linked trips, not TO WORK, but to daycare-to laundry -to work-to grocery store-to daycare-to home, and innumerable DOT studies demonstrate that these linked trips are poorly served by transit. YOU try taking a couple young kids on transit sometime, itll make a believer of you quick. Same for transporting laundry or groceries. Not (quite) impossible, but real difficult. Flex time and other changed work requirements make car pooling more difficult too. Increased wealth has dramatically decreased the number of no-car families. The increase in suburbs have dramatically decreased the population density from which transit (and carpool) riders can be drawn.

But Metro ridership is not down from what I've seen and heard. (Any statistics to the contrary would be both welcome and read.) But its certainly not up despite huge capital investments in the system, and if we could sort out the no-fare trips which we didnt use to count but do now, it might well be down. The number of transit trips per capita is flat according to the Benchmark metrics. See (http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/orpp/benchmrk/bench99/99-bm-ch5.pdf) benchmark 42. See the chart on page 6. Only by adding in 5.5 million free rides in the fare-free zone have we managed to beat the 1986-87 ridership per capita values, and we dont consistently beat those. For 1998, it was 48.2 rides per capita per year. Thats less than one (one-way) ride per week per person, despite all the full buses going to Seahawk and Husky games, and the no-fare zone. In 1986, it was 46.4. Weve developed more innovative ways to count trips, and weve certainly built a bigger system with more vehicle miles of transit availability, but market share HASNT improved and as a consequence we are running lower load levels. Transit has a demand problem, not a supply problem in the Puget Sound region.

It's also somewhat anecdotal to compare ridership because it assumes that all cities are alike, both when it comes to geography and car saturation. The I-5/405 corridor is begging for a straight line, high speed, heavy rail, electric system between Everett and Tacoma with as few stops in it's entire length as are currently planned for the SEATTLE light rail system. (Let's call "a spade a spade!") Why? Whats the potential market served by that capability?

Those stops should feed park and ride / bus route centers. Now you are getting into the issue of intermodal transfers. Transfers really decrease acceptability of transit to potential customers. Whats worse, they usually sub-optimize local (generally bus) transit to feed the transfer stations. Nor are park n rides cheap. We are currently paying almost $30,000 A STALL capital costs for one on Mercer Island and close to $20,000 A STALL most other places. And they have the same geographical problems that a station has. Once you get over a certain side (tried a park n ride lot at Sea-Tac recently) you need a shuttle to get from the periphery to the boarding place. DOT studies indicate that the maximum an AVERAGE potential transit rider will walk is about < mile, and that in good weather carrying no more than briefcase or backpack, and umbrella. If I have to get up, defrost my car, fire it up (cold starts produce about 80% of the pollution the car will make that day), drive to the park n ride, find a place, wait the average one-half the interval between shuttle buses, catch the shuttle bus to the station, wait the average one-half the interval between trains, board the train, get to the destination station, deboard, wait the average one-half the interval between buses to get on my bus, complete the trip to my bus stop, and then walk the rest of the way to my destination, . Well, it can get to be more than just a minor convenience factor, pretty quick. Nationwide, transit takes twice the time of driving, and its the same here. If you start doing transfers, especially intermodal transfers, it goes up tremendously. If you couple that with a trip at right angles or in the opposite direction of your job to take the kids to daycare, well Damn! (as Will Smith used to say). Recommend you read (http://www.bts.gov/tmip/papers/mode/transfer/ch5.htm)

If I were the Transit King, I'd run trains right down the middle of I-5 and I-405 where car commuters could see them whizzing by. They may appear to whiz, but the average speed is only 21 mph, only half again the light rail speed, due to frequent stops (http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/apxa/transt98.html) . Now you dont have to make as frequent stops, but then they serve proportionaltely fewer people, or people have to travel farther to the intermodal transfer point, defeating the purpose of heavy rail.

The capital cost would be high but it will be far more efficient than either the current RTA conglomeration or trying to widen I-5 and I-405 (or worse yet trying to run new freeway routes.) Have you really run the figures for this, or is this just wishful thinking. The LA heavy rail project was held up because of incredible expense (and the fact that it was using so much money that it was sucking money away from the bus systems serving transit dependent people) DESPITE the fact that the population density in LA is DOUBLE the population density in the Seattle metropolitan area. And what do you mean by high? And what do you mean by efficient? Light rail is costing us $100 million a mile. Heavy rail would be more. And although it would be speedier (21mph, on average), its still a linear system. The REAL problems with linear systems are access, with speed being secondary. The length of time the vehicle takes to get from station to station at 50 mph is more than offset by the time it spends STOPPED DEAD STILL at stations. There are only certain acceleration/deceleration patterns acceptable for unrestrained passengers, even if energy use was not an issue. And the fewer stations the fewer people have convenient access to it. And inconvenient access means it wont be used. And auxiliary transportation systems to FEED the havy (or light rail) wind up dramatically increasing cost and lowering efficiency. Its geometry, and thats hard to get around.

Save the concrete money for the rest of the state where it can be used to get more value for the buck. In essence I want to see a 50 year plan, not a 30, 20, 10 or 5!  And thats fine, but its got to make sense. Neither light rail nor heavy rail looks faster or more efficient than a dedicated busway, if you could get people to use it. At least with a busway, the local buses that picked people up could conceivably turn into expresses as soon as they had their commuters loaded up, increasing the door to transit percentage from that of rail. But even there, there just isnt that much of a demand, because the demographics are against it. And neither solves the problem that is most killing transit from the suburbs; the majority of the traffic is not to the CBD anymore, its suburb to suburb, and any system that must first take you downtown before it gets you on a transit vehicle (of whatever flavor) going to your ultimate destination in a different suburb is a non-starter as far as most commuters are concerned.

My ideas though would only work if a lot of thinking could be changed in the way transportation needs are both planned and funded. If you have evidence that this would work, show me.

The RTA is a good example of how not to do it. The RTA is what was JUST BARELY FEASIBLE POLITICALLY. Its primarily a public works project for Seattle, just like the two stadiums. But the fundamental problems with it are not poor planning (although it has that), but demographics and geography.

Show me how your plan would get past these two problems, and you may win me over. But my research kind of indicates that we ought to be building more GP lanes.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 28, 2000.

Craig,

<<HOV Lanes: ..." >> Our disagreement on the HOV vote as a component of 711 appears to be more a difference of philosophy and politics than much else. We'll probably never come to agreement on this element, but I respect your opinion. I really hope that KingCo does in fact run some valid testing of SOV prior to the vote. It will at least give some indication of what the future portends and that will help voters - throughout the state, if that's how it is to be.

<<... if the people of the Puget Sound Basin have the desire and the votes to decrease their subsidy of other parts of the state, they should, subject to the restrictions of the state constitution, be permitted to do so. >> My comments on the redistribution of KingCo sales tax revenue are a little bit of "crying in my beer." I just think the rhetoric of KingCo vs. the rest of Washington is getting a little out of hand. I don't think it's in anyone's heart that KingCo should say to eastern Washington "fend for yourself you thankless bastards." With little industry, sparse population, a small retail base and a lot of farms that don't generate a lot of property tax (to name but a few hindrances) that would be a harsh message for KingCo to send to eastern Washington.

Added note: I live in Kitsap, not KingCo, though I lived in Seattle for 40 years. If you'll pardon the pun, Kitsap is the quintessential example of subsidies - little industry, a lot of people working in Seattle and Tacoma courtesy of WSDOT, the world's largest unincorporated retail sales base (Silverdale) and the blessing of a huge Federal presence in the form of the US Navy.

<<<From my perspective, I-695 has merely allowed Republicans to backpedal from their two inventions (the MVET and Referendum 49) Explain to me why you believe the MVET is a Republican invention?>>> Sorry about that - my comment was misphrased in haste of typing. Should be "(the MVET steal and Referendum 49)" Republicans (under Dale Foreman) funded R49 with a combination of bonds and pulling all MVET from the general fund as well as putting a one year moratorium on the 601 cap. I like the idea of putting the MVET funds where we know the money is going (dedicated funds) - but they weren't about to cut the MVET. (My source for this is the Washington Taxpayers League - hardly a liberal organization. LOL) Just one year later Republicans are rolling over in a panic. The Democrats are just as disingenuous because now they can say "We have to cut funds for the projects they were dedicated to." "Boy, what a circus!," Rudy says to no one in particular other than himself.

<<By the way, when I was a kid I used to watch a show sometimes on TV called "Northwest Rasslin' ." I seem to recall wrestlers named Tony Boren and "Shag" Thomas or something like that. Yeah, and Haystack Calhoun and Dano McDonald and Gene Kineski and a few others. We were all eleven or twelve once. Probably watched roller derby then too. >> Wow, it's deja vu - all over again! LOLOL I remember Haystack, Dano and Gene too, now that you've reminded me. And ROLLER DERBY. Now there's a real sport!!!!! (I liked watching the women's teams more though. Pre-pubesence and all that. I'm sure you understand. LOL)

<<Mass Transit vs. More Highway: I agree that the demographic data you offer is statistically correct. Transit ridership is down nationally. And that's primarily because of the "convenience factor."  I think if you look into it, youll find that convenience factor is an inadequate explanation.>> I agree that societal changes are in fact changing the demographic: << ...the number of women in the workplace..., ...linked trips...>> etc. But I think neither of us has the statistical information to say how many of these linked trips are tied to parents who go from daycare to laundry TO WORK AND BACK VIA A ROUTE THAT IS PROHIBITIVELY CONGESTED to grocery store to daycare to home. I tend to believe that most parents in this situation tend to roost close to the nest rather than travel the highways. There are of course two working parent and single parent exceptions to that, but I'm not so sure they are the singlemost reason that highway traffic is so bad. When I look at Seattle, it seems to me that traffic congestion really started about the time the last big building boom ended in the early 90's. That was a different kind of demographic, where a lot of vertical office space was filled by a lot of workers with cars. And they're still building offices in Seattle, though at a slower pace. (God help the city when the Mariners have an October playoff game on the same Sunday as the Seahawks! - it may take 3 weeks to clear the traffic! LOL) Now it's past the saturation point on I-5. And I'm not so sure as to how much more concrete can be physically added to I-5 between the Duwamish S-curves and the I-5 bridge at the U District. The same holds true to a lesser degree for 405. I also believe that the Seattle/Everett/Bellevue/Tacoma core is growing faster than the number of freeways we can build (if in fact we even can!) My dad used to talk about growing up near the orange groove farms on Van Nuys (San Fernando Valley of the LA basin) and how quickly it all changed. From my perspective, I've watched the same happen here - only 30 years later. Cities grow outward until they butt up to the next city. And that means more vertical towers along the way - and more people and more cars. I-605 won't help that corridor. Of course my crystal ball could be full of crap too. Maybe in the next 30-50 years everybody will be working at home on their PC. That would make our debate not much more than an interesting exercise. LOL

<> I have. 3 in fact. They older now, so all I have left is the hindsight: "What the hell was I thinkin?'!" LOL

<> I agree with you here in part but I think it's because the RTA and particularly KingCo Metro have overloaded the suburbs where as you so rightly put it "there is less need." Particularly at non peak hours. I still feel buses (and rail) are needed for urban and interurban travel.

<<...free rides in the fare-free zone...>> Here's a good anecdotal joke I'm sure you'll appreciate - It's funny how the Feds and the State built this incredible bus tunnel in downtown Seattle just so lawyers could travel for free from their uptown offices to the Courthouses at James Street.

<<It's also somewhat anecdotal to compare ridership because it assumes that all cities are alike, both when it comes to geography and car saturation. The I-5/405 corridor is begging for a straight line, high speed, heavy rail, electric system between Everett and Tacoma with as few stops in it's entire length as are currently planned for the SEATTLE light rail system. (Let's call "a spade a spade!") Why? Whats the potential market served by that capability? >> See my comments above re: can we build highways fast enough to serve the central business cores of several expanding cities in the next 30-50 years? <> I agree totally but I thought the argument was that all freeway was for all vehicles. Will people trade HOV for BOV? I'm confused. (And I don't mean that to be a sarcastic or patronizing at all.) If this were the case, I would immediately abandon the need and argument for rail.

<<Those stops should feed park and ride / bus route centers. Now you are getting into the issue of intermodal transfers. Transfers really decrease acceptability of transit to potential customers.>> I agree that there is a transfer penalty to be paid, but it is ignores a couple of other issues. One is park and ride. There's no transfer there. The second is that those transferring to buses might just be willing to trade that inconvenience for the other highway impact that I've never seen statistics for but see all the time. Highway accidents. I travel a lot from Bremerton to Tacoma and then Seattle in my business. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems that just about every third day there's some fender bender (or worse) which absolutely tube locks traffic. That typically adds 30-60 minutes to my trip (above and beyond congestion.) I have no statistics nor do I know if they exist. But I know it happens. I'd be willing to trade the inconvenience of a transfer for the security of knowing when I'll get home. Kind of a goofy argument on my part, but a 75 minute car commute for me has often become 2, 2 1/2 or 3 hours because of accidents. One Wednesday before Thanksgiving a couple of years ago, it took me 5 hours and 20 minutes!!!!!!!!!! << Nor are park n rides cheap. We are currently paying almost $30,000 A STALL capital costs for one on Mercer Island and close to $20,000 A STALL most other places.>> Something's wrong here! Either the State (i.e. us) is being totally ripped off or the cost includes bus ramps AND land acquisition. If the latter is the case then the cost isn't really that high. If people think it is then they better start preparing for some real sticker shock when it comes to per square foot costs for freeway construction AND THEN THE COST OF THAT LAND ACQUISITION. We also haven't talked about the potential for private litigation against eminent domain, delays and that worst of diseases the freeway lid forced by NIMBY's. (See "The History of I-90 across Mercer Island.")

<< If I have to get up, defrost my car, fire it up (cold starts produce about 80% of the pollution the car will make that day), drive to the park n ride, ...>> Craig, please forgive me but I just have to give you a slight ribbing for your massive use of hyperbole. I think a car cold start produces the same amount of pollution whether it's started at home, at a park and ride or at your favorite parking spot in front of your work. LOL I also think defrosting has more to do with the weather than it does with mass transit or the score of yesterdays Mariner's game. I'm laughing because at times I can be just as guilty of the same thing.

<<The capital cost would be high but it will be far more efficient than either the current RTA conglomeration or trying to widen I-5 and I-405 (or worse yet trying to run new freeway routes.) Have you really run the figures for this, or is this just wishful thinking.>> Actually quasi wishful thinking, but only because there's nothing to compare it to. Assuming rail has at least a forty year life, where will I-5 freeway construction be at that point? If the Evergreen Freedom Foundation's website is correct, then highway traffic is projected by 2020 to increase 30%. That tells me a minimum of a double deck freeway thru the Seattle core is required for a forty year plan. Unless there's some massive change in the thinking of engineers, large portions of I-5 at Beacon and Capital Hills (now on columns) will have to be torn down in order to build a seismically safe roadway. (As an aside, what will that do to traffic for a few years?) <> Simple answer. Incredible cost = those portions which are underground (higher cost) and therefore require incredible seismic consideration (highest combined cost possible) in order to suck money from everything. That's the real joke about the Seattle Link rail. It's as though a bunch of people got together and said "Wow, isn't our bus tunnel neat!! Let's do some more. It will be really cool!" My God!!!! They should be building a monorail from Northgate to the Airport. It only takes up three feet from the center of roads (for columns.) The Link tunnel under the Lake Washington Ship Canal is 200 feet down! Don't take my word for it. Talk to any contractor. Ask them if tunneling adds only "a little more expense to construction." They'll either laugh at you or offer a sedative. <> As you said Heavy is more expensive than Light. Also sticker shock for one time rail capital expense as opposed to staggered freeway construction. The legislature has this propensity to split up highway projects into more palatable pieces. And then we, the public, just have to deal with staggered areas of road construction (nee traffic congestion.) But I know any rail will be cheaper than a double deck freeway. The cheapest of all would probably be monorail. But that's a guess. <> Cost efficient as an operating expense when compared to the redundancy of the RTA plan where the Sounder Train, Sounder Busses and the Seattle Link Rail all track north and south. (Oh well, at least somebody remembered to send some buses east/west.)

<<Save the concrete money for the rest of the state where it can be used to get more value for the buck. In essence I want to see a 50 year plan, not a 30, 20, 10 or 5!  And thats fine, but its got to make sense. But even there, there just isnt that much of a demand, because the demographics are against it. And neither solves the problem that is most killing transit from the suburbs; the majority of the traffic is not to the CBD anymore, its suburb to suburb>> To me the suburbs of the mid 21st century will be north of Everett, east of Issaquah and south of Tacoma (or maybe even Olympia!) The residential areas inside this zone will be between cities. I could be wrong of course, but it sure seems that every major population area in the U.S. following LA's lead.

<<My ideas though would only work if a lot of thinking could be changed in the way transportation needs are both planned and funded. If you have evidence that this would work, show me. >> This is the short version but: 1. We finance transit and highway design wrong - always an amorphous plan to get money which allows real design which is always a higher cost than the initial design estimate and legislative funding allocation. The Legislature needs to look into creative ways to finance full documentation. It would be nice if we could vote on a full set of plans and specifications instead of a sketch on a napkin for once. The original plan should also have more vision than just 10-20 years. By the time it's designed, financed and built we've already used up five years of use. 2. WSDOT needs to be reduced to the private sector equivalent of an owner's representative. They should make sure contractors and designers are being honest. The rest of WSDOT's functions should be privatized. Road building, maintenance, emergency repair, cleaning garbage cans at rest stops, etc. should be privatized. 3. Local transit systems need to be more accountable for how they interact with the regional system. (I think it's impossible to convince anyone of a single system provider - too many toes stepped on. And there's the ying/yang argument that a single provider becomes a different version of WSDOT. They also need to prove need. I also can't help but feel a gut intuition that the bigger the local bureaucracies, the more wasted duplication of effort and inflated administration occurs. Local authorities need to cut the fat as well. 4. The biggest question is getting private contractors involved in shared financing of capital projects. I think it's an ok idea but the jury is out until at least the Narrows Bridge and a couple of other big projects are done. If UIW (the private side of the Narrows) is any indication, they seem to want a long term "toll deal". But I don't think Washington citizenry is too keen on that idea. So the question becomes what is the value of risk taking as a net profit percentage of the construction cost. I'm sure that's being discussed in corporate board rooms and legislative caucuses as we speak.

<> Well, we agree on what the problems are. LOL That's a good start.

If nothing else, Craig, I'll give up rail for a dedicated busway. Hey, there's a compromise of sorts. <> Thanks for the sites on transit usage and transfer delays. I'm gonna be in Kansas for a few days, so I'll be off the board for a while. Look forward to continuing discussion.

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), February 29, 2000.

But I think neither of us has the statistical information to say how many of these linked trips are tied to parents who go from daycare to laundry TO WORK AND BACK VIA A ROUTE THAT IS PROHIBITIVELY CONGESTED to grocery store to daycare to home. I tend to believe that most parents in this situation tend to roost close to the nest rather than travel the highways. Actually, theres a VAST amount of statistical information on just this subject on the USDOT website. They may not be able to find out how AMTRAK works, but they can sure as heck fund studies. The demographic information is ROCK SOLID, and acknowledged even by pro-transit organizations as something that is becoming an increasing challenge. If you need references, Ill get them for you.

I agree that there is a transfer penalty to be paid, but it is ignores a couple of other issues. One is park and ride. There's no transfer there. Of course there is, theres an intermodal transfer from car to bus or train. If youre a driver, you must enter a low- speed parking lot, find a parking space, park your vehicle, walk to the train or bus boarding area, and (on the average) wait one-half the interval between successive train or buses departing from that site to your destination. And you will have the SAME transfer penalty on the other end of your trip if your work site isnt within walking distance of your transit off-loading point. Even a kiss n ride (spouse/significant other drops you off at the depot) exacts a small transfer penalty although depending on the kiss it may be worth it. Too good a kiss may increase the transfer penalty however.

The second is that those transferring to buses might just be willing to trade that inconvenience for the other highway impact that I've never seen statistics for but see all the time. Highway accidents. I travel a lot from Bremerton to Tacoma and then Seattle in my business. I don't know if it's just me, but it seems that just about every third day there's some fender bender (or worse) which absolutely tube locks traffic They might. But studies such as the one I gave you on the previous posting indicate just the opposite. They indicate that, in fact, people perceive transfer penaltys to be even longer than they really are, rather than perceive an advantage in making the transfer.

Something's wrong here! Either the State (i.e. us) is being totally ripped off or the cost includes bus ramps AND land acquisition. If the latter is the case then the cost isn't really that high. Actually, the cost IS that high, and the $30,000/stall figure was for building a parking garage on land that the government already owns. Part of the problem is Bacon-Davis (if federal funds are involved) or the state equivalent. Part of the problem is that price is really no object to the individuals involved, because (like the Sistine Chapel) they feel theyre doing Gods work. Mostly its just that the person OKing the contract is using someone elses money, not their own.

Craig, please forgive me but I just have to give you a slight ribbing for your massive use of hyperbole. I think a car cold start produces the same amount of pollution whether it's started at home, at a park and ride or at your favorite parking spot in front of your work. LOL I also think defrosting has more to do with the weather than it does with mass transit or the score of yesterdays Mariner's game. I'm laughing because at times I can be just as guilty of the same thing. Actually, this is not hyperbole, this is a demonstration of what process is involved in getting on that transit vehicle. If you live in a high-population density area and can have stops close enough to WALK to, transit is VERY competitive. If you dont, it becomes a real hassle. The cold-start issue was put in because transit advocates, once you demonstrate with facts and figures that transit will never be competitive with the auto in areas of lower population density, start throwing in side-issues like air pollution. What I was pointing out was that park n rides do little if anything for air pollution because (you are absolutely right) the vehicles pollute nearly equal amounts no matter if they are driven to work or driven to a park n ride. The vast majority of their pollution comes when they are cold, before the rings are really sealing and before the catalytic converter is really up to operating temperature.

1. We finance transit and highway design wrong - always an amorphous plan to get money which allows real design which is always a higher cost than the initial design estimate and legislative funding allocation. The Legislature needs to look into creative ways to finance full documentation. It would be nice if we could vote on a full set of plans and specifications instead of a sketch on a napkin for once. The original plan should also have more vision than just 10- 20 years. By the time it's designed, financed and built we've already used up five years of use. I think the problem is more basic. The old USSR had 5 year plans and 20 year plans and 100 year plans. It still fell apart, because they planned based on dogma rather than reality. DOT is doing the same thing. They need to stop the social engineering and start meeting the demand. Dont put up keep off the grass signs, pave where the people are walking, so to speak. In a market economy, stop trying to pretend that dogma is better than addressing the demands of the market.

2. WSDOT needs to be reduced to the private sector equivalent of an owner's representative. They should make sure contractors and designers are being honest. The rest of WSDOT's functions should be privatized. Road building, maintenance, emergency repair, cleaning garbage cans at rest stops, etc. should be privatized. Agree.

3. Local transit systems need to be more accountable for how they interact with the regional system. (I think it's impossible to convince anyone of a single system provider - too many toes stepped on. And there's the ying/yang argument that a single provider becomes a different version of WSDOT. They also need to prove need. Agree.

I also can't help but feel a gut intuition that the bigger the local bureaucracies, the more wasted duplication of effort and inflated administration occurs. Local authorities need to cut the fat as well. Agree strongly.

 4. The biggest question is getting private contractors involved in shared financing of capital projects. I think it's an ok idea but the jury is out until at least the Narrows Bridge and a couple of other big projects are done. If UIW (the private side of the Narrows) is any indication, they seem to want a long term "toll deal". But I don't think Washington citizenry is too keen on that idea. So the question becomes what is the value of risk taking as a net profit percentage of the construction cost. I'm sure that's being discussed in corporate board rooms and legislative caucuses as we speak. If you look at the history of government regulation of business (be it airlines, utilities, or AMTRAK), you see the business start to devote resources to lobbying government, because it is easier for a politically connected organization to get money from government than to compete effectively in the marketplace. Thats why we have deregulated the airlines, why we are deregulating telecommunications, power production, etc. I am skeptical that the public-private investment issues will work well, but Im willing to watch and hope that Im pleasantly surprised.

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), February 29, 2000.

Craig, Read your 2/29 message to the "Why is discussion...." thread.

Lot's of quality discussion from you as always. Thanks. Also enjoyed the "kiss penalty" endured (lovingly?) by parting mass transit users. Got a good chuckle on that. It was good.

One thing you wrote about though kinda' jumped out at me. It involves the Mercer Island parking stalls: <<Something's wrong here! Either the State (i.e. us) is being totally ripped off or the cost includes bus ramps AND land acquisition. If the latter is the case then the cost isn't really that high. Actually, the cost IS that high, and the $30,000/stall figure was for building a parking garage on land that the government already owns. Part of the problem is Bacon-Davis (if federal funds are involved) or the state equivalent. Part of the problem is that price is really no object to the individuals involved, because (like the Sistine Chapel) they feel theyre doing Gods work. Mostly its just that the person OKing the contract is using someone elses money, not their own. >>

I don't really know, but I think it's a fairly correct assumumption that the parking garage on MI was a public works project competively bid by private sector contractors. If that's the case, then Davis- Bacon or any other prevailing wage laws had little if anything to do with the cost per stall. Before you jump out of your seat, please note that I don't favor Davis-Bacon in that it sets an articificial wage bottom for a lot of either unrelated or unnecessary job descriptions. People cleaning up rest stops should be paid whatever a competetive private sector cleaning contractor is willing to pay them. We don't need "regulated" cleaning contractors burdened by wage price controls.

But I also feel it's a common misconception that somehow Davis-Bacon or other artificial controls are creating exhorbitant labor expenses on large projects when it comes to the private construction industry which builds public works projects. Part of that is fed by the massive distrust (and in some cases hatred) of ALL unions by conservatives. I won't argue the pros or cons of that viewpoint. (It's actually a meaningless argument in construction.) But I can tell you that Davis-Bacon for public works construction is based on union labor wages for the specific disciplines (carpenters, steel workers, electricians, etc.) employed on all construction projects pblic and private. And those wage rates are determined by factors in the private (not the public) sector. It is market driven by current construction practices in hiring craft labor.

Construction is remarkably different than any other industry in the US. It employs an incredibly fluid labor market where craft persons shuttle from job to job and contractor to contractor. One company's project may involve 100 carpenters for several months, but the next project only 25 for less time. Granted, contractors keep some key field employees, but on the whole craft people shift from company to company all the time.

Contractors have neither the time nor the willingness to train craftspersons because for the most part they would in all probability be training employees for their competition - other contractors. The only organizations training craftspeople to any degree at this point are the trade unions. So contractor's have a choice, they can hire non-union (open shop) or union craftspersons. Independent studies conducted by the Associated General Contractors have shown that on more complex commercial and public projects, union workers are consistently more productive due to their training. Note that the AGC is a national affiliation of contractors which among other things negotiates labor contracts between it's members (contractors) and the trade unions. If AGC members felt they could get by with open shop workers, they would. Lower labor costs means higher profits.

There have been some attempts by other private sector groups like Labor Ready to provide an alternative to union workers. But this has been largely unsuccessfull, unless we talk about things like common laborers and flaggers, because the training just isn't there. I personally feel it's the pool of trained emloyees rather than the union itself which is the greater driver. (In fact I very much disagree with the unions who say for instance "All carpenter's deserve exactly the same wages and benefits.") But the reality is that large commericial (private sector) AND public works projects entail great risk for the contractor. Their greatest risk is in labor which is the biggest unknown. Labor only typically involves 25- 30% of a large project budget, but when your talking about around a 2% project profit margin, a slight deviation in labor budget has extreme effects on profit!!! Therefore the major commercial and public works contractors tend to take the path of least risk by signing agreements with the unions who train the field workers.

Another factor is time and money, project designers and project owners (who contract with the builders) are pushing for the fastest quality job possible. Construction financing in the private commercial sector is higher than "roll around" long term financing once a building is occupied by it's end user. They want the product as cheaply and quickly as they can possibly get it. If they were comfortable, then they would be hiring contractors not signatory to union agreements. But they don't. Take a look at downtown Seattle as an example. About 8 out of every 10 projects built in the last 30 years and costing more than 10 Million was built by an AGC Contractor. Anything over 50 Million and I can pretty much guarantee you it was built by an AGC member. That's why I think the $30,000 stall cost isn't Davis-Bacon related. In competitive bidding the Contractors are going against each other - not the state. And they all are using union labor on both their public and private sector jobs. Until the training of craftspersons shifts to organizations outside the unions, I don't see anything changing. Davis-Bacon as it is has little impact on the cost of construction labor. In fact it's kind of a joke - like telling an orange to always be orange colored.

Thanks again for all the other information you've been providing. You've changed my opinion on a number of the issues involved in our previous discussions (though I still worry about Greater Seattle's mass transit needs! LOL) I'd like to talk some more on planning and design issues in future discussions. I still think that part of the equation is at best an absolute mess.

-- Rudy Taylor (RTaylorCS@AOL.com), March 04, 2000.

"If that's the case, then Davis- Bacon or any other prevailing wage laws had little if anything to do with the cost per stall. Before you jump out of your seat, please note that I don't favor Davis-Bacon in that it sets an articificial wage bottom for a lot of either unrelated or unnecessary job descriptions." Actually, if there is federal money involved in a construction contract (and for most over $50 million, there's going to be) Davis-Bacon wmay well apply. If there is no federal money. then the state prevailing wage rules apply. You can look up some of these on the L&I homepage at: http://www.lni.wa.gov/prevailingwage/

For a background on the Davis-Bacon Act, one of the few remaining Jim Crow legacies, try:

http://www.theamericanenterprise.org/taejf97b.htm

Even completely disinterested parties like the CBO (even when Congress was in Democratic control) have acknowledged the substantial cost increase that Davis-Bacon causes. It really isn't even subject to debate. You can debate as to whether or not the advantage that this gives to union workers is good or not from a societal aspect, but there is NO question that it costs the taxpayers and costs usbstantially. Same for state prevailing wage legislation. And if you truly believe that guaranteeing union workers guarantees quality..... boy could I tell you sto

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), March 05, 2000.