As the something for nothing folk get all excited at the prospect of repealing the recently passed gas tax hike, I’d just like to point out that this is the sort of thing that comes from allowing our transportation infrastructure to fall into disrepair.
Where is the extra money going to come from? The Alaskan Way viaduct will cost at least $4 billion, if not more, to replace with the gold-plated tunnel. The gas tax hike will allocate only $2 billion towards this project. Will the citizens of Seattle vote to impose a local sales tax to fund the difference?
I say tear down the viaduct and replace it with nothing. After all, there is Alaskan Way, a perfectly good arterial at ground level already. It may cause major changes and disruptions in traffic patterns, but so will a replacement project. Folks will have to do without a freeway for several years until the replacement is finished.
Spend the $2 billion on something more useful. Anything would be more useful. And if the citizens of Seattle are really willing to increase sales taxes within the city (which would drive shopping business into the suburbs in droves), they can also figure out something more useful to spend the money on.
As the something for nothing folk get all excited at the prospect of repealing the recently passed gas tax hike, I’d just like to point out that this is the sort of thing that comes from allowing our transportation infrastructure to fall into disrepair.
What a set up by the right.
If the viaduct fell down and the dozens of people died, the anti-tax groups would be blaming (guess who) King County and the legislature for letting them die.
I can see it now, they would be calling for them to be recalled, or revoted.
I thought that the tax tax was regressive and a little much. However, now, I am not so sure it is that bad.
Roads deteriate with use. Why not charge a user fee (which the gas tax is) for use of the roads. Then people can decide how much or little they wish to use the roads and pay tax accordingly. This should make the libertarians happy.
If you commute to work 1 mile each day, you will cause far less damage to the roads than if you drive 50 miles a day. The gas tax charges you in proportion to your use and is better than a toll booth that other states have.
If you don’t think a gas tax is appropriate please suggest how the viaduct should be repaired or replaced.
Any Alaskan Way replacement plan should also address the major restoration work that is needed on the rapidly-deteriorating seawall. Because the seawall would be adjacent to any underground tunnel, it seems to me that some sort of dual-purpose project should be the considered. And no, I don’t think that the tunnel should be gold-plated or offer valet parking.
We’d have money for it if we weren’t wasting $2bb on Sounder..see below for a typical 2 passenger day http://www.house.gov/inslee/ph.....r_web2.jpg
Righton @4 It is a shame that you drop down into being a complete troll at times because I get the impression that you are capable of more.
In any case, you obviously have no clue about the Sounder. As a regular rider I can tell you that not only does the Sounder run at a pretty full rate – having it there has enabled me and my family to afford a house where it otherwise would not be possible.
Herr Goebbels would be impressed. Show a picture of a need, and raise taxes. Show a train, and raise 4 billion in funding. Party on!! [Atlas has Shrugged.]
how many people are riding the Sounder on a daily basis and how mych does it cost to run the sounder every run/day?
I can’t believe the right-wing nuts go ballistic about a piddling 9.5 cent gas tax hike OVER FOUR YEARS which will actually go for useful purposes of roads and other transit everyone uses, and not say word one about the Bush policies that have cost us ONE DOLLAR A GALLON at the pump in the past year and goes only to line the pockets of his oil buddies — both domestic and foreign.
There is no doubt that the Bush policy is a real tax, and not the mysterious “market forces” that we can’t do anything about that is the mantra of the righties.
A president who cared about real people would have done everything in his power to pressure those market forces to keep a lid on energy prices (both crude and refined products). One thing would be the mere threat of releasing stocks from the Strategic Oil Reserve, like Clinton did. It worked perfectly and even made money for the Treasury. Instead, this Administration does everything in its power to tell the OPEC producers and the refiners that “all systems are go for you to sell at the highest possible price!”
So 2 1/2 cents at the pump over the next year gets the crazies going because it came from a Democratic governor and legislature, but $1 a gallon gets a free pass because THAT came from a Republican president and Congress.
Go figure.
One other thing I really like about the gas tax (yes, I said I like it) is that in some ways, it is very progressive. Since business interests and the rich whiteys would never let a tax be passed so that heavy vehicles (hummers, etc) have to pay more, this way they end up doing the same since the fuel economy is so bad. It’s not perfect since the poor still drive and the poor aren’t often in a position to buy a cheaper and smaller car, but it’s a decent tool to make sure that people who use (and destroy) the roads pay to fix them.
These something for nothing people are so ridiculous. Good transportation infrstructure is way more important than a few cents of tax. If you really think that 1% difference in sales tax or something is going to drive people to the suburbs in DROVES, you’re a moron. Driving to the suburubs itself would cost you the 1%, unless you’re doing it to buy a car or something. I bought mine in Bellevue (with higher sales tax than seattle) even though I live in Seattle because… well… I liked the dealer. Simple as that.
Oh, the irony
(Im’ bad at html, so if it links wrong, sorry :p)
It did link wrong! I knew it!
Look up the May 11th comic, it makes the point.
Erik@2
The simple elimination of the “prevailing wage” law would make any additional taxes unnecisary. As a matter of fact it may even allow a lowering of present taxes, and by the way…a little high? Over 30% increase is a LITTLE high? I do math a bit different than you I guess….
I’d like to make several points about the gas tax.
1) Washington’s gas tax hasn’t increased since 1991. By the time it’s fully implemented, 18 years will have gone by. My guess is 9.5 cents is less than inflation over that period.
2) What is the economic cost to Seattle area drivers in terms of time and gas wasted in sitting in traffic, and gas wasted in idling engines? The Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) estimates the costs of Seattle’s traffic congestion in the Seattle area at more than $2 billion annually. http://www.researchcouncil.org...../Ref51.htm
Patrick@12
Wake up and smell the coffee, your “facts” stink.
http://www.katu.com/consumerne.....p?ID=77016
Read the article, 9.5 cents increase over 4 years. I dont know where you dreamed up the 18 year fantasy…
1991->2005 14 years
4 years that the tax comes in over
last I checked 14+4=18
Goldy…that’s what happens when you have too much rain too. What are you going to do about that?
Nindid
Glad socialism works for you. You get a free ride, heavily subsidized by all of us. I haven’t read the south end Sounder numbers, but my read of the Everett one points to you guys enjoying the train ride forcing all of us to spend about $850,000 per rider. I think for that money you could get an even better house. (that is, using the north end numbers, i suspect south end ridership is better, costs lower)
christmasghost: “Goldy…that’s what happens when you have too much rain too. What are you going to do about that?”
Don’t you know? That’s Bush’s fault too! (sorry, couldn’t resist)
Look, this gas tax is not the best solution to the problem, but it’s a start. Yes, I certainly would like Olympia to figure out better & more efficient ways to get things done, but major capital projects like transportation will require increased revenues from somewhere and quite frankly, the R’s in Olympia haven’t said where. If they have, I’m sure I will be corrected. That said, folks like John Carlson leading the charge against this transportation bill is just, in my opinion, another form of obstructionism that we R’s accuse the D’s doing. If you don’t like the proposed or passed plan fine, but then for cripes sake, have a VIABLE alternative that will fix the problem.
windie@14 Patric@12
Would you two care to try the math formula you are using again? In 2003 gas was increased from 23 cents to 28 cents…as I remember it was to build infastructure. You know like bridges and viaducts and such. Now they want another 9.5 cents per gallon…to build infastructure…you know like bridges and viaducts and such…they increased it with NO PLAN! They know not how much they need, nor how much it will cost, hell they dont even know what they are going to do with the Alaskan Way viaduct or the 520 bridge yet!
But no the last boost was in 2003, not 1991.
Jon@18
You say: If you don’t like the proposed or passed plan fine, but then for cripes sake, have a VIABLE alternative that will fix the problem.
John Carlson has many times given viable alternatives which in part includes elimination of the “prevailing wage” law. Along with a complete revamping of the DMV.
The only something for nothing folks are those who want everyone else to pay for their infrastructure. The Tacoma Narrows bridge will be paid for with tolls. Now Seattle can join the club.
Chuck, I’m just telling you what his math was. You’re switching it around.
you *SHOULD* Have said “What are you talking about, no increases since 1991? There was one in 2003!” in the first place. Instead you said “Where do you get 18 years?”
I answered that.
Oh yeah, I was replying to your post @14… 14+1 is 15 :p
Chuck @19
“In 2003 gas was increased from 23 cents to 28 cents…as I remember it was to build infastructure. You know like bridges and viaducts and such.”
In 2004-2005 Bush policies caused gas to increase by ONE DOLLAR A GALLON, and NONE of it was to build infrastructure. You know like bridges and viaducts and such.
Get your priorities right. Put the blame where it really belongs — on Washington, DC, with its Republican Administration, not Washington State, run by Democrats.
history of Washington Gas Tax
Year enacted Tax per gallon
1921 1 cent
1924 2 cents
1929 3 cents
1931 4 cents
1933 5 cents
1949 6.5 cents
1961 7.5 cents
1967 9 cents
1977 11 cents
1979 12 cents
1981 13.5 cents
1983 16 cents
1984 18 cents
1990 22 cents
1991 23 cents
2003 28 cents
Nelson@23
Show me where Bush voted for a 30% increase or signed a bill mandating a 30% increase, then stop the whiney blame Bush. It isnt Bush’s fault that the state of washington has an inefficient DMV.
Chuck: “John Carlson has many times given viable alternatives which in part includes elimination of the “prevailing wage” law. Along with a complete revamping of the DMV.
Okay, but (to quote Bob Dole) you know, I know, the American people know, that the D’s in Olympia aren’t going to get rid of prevailing wage, so we’re going to have to work around/with it, no matter how much you/we/they don’t like it. That’s why I said ‘VIABLE alternative’, or in other words, ‘SOMETHING that has a chance of acutally passing and getting signed’.
Nelson@8,
Maybe if the letwing whackos wouldn’t oppose the construction of new refineries with regulatory bureaucracy there would be enough refining capacity to meet demand. Instead you resort to your knee jerk blame Bush mantra.
Clinton’s releasing the strategic oil reserve was the most damn fool thing a president could do. What if there had been a national emergency and we needed that oil? There is a reason it is called a strategic reserve and not a market manipulation reserve.
That kind of thinking is like raiding your savings acount to go to the casino.
Sitting around saying they never will get rid of it so we should comply and pay like hell and get nothing done and calling it viable doesnt work for me either…
Is leftist or left wing or leftwing a censored word here?
Jon@26
You said: ‘SOMETHING that has a chance of acutally passing and getting signed’.
But what did it solve? Did they have a plan? No. Does anyone think that this money is going to fix any one problem? No. Not even one problem is eliminated by this money, not ONE!
Nelson @ 23:“In 2004-2005 Bush policies caused gas to increase by ONE DOLLAR A GALLON, and NONE of it was to build infrastructure.”
So, all that oil that the Chinese are importing, the lack of refinery capacity (partly to blame from environmental and plain old NIMBYism), all the dozens of different gasoline formulations that states require, the oil producing countries are running nearly at capacity, that no new major oil finds have happened for several years, all that is Bush’s doing in the last two years? You’d think if he has that much power over time and space he’d be doing more!
This money will be “absorbed” the same way as the 5 cents in 2003 was that was supposed to fix these same type problems…
Nelson @ 23
If you follow the costs of all other things thru modern history when man used gasoline, remove the taxes from it and look at the actual price of fuel, you will find it to still be a bargain compared to lets say a house, a steak, or loaf of bread, or even a mans wages.
Chuck: “But what did it solve? Did they have a plan? No. Does anyone think that this money is going to fix any one problem? No. Not even one problem is eliminated by this money, not ONE!
Okay, but if Carlson was king what transportation problems would he’d actually fix? Fixing issues like 520 WILL require SOMEBODY to pay more money, even without prevailing wage laws, if you could get that through (which you’re not, and why isn’t he or Timmy E. pushing that initiative????). You have to work with the political reality as it is, not as you would like it to be. The D’s are in charge, like it or not, so get used to it. If the voters don’t like it, then they’d better get off their rears and clean house. But, I fear they won’t, but will keep complaining.
I’m as good a lefty as most of the posters here, and I’m gonna sign the gas tax repeal initiative. Why? Because our City and State leadership intend to start digging a hole for the Viaduct they know they can’t afford to finish. The Viaduct budget includes over $500 million to submerge Aurora Avenue north of the Battery Street Tunnel as part of Paul Allen’s plan to reconfigure Mercer Street to improve his development portfolio. That’s a half billion dollars that has nothing to do with the Viaduct or Seawall – it’s just pure pork for Paul.
If there was any willingness to look at retrofitting the Viaduct – which many respected engineers say is indeed possible for a fraction of the cost of the rebuild option, let alone the tunnel, I might feel differently. But paying a ton of dough in gas taxes to improve the development potential of the waterfront for cruise ship patrons? I think not.
Sadly, the only way to get their attention is to defund them – and that includes rejecting RTID next year.
In real terms (i.e., inflation-adjusted), our gas tax has been declining since the Great Depression. It’s not surprising that we needed to raise it, because it hasn’t been this low since 1928. I’d be willing to bet that it’s been steadily declining as a percentage of the cost of a gallon of gas, too.
1921 1 cent (equivalent to 9 cents in today’s dollars)
1924 2 cents (~ 22 cents today)
1929 3 cents (~ 32 cents today)
1931 4 cents (~ 44 cents today)
1933 5 cents (~ 68 cents today)
1949 6.5 cents (~ 50 cents today)
1961 7.5 cents (~ 47 cents today)
1967 9 cents (~ 51 cents today)
1977 11 cents (~ 36 cents today)
1979 12 cents (~ 34 cents today)
1981 13.5 cents (~ 30 cents today)
1983 16 cents (~ 31 cents today)
1984 18 cents (~ 33 cents today)
1990 22 cents (~ 33 cents today)
1991 23 cents (~ 32 cents today)
2003 28 cents (~ 29 cents today)
David@35
David, you figures are in error, they dont take into account major road and bridge building that has been undertaken in days gone by, that hasnt happened for many years…starting ferry systems up and other things like that, so actually they have more money now.
Chuck @32
“If you follow the costs of all other things thru modern history when man used gasoline, remove the taxes from it and look at the actual price of fuel, you will find it to still be a bargain compared to lets say a house, a steak, or loaf of bread, or even a mans wages.”
I don’t disagree with that statement. But if Bush had policies about energy like the Democrats do — conservation, fuel economy mandates on the auto fleet, using the threat of releases from the Strategic Reserve as a hammer to keep speculators away, etc. — instead of saying “let’s raise the price of crude, boys” then it would be lot more of a historical bargain that it is today.
And, since you think it is such a bargain, why the big deal about another couple of cents to help YOU and ME drive better and more safely on well repaired roads?
Again, the Bush “tax increases” on gasoline, since he came into power, do nothing whatsoever to help any of US. It helps only his domestic and foreign oil buddies. If you’re one of them, you have a right to say what you’re saying.
If you’re just a basic American businessman or worker and a consumer, you have to put the blame for escalated energy prices where it truly belongs — on the current Administration in Washington, DC.
Chuck@36 –>
You’re doing it again. He’s not saying that they have ‘less money’, he’s saying that in 2005 cents, the tax is lower than its been since 1928.
Changing the subject won’t make you right.
Nelson 37]……Democrats: more regulation, save the environment from the capitalists, no new refineries, NO NUKES, more taxes on fossil fuel, NO drilling off Florida, California, NO drilling in ANWAR,surtaxes on the “evil” oil companies …………and you blame the Republicans for higher fuel prices? God save up from the parasite Democrat idiots!
9…KaPow….”One other thing I really like about the gas tax (yes, I said I like it) is that in some ways, it is very progressive. Since business interests and the rich whiteys would never let a tax be passed so that heavy vehicles (hummers, etc) have”…………Kapow, What kind of car does O. J. drive? Is he still tooling around in the black SUV? [hehe]
windie@38
You are using a faulty comparison, I am not changing the subject, if you take the whole picture they are getting slightly less money and doing less with it which equates to getting more real money.
windie@38
And I also question your figures on your formula.
instead of saying “let’s raise the price of crude, boys” then it would be lot more of a historical bargain that it is today.>>>>>
I didnt hear Bush make that speech, could you give me a factual reference?
Yes, I missed the 2003 nickel gas tax boost, and I apologize for the error. However, this doesn’t invalidate my point. We’re talking 14.5 cents over 18 years (1991-2009), or less than a penny increase per year. If only the oil industry raised their prices by only a penny per year …
Vehicles get better mileage today. Someone who drove a 15 mpg vehicle in 1991 paid $.01533 gas tax per mile ($.23/15 miles). If the same person is driving a 20 mpg vehicle in 2009 he will pay $.01875 gas tax per mile ($.375/20 miles). This driver is paying $.00342 (or 22%) more per mile in gas tax 18 years later, slightly over 1% a year. And some of you are bitching about that!
Improvements in gas mileage hurt state highway funding by cutting gas tax revenues on a per mile basis. The more efficient cars are not significantly lighter and put about the same wear and tear on the road surfaces and structures. Although the total revenue dollars have increased because of increased population and more vehicles, the greater number of vehicles puts more wear on the roads and creates need for more highway lanes. In the last few years, fuel efficiency has regressed as more people moved to gas guzzling pickups and SUVs, but these heavier vehicles put more wear on the roads and create higher maintenance costs, which offsets the increased gas tax revenues they bring in.
I mention these numbers just to show the 5 cents in 2003 and 9.5 cents in 2005 – 2009 is not outrageous as the anti-tax crowd claims. Much of it is necessary just to catch up with the capacity expansion, maintenance, and aged structure replacement that was deferred during the period of anti-tax fervor in the 1990s. Tax avoidance was fun while it lasted, but the chickens are now coming home to roost.
I think the Legislature did an especially good job in dividing the burden of Alaska Way Viaduct and 520 floating bridge replacement between state and local taxpayers. The 9.5 cent gas tax funds only PART of these projects. The rest has to come from local vehicle taxes or fees. Seattle-area motorists will pay more for these projects than drivers in other areas of the state. And people living in Spokane, Vancouver, Yakima, or Walla Walla do benefit from transportation projects in Seattle, because the products they sell and the goods they buy move through Puget Sound ports, and their farms, businesses, and personal well-being depend on services provided in Seattle. These services include everything from medical care to financial services. The farmer in Odessa may be irrigating his alfalfa fields because his water rights were secured by a lawyer working in downtown Seattle. The wheat rancher in Davenport may be buying a new harvester with financing through a bank in downtown Seattle or receiving federal crop subsidies administered by an employee of a federal agency working in downtown Seattle, and his grain is loaded on a ship to Asia in Tacoma or Seattle. And so on. So for these folks to think that whether people can get to work and commerce can move in the Puget Sound area doesn’t affect them, they’re flat wrong. Nearly everyone in the state is affected by what happens in Seattle, whether they know it or not.
Mr. X, my understanding was that as of last year the viaduct replacement options don’t include submerging Aurora north of Denny and reconnecting the street grid; as you point out, it was too expensive.
* The Cost Estimate only includes widening the Mercer Street underpass under Aurora: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projec.....elPlan.pdf
* The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) specifies improving the Mercer Street underpass, not lowering Aurora and reconnecting the street grid: http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projec.....letter.pdf
Some of the WSDOT’s web pages (and their animated simulation) still include reconnecting the street grid north of Denny, but I don’t think it’s in the cards. If you know otherwise, please tell us so. If not, don’t assume the viaduct project is somehow pork-laden. Defunding the viaduct replacement project by repealing the gas tax hike wouldn’t solve anything.
Oh, but you hold out the hope that the viaduct can simply be repaired as it stands, on the cheap. Here’s what WSDOT says about retrofitting the viaduct:
Nelson@37
Tou said: I don’t disagree with that statement. But if Bush had policies about energy like the Democrats do – conservation, fuel economy mandates on the auto fleet,…..
The Democrats are mostly in charge of the state motorpool, why dont they practice what the preach, the fleet is full of Suburbans, Expeditions, Crown Victorias, and yes Escalades as well! Sounds like a typical democratic conservation program to me…
Patrick@42
I hate to break this to you but there has been no real significant milage increases on vehicles since 1991.
Chuck, are you insane?
the only formula I’ve presented is that “14 + 4 = 18” I sure hope you haven’t disproved that, because the implications to mathematics would be enormous!
And what you’re doing with david is still disingeneous (sp?). You’re basicly accusing him of saying more than he said. And if you question *HIS* forumula, then do it directly. Post inflation rates and your own set of numbers. Otherwise you’re just babbling
Silly Chuck @ 36: my figures are not “in error.” But the conclusion you just drew is. You declare out of the blue that “actually they have more money now,” on the logic that falling gas taxes (in real dollars) haven’t been paying for “major road and bridge building that has been undertaken in days gone by, that hasnt happened for many years…starting ferry systems up and other things like that.”
You have it bass ackward. Washington state hasn’t been able to engage in major road and bridge building, or even keep up with maintenance and improvement of its current road, bridge and ferry systems, because the funding from the gas tax hasn’t been sufficient (repeal of the MVET didn’t help either). I think Patrick summed the situation up nicely in his fourth paragraph @ 42. Your statement that the state has “more money now” than we did when the gas tax was higher is flat-out false, but an amusing use of your imagination.
Now we need to do some road work, so now we need to pay for it. Simple as that.
Chuck @41 & 44
“instead of saying “let’s raise the price of crude, boys” then it would be lot more of a historical bargain that it is today.>>>>>
I didnt hear Bush make that speech, could you give me a factual reference?”
How could you miss that? Remember the old adage, “Do as I do, not as I say.” The Bush-Cheney 2001 Energy meetings said that in every talk. All you have to do to read it is get a hold of the participants and the transcripts. It’s all there.
Gee, you mean they won’t release that stuff? I wonder why!!!
“The Democrats are mostly in charge of the state motorpool, why dont they practice what the preach, the fleet is full of Suburbans, Expeditions, Crown Victorias, and yes Escalades as well! Sounds like a typical democratic conservation program to me…”
If what you say is true, (I don’t know that but I’ll take your word for it) I wholeheartedly agree with you. Unless there are van pool or legitimate reasons (such has the necessity to have high-powered public safety vehicles), for the state to be operating vehicles like that, they should indeed ditch them and go to much more economical and conservation-oriented vehicles. The Post Office actually does that and so do a lot of other municipalities and a lot of other states.
I’m on the same page with you on that one.
See *now* David has said what you said he said. See the difference?
Oh yeah, my hyperconservative uncle who’s a Chief Engineer in the ferry system would disagree pretty strongly too about whether or not theres alot of money going around unused in the system…
Thanks, windie. Of course the gas tax rate is only one factor in how much money the state has available to spend on transportation projects. You also have to factor in, for instance, how much gasoline is sold and whether there are other funding sources for roads (on the revenue side), and how many miles of roads and what kinds of work they need, along with the cost of doing that work (on the expense side).
Of course, Chuck believes that if only we could repeal “prevailing wage” laws and pay as little as possible to the road workers, we’d suddenly be able to afford anything.
David@50
Thanks but no thanks for putting words in my mouth David, the road crews of private employers should get paid based on the economy and union agreement if they are in a union. Like everyone else, you know most of the work force. Why should a person working for a private contractor on a state job have a leg up on the guy that works for the private contractor that paves the Dennys parking lot?
David,
As of the last WSDOT open house I went to (probably 6 or so months ago) the entire Aurora portion of the project was most definitely all still on the table. I asked them how much is would cost to do the temporary Broad Street flyover (to be used when the Battery Street Tunnel is closed to complete the portal at the south end) and add one Aurora crossing at Roy, and the price came down to bout $30 million or so, as I recall.
Also, please note that Mayor Nickels is proceeding with Mercer planning under the assumption that the Viaduct picks up a sizable portion of that particular boondoggle.
BTW – the WSDOT folks pretty much said that all of this planning (and the Mayor squandered $5 million from the proceeds of the Mercer Street property sale to prop up the Viaduct EIS when they had run out of money) was at the City of Seattle’s behest. It is in no way off the table – rather, they are trying to come up with a phased financing plan to commit us to the entire plan. I wish you could prove me wrong, but I strongly suspect I’m not.
In regard to WSDOT saying the Viaduct can’t be renovated – they have had a hard-on to replace the Viaduct with a toll tunnel since at least 1994. If you were Parsons-Brinkerhoff, and you were doing the study for the State, would you arrive at the conslusion they clearly wanted – that it has to be replaced at a cost of $3-6 billion – and that would put you in prime position to bid on it? Several credible engineers have indicated that the Viaduct can in fact be retrofitted – the State just doesn’t want to hear it.
We’ll never get an honest assessment as long as the big project is their ultimate goal.
Apparently, the only thing that will get us there is defunding them from the get go.
David@47
Question then, we have the 5th highest gas tax nationally, why arent our roads the 5th best?
Of course, this discussion (how much money the state has for transportation) is a bit muddled, because not only don’t we have any hard figures (let alone inflation-adjusted figures), but it’s not clear what constitutes having “more money.” Does that mean the transportation budget in total? Or the money available for major (or minor) construction projects? The money avaiable relative to transportation needs? Or something else?
What we can be sure of is this:
* The gas tax, in real terms, is very low today;
* The MVET has been slashed;
* We have a lot of deferred maintenance and major road construction needs;
* Current funding for the WSDOT isn’t enough to cover those needs.
So it seems to me that the new hike in the gas tax makes a lot of sense.
David,
One other thing – all of the EIS options except No-Action include the Aurora portion of the project – which means they clearly intend to move forward with it.
Chuck @ 56: Your numbers are wrong again. Washington’s gas tax is, as of December 2004, 10th highest; the national average is 23.72 cents. Other states with similar congestion problems (e.g., New York, California, Florida) have higher gas taxes. And other states have other funding sources for roads, too. Also note that half of the gas tax revenue goes directly to cities, counties and other roads that aren’t part of the state highway system.
See WSDOT’s Fuel Taxes: A State-by-State Comparison.
Incidentally, if you’ve ever traveled the highways of other major metropolitan areas, you might get the impression that our roads are in good shape, relatively speaking.
WSDOT question; not only expensive, but why do our bridges sink? (hood canel and I90), and why do most of our urban freeways have whack off/on ramps that don’t match (yeah, i know its a city but other cities figured that one out). I still get mixed up at Ravenna, or Montlake, or Totem Lake, etc, etc.
Mr. X – yes, they all include Aurora north of Denny; it’s just a question of what they’re going to do there. I agree that it would make sense (fiscally and conceptually) to separate out that project entirely.
righton @ 60: I’m sure it’s George W. Bush’s fault somehow. :)
But you forgot Galloping Gertie. Technically it sank too.
David@59
Sorry, you are wrong again…
http://www.gaspricewatch.com/usgastaxes.asp
Ooh, Chuck, you’re not reading carefully. Don’t forget to include sales tax on gasoline in states that charge it, along with other surcharges on gas. Your figure is wrong.
David@64
But, sales is not a fuel tax for roads, that money goes into the state general fund, so you cannot call it gas tax. By our state constitution all our gas tax is to be used for transportation.
David@59
And incedently, I travel quite a bit and our roads are bad by comparison of most states.
I’d actually agree with Chuck at that point, the roads are HORRIBLE!
Which is why we need an increased gas tax. ;)
Also, counting only part of the gas tax and saying the other part ‘doesn’t count’ because it puts WA higher on the listing, while again dishonest, does seem to follow your pattern for talking about this subject. Anything to win, eh?
MR.X @35 &55.THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU…big breath of fresh air. You are so right. So if you as a self described “lefty” can see this why can’t the others? It just goes to show you that you really can’t label people as something just because of the ‘side’ they are on all the time. Dumb[that Paul Allen is such a swell guy…I know he has our best interests at heart…GAG] is obviously dumb no matter what side you are from.
windie@67
No the discussion is fuel tax used on roads, going by your standard, if I pulled into the gas station and got cited for not signaling the turn then that fine is part of the gas tax…get real.
windie@67
When you are paying the 5th highest it isnt at all a sign that it need increased, it is a sign that the system needs revamped (DMV)
Christmasghost-
Of course you realize this is probably the last time we’ll agree on anything (grin).
@69: more craziness. You know thats a terribly specious argument… and yet you give it anyways!
@70: I just don’t get you, but to get thru your wierd text-warping ability, I’ll clarify… “The fact that the roads are in bad shape is a reason that we need more money for roads, IE an increase of the gas tax, all of which is supposed to go to roads.”
The roads were in “bad” shape in 2003, we gave them another nickel and the roads didnt improve. The state has no plan for the money.
Now we can talk!
Maybe we can actually discuss something real now, like whether more money will help the situation.
(Well not me right now, I don’t really know~~ But I”ll look crap up!)
Mr. X @ 35
The state isn’t paying a cent for a tunnel. The gas tax provides $2 billion for Alaska Way, which doesn’t cover the cheapest alternative let alone a tunnel. If Seattle Mayor Nickels wants to press ahead with a tunnel, he’ll have to raise the extra cost from local funding. The state funding doesn’t include a cent for rebuilding the seawall, either. THE GAS TAX PROVIDES ONLY PARTIALLY FUNDS BARE-BONES VIADUCT REPLACEMENT. If your intention is to oppose gold-plating the viaduct project, voting to repeal the gas tax is ineffectual for this purpose. Instead, you should vote for Mayor Nickel’s opponent when he runs for re-election, or oppose a local funding package that includes more money for the viaduct than is necessary for basic replacement.
When you want to have a viable tax that is fair, you get a plan as well as an honest cost and timeline to put the plan through, then put it before the people instead of go with a backdoor elimination of I-601 (a voter approved initiative). They dont even have a plan for the viaduct or the 520 bridge. No plan, no estimated cost, NOTHING. So they decided to increase taxes on a literal pie in the sky estimate and called it an emergency, thus denying the right to referendum…dirty and unacceptable. (Oh I forgot Gregoire claimed in her campaign she would not support increasing gas taxes)
JCH @ 40
Despite your lame attempts to blame the Democrats for high energy prices, it’s the oil companies — not Democrats — who control those prices!
The refinery shortage in the U.S. is NOT caused by environmentalists! The oil companies deliberately created this shortage to drive up prices. Are you saying the world’s richest and most powerful industry can’t afford to build new refineries? That they can’t pass on the relatively minor cost of pollution controls to consumers? That’s utter nonsense.
Shell wants to close its Bakersfield, California refinery. At first, they told the public it’s losing money. But internal documents showed Bakersfield is Shell’s most profitable refinery. Buyers lined up to purchase the refinery, but Shell refused to sell. That proves Shell’s purpose in closing the refinery was to create a shortage in the California market, not because it was losing money.
There’s a very good reason why nuclear power plants aren’t being built in the U.S. It’s because in the 1970s the U.S. private nuclear industry proved it couldn’t be trusted with something as dangerous as a nuclear power plant. They were repeatedly caught in safety violations. They falsified paperwork to hide defective pipe welds. They lied to government regulators and investigators. They couldn’t account for plutonium that could be processed into weapons grade material. They even murdered Karen Silkwood because she knew too much about their shoddy practices. And then, of course, there was Three Mile Island.
Another reason why the public should oppose nuclear plants is the $500 million liability limit passed by Congress in the 1970s. This law is still on the books. A major nuclear accident would inflict billions, not millions, in losses on the surrounding community. Guess what, your homeowner or business insurance policy doesn’t cover nuclear accidents. If you lost your business or couldn’t live in your home because of contamination, you’d be shit out of luck. Current government policy makes YOU, the little guy, bear the loss — even though you have no control over how the irresponsible nuclear industry runs the power plant in your town — and probably is lying to you about its safety problems.
My friend, I PROMISE YOU, as long as nuclear power is built and run by people as dishonest and irresponsible as those running the U.S. private nuclear companies, and as long as U.S. government policy is to make ordinary citizens eat the enormous economic losses that would result from a nuclear plant accident, I promise you I WILL FIGHT NUCLEAR POWER TO MY LAST BREATH.
Yes, nuclear power has something to offer as part of a long-term energy solution, but there’s nothing to discuss until the industry cleans up its act and government offers sufficient guarantees to protect the life savings of innocent citizens who are asked to live next door to these plants.
Gas really isnt that high, look at other products, it is the tax that is bad.
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....3chart.asp
Chuck @ 47
Yes, the State Patrol uses Crown Victorias, because they need fast cars to catch speeders. I can’t recall ever seeing a Suburban with a state logo, but I readily can imagine a need for the Suburban’s 4WD and carrying capacity for such purposes as the Department of Natural Resources’ forest fire fighting operations, where they have to transport equipment and fire fighters over backcountry roads. Most of the official state vehicles I’ve personally witnessed have been economy cars and inexpensive vans. I’ll bet if you combed through every state motor pool you would be hard pressed to find any examples of vehicles inappropriate or unnecessarily expensive for what they’re used for. I think your post is dishonest.
Mr. X @ 55
I agree that Mayor Nickels needs watching. In addition to his tendencies to gold-plate transportation and development projects, The Seattle Weekly has exposed sweetheart land deals involving Paul Allen and the Gates Foundation.
Mr. X @ 35
The state isn’t paying a cent for a tunnel. The gas tax provides $2 billion for Alaska Way, which doesn’t cover the cheapest alternative let alone a tunnel. If Seattle Mayor Nickels wants to press ahead with a tunnel, he’ll have to raise the extra cost from local funding. The state funding doesn’t include a cent for rebuilding the seawall, either. THE GAS TAX PROVIDES ONLY PARTIALLY FUNDS BARE-BONES VIADUCT REPLACEMENT. If your intention is to oppose gold-plating the viaduct project, voting to repeal the gas tax is ineffectual for this purpose. Instead, you should vote for Mayor Nickel’s opponent when he runs for re-election, or oppose a local funding package that includes more money for the viaduct than is necessary for basic replacement.
Comment by Patrick — 5/13/05 @ 3:07 pm
Well, yes and no. In fact, according to WSDOT (and the W in that acronym is for “Washington” – as in the State of Washington) their preferred alternative is in fact the tunnel.
Yes, they currently say that they are continuing to plan for a rebuild if funding is not available, and yes, we need to oppose that funding when (or if) it comes before voters. But it is incredibly naive for you to say that the $2 billion in proposed gas taxes is completely unrelated to the tunnel – it simply isn’t (and, again, all indications are that WSDOT and Nickels are using that $2 billion to start the ball rolling on the tunnel option – other funds be damned).
In addition, Greg Nickels and some City Councilmembers say they will actively oppose a rebuilt Viaduct on the waterfront – so it is also naive to believe that anything but the tunnel will occur if there is enough money to phase the project and begin digging.
How much do you want to bet that the State Legislature will amend the legislation requiring a local RTID match if voters reject that at the polls?
I asked Greg Nickels on KCTS Connects if he remembered making a campaign promise to support an elevated replacement for the Viaduct if a tunnel proves to be financially infeasible. His response – the tunnel IS financially feasible (He might want to ask Patty Murray about that)
Patrick@79
What is your idea of an economy car, I guess we need to start with your frame of reference…by the way, you dont need a fast car to catch speeders , nor are Crown Vickys fast, and the Suburbans are usually 2 wheel drive…:)
Chuck,
The cop version of the Crown Vic is plenty fast – and even a 2-wheel drive Suburban works offroad quite well if it has positraction (which most do).
Cops need big cars to carry their equipment and prisoners. The idea of catching speeders or fleeing perps with economy cars is ludicrous on its face. BTW – the City of Seattle – Dem central if ever there was one – uses lots of economy cars and is getting into hybrids, as well.
I disagree w/Patrick on the AWV, but he’s on point, here. Your post at 47 blaming Dems for lack of fuel efficiency is pure rightwing claptrap (when have you EVER seen a state-owned Escalade, for example)?
OTOH – members of the King County Council get higher milage reimbursements for their personal vehicles if they own gas guzzlers, which does suck. I expect this from R’s, but it was a disappointment coming from most of the D’s (the only one who drives an economy car is Bob Ferguson)
Patrick……….You are totally clueless and a Democrat socialist fool. Perhaps the state of Washington should not permit any oil companies to sell their goods in state. That will show those evil capitalists! Patrick, you MUST be a “guvment” employee. You just must be! [I’ll bet a Hershey Bar!]
Mr. X@83
Sorry but the Crown Vicky in cop drag isnt even moderatly fast…or quick either, a factory civilian intrepid 3.5 v6 will stomp one any day and get 25 MPG, as far as the Suburban, no most 2x surbs dont come to the state with posi OR limited slip differentials and they handle in the woods like a refrigerator. That along with the catching speeders mentality is bankrupt. Police officers have an accident rate 4 times that of the average driver, we have helicopters planes and radios, there is no excuse in this day and age to recklessly put innocent lives in jepardy by chasing some moron that decided to flee (I assume this is why you say cops need a fast car). Now if you want to go to one of the state motorpool parking lots in Lacey (it is close to the Home Depot in Lacey on the same road but across the street) you can see on most given days 3-5 escalades, a Volvo, several Navigators, multiple other luxo sedans and trucks , this is not the econobox collection you are referring to, and these arent equiped with light bars or police markings. These are normal state vehicles…
But – – – “I don’t drive on that road. Why should I have to pay taxes to keep it up? Charge the people who use it, not me. I get no benefit what-so-ever from that particular stretch of road”.
For those of you who agree with this absurd statement, perhaps next time the sewer will back up into your living room. The way to get it fixed will be to pay some official in Euros (since the dollar will soon be worthless)!
Taxes are paid to keep >> OUR < < infrastructure working for >> EVERYONE <
demonrat@85
What the hell was that supposed to mean? Some strange attempt at eubonics?
Chuck — since you say that repealing the prevailing wage law would save a tremendous amount of money, why don’t you provide some links showing how much it costs us and how much it would save?
Given your track record I won’t hold my breath.
Of course, that doesn’t even get into the fact that there is a federal prevailing wage law requiring prevailing wages to be paid on all highway projects receiving federal money (which is nearly 100%), so repealing the state statute won’t really accomplish anything. But I guess I’m kidding myself asking you or your GOPmates to provide legitimate solutions.
Chuck at 84
A police-interceptor equipped Crown Vic tops out at 129 – and it can hold that speed all day because cop cars have heavy duty cooling systems (so they can outrun a Vette in the desert, for example). I’m agreed on the efficacy of police chases in most cases, but honestly, do you really think the other right-wing posters here think cops should let perps go (this isn’t LA – we don’t have helicopters all over the place – so when a car chase is abandoned the perp often does get away).
Do the vehicles in the motor pool lot actually have exempt plates, btw?
Reply to #32:
“This money will be “absorbed” the same way as the 5 cents in 2003 was that was supposed to fix these same type problems…”
To my knowledge, no one ever said or claimed that the five cent gas tax was going to fix our transportation problems. It was declared as a “downpayment”, a first installment, a starting point to finance these problems.
Sorry Chuck@86, not eubonics – – – left a couple HTML characters in. It said –
But – – – “I don’t drive on that road. Why should I have to pay taxes to keep it up? Charge the people who use it, not me. I get no benefit what-so-ever from that particular stretch of road”.
For those of you who agree with this absurd statement, perhaps next time, the sewer will back up into your living room. The way to get it fixed will be to pay some official in Euros (since the dollar will soon be worthless)!
Taxes are paid to keep OUR infrastructure working for EVERYONE! It’s time the deconstructionists think this out. Government is not BAD, as the Repugs would have everyone believe. Government provides the matrix we build on to create wealth and well-being. Take government away, take infrastructure away, take safety nets away, take regulations away, take funding away – – – everything currently being done under the heading of “Making government smaller and more accountable” and guess what? – – – one day you Repugs will find no electricity for your business, impassable roads and a system of regulations governed by how much you can bribe an official to get things done. We used to call this kind of place a Banana Republic, but today we call it the Republican dream for America. Yes, the nightmare is fast approaching…
Mr. X@88
“A police-interceptor equipped Crown Vic tops out at 129″>>>>
WOW a whole 120 mph! Holy smokes Batman!, My old 93 Dodge Shadow would do that…and yes all day long, as will the Intrepid mentioned in the last post, get real, that isnt fast anymore, it was fast in the 60’s but not todays age, by the way Im a wrench so Ive owned most of these cars, including yes a cop Crown.
And yes the cars all have exempt plates on them in the Lacey compound.
Mr. X@88
“this isn’t LA – we don’t have helicopters all over the place”
No they arent all over the place but the on the west side they are in Olympia at the airport, if you want to see the copters and planes take the Airdustreal Way exit off of I-5 and go to the airport at shift change…
Prevailing wage hurts:
http://www.abc.org/user-assets.....QR0903.pdf
It occurs to me that the entire discussion of the relative merits of the Crown Vic (or any other rear drive V-8 full sized sedan) is kind of irrelevent, given that cops in Blue and Red states alike all use them almost exclusively now. You wanna tell some macho cop he’s gotta drive a minivan?
PS – can you send those helicopters up to Seattle? Got any black ones?
MR.X…..well, we agreed this time. who knows….OMG…it COULD happen again. heh heh heh……..
In any case, you obviously have no clue about the Sounder. As a regular rider I can tell you that not only does the Sounder run at a pretty full rate – having it there has enabled me and my family to afford a house where it otherwise would not be possible. -Comment by Nindid— 5/13/05 @ 7:10 am
Helipads for everyone
The Sounder, from Seattle to Everett, cost $316,000,000. With a flat 150 riders a day (since service started) the proportioned bill comes to $8426, per rider, per day, for the year.
Far be it from me to simply cavil and complain: unless I can offer a realistic, cost-efficient alternative, I ought to just sit back and take it, if I understand the sentiments of our legislators correctly.
I just looked into Classic Helicopter in Seattle. They underbid Sound Transit by $8212 per rider. A roundtrip commute between Everett and Sea-Tac would come to $642 for 3 passengers.
Of course, to be fair to Sound Transit, that’s computed for the less expensive Robinson R44 Clipper II, not a Eurocopter AS350 B Astar, which is much bigger and faster.
“Ridership has not been as high as we expected,” said Mark Olson, vice chairman of Sound Transit and an Everett City Council member, who added that the biggest complaint he hears is the lack of alternate train times. “It will be very interesting to see what happens when we add a second train in September.”
Very interesting indeed. Almost as interesting as him NOT ALREADY KNOWING, based on statistical projections, before they increase the costs.
Posted by Brian Crouch at 10:41 AM at 10:41 AM
And people actually wonder where the money could come from (other than massive regressive gas tax increases). Amazing! It’s Called Sound Transit, it is the states biggest money pit providing nothing but broken promises!
Mr. X@94
No but put him in a 3.5 Dodge Intrepid and he will gain speed as well as fuel milage…(police reference to their cars is “thumps”)
Mr. X@95
Nope no black ones…but go to the airport during the day and you can observe around a dozen empty state patrol riggs there (the police are in the aircraft) try me….I gave you directions…
Chuck @ 65: You object, “sales [tax] is not a fuel tax for roads, that money goes into the state general fund, so you cannot call it gas tax. By our state constitution all our gas tax is to be used for transportation.”
Your logic missed a turn there, Chuck. By our Washington state constitution all our gas tax is to be used for transportation, whereas sales taxes go into the general fund (for transportation and everything else). In our state we have a fixed cents-per-gallon gas tax and NO sales tax on gasoline. In a handful of other states, though, separate sales taxes on gasoline fund their transportation budgets.
Somehow you think we should ignore that when comparing taxes on gasoline between states. Sorry, but that is just stupid. By your logic, we could eliminate the gas tax and impose a 20% sales tax on gasoline purchases, and you would happily claim we have the nation’s lowest tax on gasoline! Sheesh. THE FACTS: Our gas tax is in the top twenty percent nationwide, but we’re not top five, and our gas taxes are still lower than in other states (like CA, FL, and NY) that also have serious congestion problems to address.
Incidentally, Chuck, @ 78 you’re right that gasoline is currently not all that expensive in real terms, compared to what it’s been in the past—and it’s especially cheap when you compare what we pay here to the price of gasoline in, say, European countries. [Wow, that’s a nice autobahn those Germans have. I wonder how they pay for it? Oh.]
Again, though, you manage to pull a completely wrong conclusion out of thin air. You figure somehow that with gasoline at a relatively normal price (in real, historical terms) and gas taxes falling to their lowest rate since before the Great Depression (again in real terms), “it is the tax that is bad.”
I guess that when it comes to real facts vs. preconceived notions, facts don’t really do it for you. Too bad. Enjoy your fantasy world, though! Just leave the policy decisions to those of us in the reality-based community.
David@101
You object, “sales [tax] is not a fuel tax for roads, that money goes into the state general fund, so you cannot call it gas tax. By our state constitution all our gas tax is to be used for transportation.”
Your logic missed a turn there,>>>>>>>
No it is your logic that is faulty, the discussion is per state tax used to build and repair infastructure in that area we pay the 5th hightest in the nation. You are putting apples and oranges in the same basket.
David@102
I guess that when it comes to real facts vs. preconceived notions, facts don’t really do it for you. Too bad. Enjoy your fantasy world, though! Just leave the policy decisions to those of us in the reality-based community.>>>>>>>>>
You know David, I might consider your offer if your ideas werent bankrupting this state and nation. You see it is your renter mentality that amazes me so. I own 2 houses…no not make payments, I own them outright, I got there by good responsible decisions not spending like a mad hatter on things I dont even have a plan for. That is my fantasy world. How bout yours?
Chuck @ 103: try re-reading my post @ 101 for comprehension. Look for this concept that is escaping you: other states use different taxes (such as sales taxes on fuel) to fund the construction and repair of transportation infrastructure. You can’t just pretend those taxes don’t count and expect us to believe you when you declare our gas taxes higher than theirs. Give it a rest.
Chuck @ 104: Congrats on being a homeowner twice over with paid-off mortgages. Yawn. Good for you. Going off on an odd tangent doesn’t change the lack of logic behind your statement that “it is the tax that is bad.” Why, it’s as though you were trying to deflect attention from that.
And Chuck @ 104: What’s actually bankrupting the nation is the Republican party’s obsession with cutting taxes while spending like a drunk sailor.
Your kids (do you have kids?) are going to start off with a mountain of debt left to them to pay off.
But who am I to criticize? It feels good, so I guess you should do it.
David@105
Last time I looked upon my property tax statement there is a portion earmarked for roads, the state also gets federal money for roads, dont give me that “gas tax pays it all” bs.
Chuck, what’s happened to your reading comprehension? I didn’t give you any “‘gas tax pays it all’ bs.”
David@109
I forgot to mention rental car tax, tonnage fees, as well as others. What I am saying is that the discussion is centered on the fact that WSDOT is recieving plenty of money. You say I am falsly removing the sales tax from other state figures, putting us in 5th place, if that is so, you are giving false figures leaving out the rest of the revinue sorces that this state milks for “funding”. I am not saying that a no tax situation is the way to go, but there is a serious hemmoraging problem with WSDOT, fix the problem befor feeding additional funding into it. If your gas tank has a hole in it do you simply put more gas in it? No if you are smart you fix the leak then see how much gas you need at that point…right?
Chuck: This is all in the context of how much money the state spends on transportation, but the claim at issue is whether or not we have the nation’s 5th highest GAS TAX, as you keep falsely claiming. The only way you can get to that figure is by ignoring some other states’ taxes on gas, on the specious distinction that theirs is calcluated as a percentage instead of a fixed cents-per-gallon basis.
As to whether WSDOT is receiving “plenty of money,” you’re coming at it from the wrong angle. Yes, there are lots of funding sources (taxes, fees, etc.) that can be put toward transportation. But the only figure that matters is the actual budget for transportation set by the legislature. THAT’S how much money WSDOT has, plain and simple.
I’ve seen no evidence that WSDOT is rolling in dough or hemmoraging money; your naked assertions and innuendoes don’t suffice. On the contrary, WSDOT has been using its budget (our tax dollars) effectively, even though there isn’t enough money there to do all the maintenance, safety improvements and congestion relief construction that’s necessary. Their project list and budgets are transparent and you can keep track of their accountability on the WSDOT website. Your “hole in the gas tank” is imaginary.
David@112
The Sounder, from Seattle to Everett, cost $316,000,000. With a flat 150 riders a day (since service started) the proportioned bill comes to $8426, per rider, per day, for the year.>>>>
I think I see your point, this is clearly a model bargain that should be…how did she say it, held up as an example to the world!
And yes, WSDOT invested money into this boondoggle!
David@112
The prevailing wage law is another hole in the gas tank.
Goldy
Great correlation between taxation levels and infrastructure maintenance! But, doesn’t New York City have close to the highest combined state/local tax load in the country?
Are you trying to say here: “No matter how high the tax load is, the bureaucrats and unions will find something to spend the money on besides maintenance of a 97 year old retaining wall” ???
David If “WSDOT has been using its budget (our tax dollars) effectively” as you allege, they would NOT be throwing money at Sound Transit. They WOULD be privatizing maintanence and some other functions rather than building empires. Did you happen to see the 7-person, 5-truck crew painting the yellow stripe on 405 Thursday AM?
And for all you viaduct boosters up there, the seawall will be fixed as a part of the viaduct. The City has known for at least a decade that the wall is ready to collapse, and is counting on the state and feds to bail them out for their “deferred maintenance”. That is why the seawall is part of the $4 billion plus we will spend to save Seattle’s seawall and viaduct.
Another big cost included in the $4 billion is to relocate a slew of utilities that are underground under the viaduct now. I’d bet many of these are near the end of their useful life and should have been replaced a decade ago, too. And now the City can get us to pay for a nice “upgrade” of these! Sounds like another win-win for the taxpayers!
zip@115
Thanks for pointing these things out zip, seems there are lots of holes on the WSDOT gas tank….
Chuck and david..
You omitted the capital cost of $1.2 billion to get the Everett run going. Unfair to exclude this, especially if you think it ultimately has low value (slow clunky rail line)
Build me a nice rail to the airport, spend a billion and then I’ll say, “ok lots of riders, good for the public, the billion is an investment, not a wasted spend..
WSDOT and bureaucrats are not spending money on Sound Transit. It is a separate body, formed by an election of the people. Get your facts right.
Why don’t democrats support Washington State department performance audits? If they did, republicans could see how democrats spend our hard earned tax fees and they will cry more foul or in donnageddon’s case fowl.
Interesting take on most arguments except Patrick @ 77 & 79. Regarding the Shell Oil Bakerfield Refinery – Royal Dutch Shell, not American owned. – Nuff Said!!!
New York State uses Ford Mustangs too – with two speed differentials, who fly down the Thruway at high speeds. I was with someone when a Ford Mustang came from nowhere to get Denis. Their Thruway interceptors are Crown Victorias and they go over 120 MPH way easy with their two speed differentials.
With performance audits we all can see how our $$$$ ARE SPENT. So until YOU DEMOCRATS STOP BLOCKING THE PERFORMANCE AUDITS, THE REPUBLICANS WILL STOP WACKY TAX INCREASES.
Pudster.
Hey 119,
I lump all transit in Wash state into one category “amateurs wasting our money”. I see no difference in end results between bridges that sink, freeways with HOV lanes in alternate sides, exits that don’t let you back on, all sound transit, new-age finance by Monorail, bus tunnel (go read rick anderson columns in 1989 or so on the lies and waste there), Metro bus service (ha).
K@119
thanks also for bringing up Sound transit’s election mandate. “We” approved a system 1.5x the size, and for 1/2 the money. Many would argue the “system” stole from us by not honoring what we voted on (we didn’t approve this substantially worse project)
K@119
News flash, WSDOT money is contributed to this boongoggle.
Chuck @ 114: “The Sounder . . . proportioned bill comes to $8426, per rider, per day, for the year. . . . And yes, WSDOT invested money into this boondoggle!”
Man, I’m tired of correcting your misleading numbers. I might as well be asking, How many Communists are there in the State Department today?
Not to defend Sounder exactly, but when you look at the whole system (instead of one low-ridership run), the total capital and operating costs of each one-way trip for a commuter on Sounder in 2004 were $119.40. Look! Your figure is only off by $8300 or so.
Mind you, I think Sounder is a lousy bargain (fares are now covering just 12% of operating costs, only 2% of total costs [including capital expenditures])—and don’t get me started on the light rail money pit—but I can make a much stronger case against subsidizing it if I’m using trustworthy, representative numbers.
Also, do you have any evidence that WSDOT “invested money into” Sound Transit (or as zip imagines @ 116, that they’re “throwing money at Sound Transit”), other than working as a partner where WSDOT rights-of-way (e.g. highways & some rail track improvements) are involved? Let’s see it. I think you can understand if I want to verify what you say is true.
Oops, my quotation of Chuck above should begin “The Sounder, from Seattle to Everett . . .”; the ellipsis was badly placed. Chuck’s $8426 figure clearly referred to one Sounder run, not to Sounder service as a whole.
David
“working as a partner where WSDOT rights-of-way (e.g. highways & some rail track improvements) are involved” meets my definition of throwng money.
Hi
Who can answer my question?
Tell, and here at you always so?