Dave Neiwert has a great guest column in today’s Seattle P-I, and while he’s writing about bicyclists, the same holds true for pedestrian and transit commuters as well:
Trier, like a lot of misinformed folks, seems to believe the only road taxes we pay are motor vehicle licensing fees and fuel taxes. But the truth is that those fees largely pay for state and federal highways, and even then only a portion of them. The rest of the costs of those roadways are borne by all taxpayers generally, including bicyclists, through local, property and sales taxes. Local roads, where you find most cyclists, are another story altogether.
Indeed, most bicyclists in fact also own cars, so they’re also paying the licensing fees and gas taxes as well. But by using their bikes in place of cars, the wear and tear (and subsequent maintenance costs) they inflict is exponentially less than that caused by cars and trucks.
A 1995 study titled “Whose Roads?” by cycling advocate Todd Litman laid all this out in detail. The study estimated that automobile users pay an average of 2.3 cents per mile in user fees, including fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees, while they actually impose 6.5 cents per mile in road service costs. Who pays the difference? It’s picked up by general taxes and property assessments. So while bicyclists pay an equal share of those taxes, they impose costs averaging only 0.2 cents per mile in road service costs.
The amount bicyclists overpay leaps out when you look at the costs of local roads, the roads cyclists use most. Litman found that only a third of the funds for their construction and maintenance comes from vehicle user charges; local property, income and sales taxes pay the rest. Automobile user fees contribute only about 1 cent per mile toward the costs of local roads but simultaneously impose costs more than six times that amount.
This is the type of clarity that makes Dave one of my favorite local writers, and it highlights an argument that should be raised in the midst of the debate over the controversial Roads & Transit measure on the November ballot. The anti-rail folk often argue that they shouldn’t have to subsidize transit riders, when in fact it is transit riders who have long been subsidizing roads via the sales and property taxes that pay for the bulk of their maintenance. Likewise, relatively light drivers like me — I average less than 6,000 miles a year — get substantially less for our sales, property and MVET tax buck than a more typical 15,000 to 20,000 mile per year commuter.
The idea that automobile drivers pay as they go, while everybody else is a freeloader, is complete and utter bullshit that fails to evaluate our transportation system and tax structure as a whole. But I’ve never before been able to put it into words quite effectively as Dave.
My food comes in via road. My bicycles got to the bike shop via road. Services to my home come in via road.
It is not just my driving that is happening on the road.
drool @1,
That still doesn’t change the fact that people who drive less (or don’t drive at all) are subsidizing folks who drive a lot.
OK…talking about pavement in a holistic way may be a stretch. But it goes to prove that you can’t just have light rail or just have roads. Things work together, we need both.
Vote yes on Roads & Transit.
Goldy: Do you think it is a good thing that the ST2 plan would expose the people and families of this region to exactly the same kinds of abuses that occurred on the Big Dig in Boston?
What strikes me as really strange is how the proponents of ST2 are so hostile to the notion of an oversight body to ensure quality and cost control. That would be a big improvement. That is what would have headed off the major cost control and quality control problems problems that arose during the Big Dig.
You know – trust but verify.
Under ST2, if the engineers and contractors did a poor job, and delayed their work, they would just get more money. And ST2 has no limits on how many billions of sales taxes ST could throw at those engineers and contractors.
Plus, voters can not vote more savvy (or fiscally-responsible) board members onto ST’s board (those are all political appointee-positions). That is the antithesis of a democratic governing board.
ST2 is premised on a belief: unlimited government sales tax handouts necessarily represent good policy. Can you find no fault with that?
Concerned Seattle Residents,
Ask yourselves, the Mediation Team and The Seattle City Council why hasn’t the (2) global engineering firms poised to conduct each a 90 day SR 520 Alternative Engineering Feasibility Study – HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN HIRED YET!
Both of these firms are knowledgeable and experienced with more hands on expertise in actual design, construction and management of these alternatives both structurally and environmentally than any global firm and yet The Keystone Center has not hired them yet.
We asked Senator Edward Murray for $300,000.00 and instead Senate Bill 6099 called for $3 Million and yet nothing has been accomplished in the 4 months that The Keystone Center has been on the job.
The public will soon be asked to vote on the RTID but why doesn’t the public know that an immersed tunnel tube under the water surface out to the west 520 high-rise would only cost 12% more than what Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) wants to pave over with a foot print the size of 3 Kingdomes instead – destroying our communities and arboretum.
Also, the monstrosity of the WSDOT proposal can’t accommodate light rail or rapid transit in it’s current proposal and the alternative can!
What is our Governor thinking?
The (2) global engineering firms are:
Capita Symmonds
Attn: Richard Lunniss
Richard.Lunniss@capita.co.uk
Hazel Munn
Hazel.Munn@capita.co.uk
Capita Symonds House, Wood Street,
East Grinstead, West Sussex,
RH19 1UU, UK
Tel: + 44 (0) 1342 327161
Direct: +44 (0) 1342 333610
Fax: + 44 (0) 1342 315927
Mobile: + 44 (0) 7775 706307
COWI A/S
ATTN: Stephen Slot Odgaard
sso@cowi.dk
Senior Project Manager
Tunnels & Underground structures
Parallelvej 2
DK-2800 Kongens Lyngby
Denmark
Tel +45 4597 2211
Direct +45 4597 2110
Mob +45 2147 9222
Fax +45 4597 2212
http://www.cowi.com
Louis Hoffer
Seattle Residents for a Financially Feasible and Environmentally Preferable 520 Project
Isn’t it obvious? A liberal/conservative consenesus …roads should pay for themselves.
The costs of suburbia should be included in the costs people pay for dispersed living NOT in the taxes you and I pay.
While I am on a fiscal accountiability kick, what portion of regional costs do Seattle taxpayers pay vs. our brethren in Hunts’ Point? Who pays for the zoo? the acquarium, SAM?
What are the regional costs of upkeep of the decorative laje in front of Bill Gate’s house and what share of thise costs does he pay?
While I am on this riff, how many tax payers know that they pay a subsidy to Lakeside? Besides the dubious claim that the school is a non profit and should not pay taxes, under WA state law they can and do issue tax free bonds!
SEE? The voucher system does work!
Sorry I missed your show Sun. nite … I assumed that you were copoted when ever the Seahawks play.
Goldy, RTID will increase road subsidies.
The measure is funded largely by a new general purpose sales tax. This means that it doesn’t matter whether I drive or not — no matter what I do, I will be paying through the nose to make global warming worse.
It’s like you’re hypnotized by those trains. Snap out of it!
Goldy,
There will always be an inequity. I don’t have kids but I pay for kids’ services happily.
My motorhome is charged tax by its gross weight but spends hardly any time on the road.
If the state was all about not sluch funding expenses accross revenue streams I’d be all for it. I can guarantee you my motorhome registration does not all go for the roads it allegedly wears out faster than a car.
@6
I don’t follow your logic at all. I could maybe understand how that would be true for a plan where the money is only going towards roads, but not for one that goes towards both transit and roads. A car that takes an hour to go from point A to point B because of traffic will pollute more than a car that takes 20 minutes. We should be building transit where we can to reduce congestion, but for areas where transit will be a realistic alternative for at least 10 years, keeping those roads from becoming parking lots is a smart thing to do.
sorry,
will NOT be a realistic alternative for…
@7,8
of course there are inequities BUT there is also a need for accountability ..an issue the right and the left share.
If we as a society are sponending a huge portion of our shared resources to pay for a few peole to live too well ..whether these be the very rich or welfare queens, it is only dmeocratic for the information to be transparent when we all vote.
@2…Goldy…
Make you a deal…All the non-road users can stop paying for roads, and all the road users can stop paying for Sound Transit, Metro, Ferries and…shudder…bicycle paths. Each to his or her own, paying for his or her own.
Those who use pay, while those who don’t, don’t…
The Piper
11 …and if California’s experience from Reagan’s term as governor onward is any indication, everyone would eventually end up paying more. “Taxes” and “User Fees” are basically the same thing under different labels.
The first time a lot of motorists in the Golden State learned that lesson was when they found out they had to pay nine dollars to stop for 15 minutes at a state park to let their kids pee.
Lee @ 8,9
Yes, if a car exists and is in motion, the most fuel efficient speed is about 45mph.
We’re not there now, and you know what, five or ten years after new RTID highways are built, we won’t be there again; study after study shows that highways fill up as soon as you build them, the big difference being that, each time they fill up, there are even more cars idling inefficiently.
Bottom line: new highways cause a fairly permanent blowup in greenhouse gases at a time when we know we have to make steep cuts — about 80% by 2050 and since our population is increasing, this is even tougher than it sounds.
If you care about global warming — even if you are just a pathetic tightwad — it is clear that more roads and more cars don’t get the job done.
Now, I like to think I’m not a tightwad — gas tax, monorail tax, car tab fees, I usually don’t care. I earn way less than the median Seattle salary, but I vote for taxes because I believe in investing in the common good.
The thing is, with the RTID tax, I’m not being public spirited, I’m just being a sucker, enabling our addiction to oil.
Part of the problem is that those of us in the urban counties are subsidizing roads on the east side of the mountains with our gas taxes. Now in order to build adequate roads and repair roads and bridges we are going to have to impose a sales tax on books, clothing and yes bicycles. Better we should bring the gas taxes we pay home and let the folks in Ferry County pay a sales tax on crystal meth or whatever they spend their money on to pay for their roads.
…and pay tax on the products that come from there by road….by distance travelled?
@14
quit illin’ on the rural folks.
@11…AF…
Any parent who’s dumb enough to not just pull off to the side of the road and let junior or juniorette “visit the rear tire” or “go see Mrs. Murphy” who lives behind that big tree deserves to pay $9 at a state park.
Just because life and emergencies happen is no reason for me to have to pay for someone’s bicycle path or a ST train, neither of which I’ll ever use.
Unless, however, you’re willing to subsidize my need for HBO so that I can watch Big Love at home rather than getting into my polluting Dodge Caravan and going either to Blockbuster to rent the DVD’s or to my local multi-plex where I can find some first-run alternative entertainment.
And here’s a question I’ve asked beaucoup times without, as yet, a satisfactory answer: How does one schlep home on a bycycle or ST train six 4X8 sheets of wallboard, a big bucket of mud, tape, sheet rock screws, and that box of JuJuBees impulsively purchased at the McLendon’s checkout counter? Or how do you convince the Metro driver or ST engineer to make a quick stop at the One Hour Martinizing in order to pick up the drycleaning? What about getting the girls from soccer practice? Or the dog from the vet?
Trying too hard to rifle-butt people into cattle-car-like transportation models ignores the reality that life more times than not requires flexibility and the freedom to alter plans due to changed circumstances or necessity.
The Piper
I like how this blog assumes the politicians and bureaucrats are going to do what they promise with this big chunk of change they are asking for.
What historical precedent are you using in your assumptions? Maybe it is the Capitol Hill station for light rail that was promised the last time. Or rail to northgate, also promised last time. How long have we been paying taxes to maintain roads that have gone unmaintained?
But I am sure this time they mean it. I am sure we will get 74 more miles of rail for 10 billion dollars. Yeah, yeah, yeah. When the original Beatles re-unite.
As for the bicyclist who was mentioned in the post, it is wonderful that you use biased arguments to bolster you argument. Ever heard of balance? Aren’t you the guys the ones who laugh at the statistics of the Discovery Institute because it is deemed biased?
You guys are becoming the Discovery Institute of the left, post by post.
17 p
Roads, rail, buses, ferries, bicycles….all are ways we move people and all are part of the common good, providing common “highways” of one sort or another. We share the costs for these in common. However, automobiles place large hidden costs upon us all and are subsidized way out of proportion to their actual importance, and those subsidies have driven our organization and development. Reducing and/or shifting those subsidies and incentives would then instead create incentives over time to develop and inhabit more intelligently organized communities where individual tranportation by means of three or more of the largest possible SUVs per household is no longer seen as necessary or desirable.
PS @17, cars are obviously useful, but they are a special purpose tool that imposes high costs on everybody.
An interesting point on the global warming connection to the highways/transit debate. China, a poor country whcih has struggled to control its population size for decades, plans to build one new coal fired power plant per month indefinitely adding huge amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere above what they already produce. Architecture 2030 has a great web page on this.
If this happens, it is predicted to completely overwhelm any changes Americans make to reduce driving. The mercury and sulfur dioxide also travels across the Pacific in something called the Asian Brown Cloud.
At the least, the old power plants with less pollution controls should be closed when the new ones are opened, and alternative electricity and heat sources should be encouraged even more than currently. The US should help in this process and consider tarriffs if the Chines do not cooperate in good faith.
…and you should see th efolks in Asia abandoning their bicycles and mass transit for…..wait for it…..cars!!
21 DM
That assumes a US willing to engage with other nations on global warming, and presumably one willing to demonstrate its own commitment. A futile wish under Republican administrations.
Hey, maybe we can bomb them into cleaning up! Good ol’ GOP “diplomacy,” don’t you know?
@19
Woo-Hoo!
Right on.
@13
I think the focus needs to be more on encouraging people to use vehicles that pollute less rather than trying to forcibly alter their lifestyles. The idea that if we just stop building roads, that people will be forced out of their cars is silly. What will really happen is that the people who can’t get around will get angrier and we’ll end up with more anti-transit people in our government and we’ll end up only building roads. I think the Sierra Club faction of the anti-RTID contingency is being more than a bit foolish about how people actually behave. It’s a lot easier to use economic incentives to influence industry actions and consumer purchases than it is to get people to do something as radical as stop driving (and this is coming from someone who sold his car in 2003 – I’m just realistic when I say that most people will adamantly refuse to do the same).
25 Lee
I tend to think that if we more intelligently legislate our priorities, then people will alter their lifestyles because it will mak sense to do so.
My car broke down. I’m probably going to fix it, but in the mean time, I’m using Flexcar.
If I need wallboard or whatever, I walk to the car, drive the car to the store, drop off the stuff I bought, return the car, and walk back home. All it takes is PLANNING and a little bit more time.
@26
They might, but only if they see the greater benefit. But I think they’re instead more likely to change the people in the legislature and elect those who don’t force them to alter their lifestyles.
Bill Maher made this point in a very funny way last season of Real Time. If the solution to solving global warming was for everyone to stop using the remote controls for their TVs and instead walk up to the TV, you’d never be able to solve it. People would never do it, even if the future of the planet were on the line. I think he’s right. There’s a limit to the amount of sacrifice people will make, and any government action has to take that into account, or it risks a backlash that could make it even harder to accomplish what needs to be done.
The idea that automobile drivers pay as they go, while everybody else is a freeloader, is complete and utter bullshit that fails to evaluate our transportation system and tax structure as a whole.
And what does an honest evaluation of our transportation tax system reveal to us? That it is time to begin to dismantle the time honored structure of transpo funding in this state. Otherwise we will only continue to subsidize sprawl and congestion, as we have clearly done for the past five decades.
Why should it take twice as long to travel from Capitol Hill to Ballard as it takes to travel from downtown to Mill Creek? Why are we pouring billions of dollars into systems that only promise to encourage more people to commute from distant locales, like Whidbey Island or Kingston? Consumers need honest pricing signals from the market place that fairly levy the true costs of transportation choices.
Consider a resident of South Whidbey Island or North Kitsap commuting to Seattle. Paying any RTID taxes, or ST taxes? Nope. Paying to support local road construction between Edmonds/Mukilteo and Seattle? Nope. Are they even covering the true cost of their daily crossing from Clinton? Nope.
Presently the North Kitsap commuter enjoys convenient, low cost, publicly subsidized transportation from Kingston into downtown Seattle via WA ST Ferries and Sounder. And they pay only a tiny fraction of the true cost of their daily trip. None of their property taxes support WSDOT-Marine. None of their local sales or prop taxes support Sounder Rail service. They ride on other people’s money. Every day. And when, fools that we are, we decide to tax ourselves to build another Sounder station in Mukilteo, we will be doing the same for Whidbey Island. Smart them. Stupid us. Smart for recognizing the pricing signals the the stupid tax payers of King, Pierce and Snoho counties are paying into the market place. Smart for taking advantage. But is any of this alleviating the basic problems we set out to fix in the first place? Of course not. All we’ve managed to do is create new markets for dense residential development further away from jobs. Brilliant!
@19 & 20…DL & S…
Peal away the verbiage and there’s an underlying premise that the choices I make for my life aren’t compatible with the choices you think I should make for my life, so social policy – ultimately enforceable against me by the point of the sherrif’s revolver – must be crafted to make my choices comport with what you think they should be.
The nature of the community I choose to live in must conform with some planner’s notion of what it should be.
The social utility of cars and trucks isn’t the mere afterthought you imply; motor vehicles and the roads and highways upon which they travel are essential as the literal lifeblood of our commerce.
How many tons of food or articles of clothing or other manufactured goods are transported via ST, Metro, or bicycles?
If there are those among you who choose to live a car-free life, then that is your absolute right, and more power to you for living consistent with your values. Others, however, should be equally free to make different choices.
I have a visceral dislike for subsidies and incentives. Whether for corn and sugar beet farmers, dairymen (I know tons), sports stadiums (stadia?), or transit. There’s something about standing on your own two feet that appeals to me.
My guess is that you wouldn’t be able to get body one into a ST commuter train if the real cost (including all the hidden costs of construction and maintenance) was reflected in the price of a ticket. And if bicycles were licensed and taxed at a rate sufficient to fund bicyle baths, the Schwinn dealer would be out of business tomorrow.
Yet the majority of people – those of us who drive cars and trucks – are constantly made to be the villians of the piece as if we’re somehow impure for preferring freedom and flexibility to someone else’s notions of what’s best for us.
Another guess of mine is that a lot of people – a WHOLE LOT of people – will vote against Prop. 1 for this very reason: they don’t like being herded up the road to salvation without being asked whether they wish to go or not.
It will be that plus everyone who votes on Prop. 1, either for or against, knows damn well that the figures used to justify it are fake, the so-called “leaders” who proffer them know they’re fake, and that the whole thing will end up being just one more broom handle shoved up the you-know-what of the vox populi.
I’m very tired of being told to eat cake…but only if the cake comes to town via light rail.
The Piper
“And what does an honest evaluation of our transportation tax system reveal to us? That it is time to begin to dismantle the time honored structure of transpo funding in this state. Otherwise we will only continue to subsidize sprawl and congestion, as we have clearly done for the past five decades.”
Spot on…when private autos go the way of the dinosaur, that 25 mile commute (each way) by horse and buggy won’t look so attractive. And home values? That 3bdrm. rancher east of Sumner ain’t gonna’ be worth squat.
Other societies have been down this road before (forgive the pun). Read Diamond’s Collapse. Also google “The End of Oil”. The message therein appears irrefutable, and it’s coming from industry insiders.
Building more roads to nowhere….societal suicide.
Piper: Eat cake. If it makes you tired, take a nap.
@30
My guess is that you wouldn’t be able to get body one into a ST commuter train if the real cost (including all the hidden costs of construction and maintenance) was reflected in the price of a ticket.
But transit benefits more than just those who ride it. It also benefits drivers who now share the road with much fewer other vehicles. It also benefits local companies whose employees will have reduced commuting times. Transit is a solution that obvious only some people use, but that use does translate into benefits for everyone. That’s why the cost should be shared across the region’s tax base.
30 P
Yes, it’s so much easier if you “peel away the verbiage” and argue against what someone didn’t say. This way you get to argue both sides and presto–you win! It’s so much messier to address someone’s actual argument, isn’t it?
@25
The roads portion of the Roads and Transit package will encourage sprawl which will have a direct impact on on everything from lowered air quality and increased flooding to increased K-12 educations costs and increased auto mobile accidents. The roads package could have been written in a manner that didn’t do this.
Voting no isn’t about forcing other people to change their life style. Voting no is simply saying that you do not believe the package will do what its backers say it will.
@25, there’s no way better mileage will get us to 80% by 2050.
In any case, I’m clearly not arguing for increased congestion; I am saying that congestion is inevitable. That’s how it is — I’m just the messenger.
You’re arguing that increased congestion will rouse the masses into demanding more highways. Is that not where we are now? Ten or twenty years from now, is that not where we will be again?
The nature of the comunity one lives in will be shaped in part by the activities that are subsidized (presumably ones our society as a whole wants to encourage) and the activities that are penalized (presumably ones our society as a whole wants to discourage). We do this all the time. We have zoning laws, for example, to keep hog farms off Capitol Hill, or out of Medina.
Population pressures, employment patterns (Microsoft in redmond as an example), and geography all play a role as well, but are more diffcult to nudge. So we ahve to chose as a society whther to keep up the same very high levels of sunbsidy for long commutes, huge houses, big cars, etc.
The consrvative bugaboo of “social engineering” is happening any path we take (from conservatives as well). We just need to subsidize what it is no longer stupid to subsidize. It’s not 1950 any more.
There might also be a lot fewer of “those of us who drive cars and trucks” if the real costs were directly reflected in the costs of ownership and operation. Again, it’s just subsidized, and the costs are borne by the society at large or are being passed on to the next generations.
“The social utility of cars and trucks isn’t the mere afterthought you imply; motor vehicles and the roads and highways upon which they travel are essential as the literal lifeblood of our commerce.”
True…and therein lies the heart of the problem. What’s left of our actual economy (including the war) is wrapped around moving people and stuff around in a manner that’s so God-awfully awkward and inefficient that if you’d proposed such a thing to someone 120 years ago, they’d say you were crazy.
Am I the only one that noticed the fact the author calls out that bicyclists also own cars? So how can a bicyclist only impose .2 cents per mile? Yeah when they ride their bikes. But take the biking population as a whole and how many of them commute regulary via bike vs. car? Very very few. Most of them commute by car. There is a big “DUH”
And of course we were sold a huge pile of dog crap with the original Sound Transit package. Nothing close to what we voted on. Nothing close to the money we agreed to spend. Nothing close to the ridership that was promissed (at least for what is complete). Those are all facts. So for all you koolaid drinking trainophiles do you really think we will get what we vote on if this passes?
@35
I don’t think the current road package encourages sprawl at all. It’s just building up road infrastructure where many people already choose to live. And I guess I haven’t been paying too much attention to what the backers of this proposal say it will do, but it does include the kind of transit improvements that would be great for this region. If they’re saying it will also singlehandedly solve global warming, then that’s certainly nutty, but it doesn’t change the basic facts about the proposal.
@36
You’re arguing that increased congestion will rouse the masses into demanding more highways. Is that not where we are now? Ten or twenty years from now, is that not where we will be again?
No, that’s not where we are now. Where we are now is with the chance to vote on a proposal that builds a large transit system across the Puget Sound region. Ten or twenty years from now, we could easily be looking at a situation where we’re only planning to build more roads because people finally became so cynical about building transit, it’s not brought up any more.
@42
No, where we are now is where we were with Sound Transit 1.
Give them a whole lot of money, and they will do anything they want. The real plan, the real priorities will be dribbled out after the election, as always. Those with access, the developers, the Downtown Seattle Association, will be first on the priority list, after the votes are counted.
For all the accountability inherent in this package, our government can do anything it wants. That is what the authors of this blog have continually ignored. Why? Why not speak to that truth? Do you deny this Lee?
@43
I certainly want accountability. And I plan to follow this project as closely as I can to ensure that Sound Transit delivers. Government, like private industry, is obviously not perfect. But good transit systems have been built all over the world under the same circumstances. There’s nothing unique about what’s happening here that makes it impossible for us to have a system as good as the other cities I’ve lived in.
Tplls work
I really do not understand why this is an issue. Piper is right, we should do as little as we can to impede free choice in this country, but that means optimizing choices for everyone.
So, if building a bridge to Bremerton would make more folsk able to choose to live there, following PIper’s logic, then those folks should bear the extra costs of the bridge just as they would need to bear the costs of water and electric lines.
BUT…there is a another issue. Sometimes our choices add to the communal costs. The settler community in Israel costs all Israelis dearly .. alot more than just the costs of a few roads. Similarly we need to ask whether it costs all of us MORE if some of us choose to live in Tacoma and commute to Seattle? If so, those costs need to be figured before we decide to provide more highways or, for that matter, light rail.
My issues with the tax and roads are 2:
1. I do not feel we should use levies or bonds to pay for predictable maintenance or operations.
2. I have not see a convincing analysis of equity. I have read that Seattleites are paying 2 to three times per tax payer what the richer folks in Bvue are paying. I suspect that this may be true.
3. No politician is giving straight answers on the total project costs.
@44 What is unique here is the verfluchte initiative system and tax system. I would MUCH rather pay my taxes and then hire/fire folks on how well they manage the money.
Do you know how more civilized countries budget for things like this? Does everyone have votes to give $$ to the superwealthy, tax free, so they will lend us money at extortionary rates?
My concern here is that our pols have neatly passed the buck to us to make a decision we are not competent to make and then have not given us the guidance needed to make the decision.
Look at it this way. You and I are living in a new Condo. I am on the Council and have this great idea for fixing the bricks and the roof but realize it will not pass w/o some goodies. So I add in new elevators to the penthouse, storage rooms for the bicycle crew, and .. well you get the point. Then I say I do not say what the final cost of the elevators will be or how adding this structure will affect your annual maintenance fees. So, it comes to a vote in the assessment. How do you vote?
More importantly, in a democratic system like the condo my guess is there would have been enough dicussion so those answers were raised. We do not live in such a system so we are dependent on Gregoire, Sims, Nickles … errr ahhhh where are they????
This is eaxctly the sort of BS that makes me dypsetic to Gregoire and wishful that the Repricans will come to their senses and find a competent candidate to challenge her.
Frankly, I do not need a governor to fly around helping the Apple board sell Granny Smiths to Aunti Kim. I spect there are marketing people more apt at doing that then she is. I want a gov and a pres who are honest leaders.
She is farking* lucky that the Radrepubricans can’t seem to obtaon thorazine to relieve their ARS!
*New word! Improvement over Fucking. Associated with Carl Rove as in “Rove really karked up the GOP.
#31 — “Peal away the verbiage and there’s an underlying premise that the choices I make for my life aren’t compatible with the choices you think I should make for my life, so social policy – ultimately enforceable against me by the point of the sherrif’s revolver – must be crafted to make my choices comport with what you think they should be.”
Piper: There is a not-so-slight undertone here of “I’m a victim’; please feel sorry for me.” This is very much a part of conservative and sociopathic personalities.
Look it up!
#31 –“I have a visceral dislike for subsidies and incentives. Whether for corn and sugar beet farmers, dairymen (I know tons), sports stadiums (stadia?), or transit. There’s something about standing on your own two feet that appeals to me.”
Does that visceral reaction extend to weapons makers?
#31 — You know, Piper, you seem to think that voters reason like some hero in an Ayn Rand novel.
They don’t.
@45…SJ…
Uff Da! Was that another typo (mittens???)or do you and I share a POV?
I agree…build a bridge to Bremerton, and it should be paid for by those who use it…I.e., tolls. No problem there.
Ditto Ferries, the subsidized fares for which artificially inflate the value of residential property on Bainbridge and Vashon. Charge market rate, and people will abandon those places faster than you can say, “Ron Sims ripped me off again!”
People should have options, but the options shouldn’t be unfairly underwritten by exacted tolls…only voluntary tolls.
And S-choir…I don’t see myself as a victim. Rather, I would like to think I’m employing some of Lee’s notions of “justice” to maximize the liberty and freedom of individual human beings to live where they wish in as dense or un-dense a community as they wish. Plus, I’m all for individual property owners to increase the housing supply or not, as they choose, without the government telling them they cannot build on their property…Unless, that is, the government fairly compensates the property owner for this loss of use.
No one should subsidize my lifestyle, nor should I subsidize anyone else’s, which includes their transportation choices.
The Piper
@49…SC…
Too bad…they should…Their interests and those of society at large would be much better served.
The Piper
#44
There may not be anything unique about our system, but there is no political accountability inherent in the Sound Transit system of government. This is by design.
After Judge Dwyer had ruled that the one man one vote constitutionality of Metro Transit did not exist, it folded into King County. This was because King County had direct representation through the county council.
Then, instead of following this example, Sound Transit has the same lawless makeup.
Do you really believe this is not by design? Is everyone this gullible?
These people are asking for tens of billions of dollars, and have no directly elected board that has the power to make decisions to keep the faith of the people or that the people can hold accountable. A bunch of bureaucrats with no political accountability to the people who fund them.
Yeah, great idea. Can you show me an example of this system that does not lead to waste and fraud?
@52
You can look at the history of New York’s transit system, which has always been run by unelected agencies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....ity_Subway
Or SEPTA in Philadelphia, which is also unelected:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/....._septa.htm
I could post more links, but I think the spam filter will kick in. Obviously, the agencies that built these things aren’t perfect, but you know what? That’s life. There’s no perfect way to accomplish something like this. All you can do is put experienced and smart people in these roles and watch over what they do.
Here’s an idea that no one has mentioned yet: an entry fee for the downtown area, exempting taxis and mass-transit. It’s a little on the socialist side to be sure, but it may have its merits. I first heard about the idea when the Lord Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, proposed the fee as an idea to reduce traffic in the ridiculously crowded British capital. I’ve also heard that a similar idea has been floated by NYC mayor Michael Bloomberg as well, for the same reasons.
I wouldn’t want to guess how workable such a concept would be, but I guess that’s why they call it a concept.
You know… this thread has wandered way off topic — my topic anyway — and if you care about global warming it should be your topic too.
There is no serious argument about RTID’s global warming impact. Nobody has taken a serious crack at it because they know the answer — RTID will make global warming worse.
The closest was Lee @42, who is saying that if we don’t make global worse now by voting for RTID, then future generations will be cynical about transit and will build more highways.
Two problems with that. First, there’s no reason why we can’t build trains later — the RTID vote is a fake deadline, and if we are fooled into believing it there is the certainty of increased greenhouse emissions. Second, Lee is claiming that we we don’t build transit now, then future generations will be cynical about transit because the unbuilt transit did not solve congestion.
C’mon, does that make sense?
There are a lot of smart liberals in a similar state about RTID — too clever to be tricked by transit bashers, and intelligent enough to get tangled up in convoluted arguments that conflict with blunt, uninterestingly simple reality.
Folks, it’s time to stop using your brains for rationalizing, and to start using them to figure out how to actually fix our transportation mess.
Lee, The first rule of debate is to never ask a question you do not know the answer to, or use a fact that is false.
Lee, you are too easily put into a trap.
Lookee here.
Testimony
Audit Report on the Financial Practices
of the New York City Transit Authority
Committee on Transportation
New York City Council
Thursday, May 1, 2003
2 P.M.
(As Prepared for Delivery)
Good afternoon.
Thank you, Chairman Liu and members of the Committee for providing this opportunity for me to discuss the results of my audit of the Transit Authority.
In December, my office announced an audit of the Transit Authority’s procedures for recording and reporting financial and statistical data. I became increasingly concerned because transit officials appeared to be presenting a constantly shifting portrait of the Transit Authority’s financial status that seemed more convenient than accurate. Prior to the 2002 gubernatorial election, the MTA claimed a surplus, which would have made a fare increase unnecessary. Just after the election, the MTA began claiming a deficit, and as labor negotiations with transit workers began, they reported an even larger deficit. This confusing picture raised a red flag signaling something was not right.
After three months of analyzing the Transit Authority’s finances, I have concluded that the MTA has broken its public trust and misled New Yorkers with unclear and inaccurate reporting of its financial position. Based on these findings, it is clear that the MTA is an agency in serious need of reform.
http://www.comptroller.nyc.gov.....01-03.shtm
Just read the third paragraph.
The whole thing sounds like the future of Sound Transit. Unfortunately we do not have strong oversight in Pugetopolis.
This is a great example of why I will not vote for ST2.
Thanks for the heads up, Lee.
@56
Well, which one did I do? What I’m pointing out is very simple. Many transit agencies in this country are not directly accountable to voters. Are the details or specifics about Sound Transit that are unique? There may be, but no one has explained it to me, and I admit that I’m still catching up on much of the history of ST in this region.
@55
The closest was Lee @42, who is saying that if we don’t make global worse now by voting for RTID, then future generations will be cynical about transit and will build more highways.
Two problems with that. First, there’s no reason why we can’t build trains later — the RTID vote is a fake deadline, and if we are fooled into believing it there is the certainty of increased greenhouse emissions. Second, Lee is claiming that we we don’t build transit now, then future generations will be cynical about transit because the unbuilt transit did not solve congestion.
C’mon, does that make sense?
First, there’s a danger in postponing this because the longer you wait, the more difficult it could be to start something from the ground up. The cost of a system will be more if we start it in the future than if we start it now.
Second, the longer we wait, the more cynical people will be about the ability for this region to build more transit. I don’t see why that’s so hard to accept. Especially since it’s already happening. Much of the opposition to transit in this discussion is coming from people who are convinced that Sound Transit can’t deliver.
@57
I still don’t understand your point. Ask any New Yorker if they’d be better off if MTA never existed and none of the commuter trains had even been built – or if the subways needed to be shut down.
Lee, you’re still not addressing global warming, which RTID is certain to make worse.
To answer your points:
1.) yes, rail will cost more money if we delay. A Prius costs more than an old Cadillac, fresh produce costs more than factory farmed stuff, etc. I am willing to pay a little more for a transportation plan that doesn’t cook the planet.
2.) it is hard to believe that people will blame Sound Transit for not building trains we told them not to build. This really stretches credibility.
Look… delayed gratification is hard.
You (and I) really, really want mass transit NOW. This makes us easily dazzled by the shiny trains in RTID — the precise reason why the asphalt lobby in Olympia chained them to their awful, climate busting highways.
You don’t have to be smarter than me; you have to be smarter than them.
Dave Moore above says what I have said about this global warming – road debate for a while; there is such a clamor to reduce our emissions while allowing “developing nations” to pollute at will. The neocons said include the developing nations in the full mix. The Moonbat!s ignore that fact every day every way.
Ahhh someone didn’t close their italics
Us moonbats are hardly ignoring it. Rich nations taking serious steps is a precondition for developing world steps.
It is not hard to understand why.
Lee gives an example of the MTA of NY being an example of an agency that has no directly elected officials to say “so what, everybody does it”.
I take his example, using the Comptroller of New York State’s report saying that the MTA squanders money, is incompetent, and needs to be completely reformed as an entity. Therefore tearing your argument to shreds. You then claim that I do not want transit?
No, I think this measure stinks to high heaven. I think they are promising things they will never deliver, that roads will be built in places I will never go, and transit will be the last priority, because they will keep coming up with other measures due to the fact that transit is an automatic yes in these parts.
Then, after all that, you still do not understand why I argue that the first step at Sound Transit needs to be accountability? That we need direct political representatives, instead of a system designed for political cover?
Or are you just using the debating trick that the Republicans use, shift the answer to a question that is on firmer ground, “should we have transit”?
Please Lee, argue like an adult. I hung your weak ass argument out to dry, using the example you submitted. Take it like a man, not a Republican.
@63
Lee, you’re still not addressing global warming, which RTID is certain to make worse.
I actually don’t agree with this at all. Are you basing this on the fact that money is going towards roads? That alone is not going to make global warming worse. The effect would be negligible. In fact, considering that NOT building those roads could result in even more sprawl (to get even further away from the bad traffic), you could easily argue the opposite. As I said in an earlier comment, the more effective way to combat global warming is to incentivise vehicles that pollute less.
1.) yes, rail will cost more money if we delay. A Prius costs more than an old Cadillac, fresh produce costs more than factory farmed stuff, etc. I am willing to pay a little more for a transportation plan that doesn’t cook the planet.
Cook the planet? C’mon, let’s live in reality here. I know global warming exists and that we’re causing it, but how we deal with our transportation issues in this city is not going to make our break the global climate problems. I’m with you in that governments (especially America’s) need to get way more serious about it at a very high level, but you haven’t even come close to convincing me why the environmental threat from RTID is sufficient enough to pass up on the kind of infrastructure that this region really needs.
2.) it is hard to believe that people will blame Sound Transit for not building trains we told them not to build. This really stretches credibility.
A failure at the ballot box will certainly be seen as another failure in this region’s ability to provide transit. It continually erodes a confidence level that’s pretty low already.
You (and I) really, really want mass transit NOW. This makes us easily dazzled by the shiny trains in RTID — the precise reason why the asphalt lobby in Olympia chained them to their awful, climate busting highways.
Well, guess what? People want those highways and you’re never going to change their mind. There aren’t highways in this bill because the legislature wants to piss you off or because they want to melt the arctic. There are highways in this bill because the bill won’t pass without it. That’s the reality of the situation. People want roads. If you think you can govern by telling all those people to fuck off, I really hope you don’t plan any kind of future in politics.
You don’t have to be smarter than me; you have to be smarter than them.
I am smarter than you, and so are the legislators in Olympia. But you’re obviously not as dumb as the idiot driving a Hummer and saying that global warming is a hoax. But if you think that by refusing to build roads that that guy is going to shrug and start taking the bus or riding a bicycle, you’re closer than you should be.
Piper @ 50:
No one should subsidize my lifestyle, nor should I subsidize anyone else’s, which includes their transportation choices.
A fine sentiment. When you frame it as subsidizing Bainbridge and Vashon Island yuppies, it’s easy to swallow. Millionaires (even just paper ones) don’t need a break in the form of a subsidy.
Unfortunately, the world ain’t that simple.
How many of the roads in Washington state “pay their own way”? Are folks in Colville paying their fair share? Moses Lake sits on I-90, which we’ll accept as being a necessary sunk cost, so I guess they’re OK. Are oyster farmers in South Bend getting an unfair advantage? Roads to Yakima? Necessary to support agriculture, or a big fat rural giveaway? Is Pullman just a huge welfare sump masquerading as a research university?
While we’re socking it to the fortunate, should we nail the poor schmucks who work as tradesmen and shopkeepers out in the San Juans, or just the Microsofties with 5 million dollar log cabins? How will we levy taxes so that only the fortunate (and liberal) will be affected, without punishing folks who are just getting by?
I simply don’t see how you can justify your position except as a demonstration of resentment of people who don’t live in major urban areas. I’m about as urban as you can get, and even I won’t sign off on that.
@67
I take his example, using the Comptroller of New York State’s report saying that the MTA squanders money, is incompetent, and needs to be completely reformed as an entity. Therefore tearing your argument to shreds. You then claim that I do not want transit?
I don’t really have a good idea what you want. As I said, New Yorkers certainly would rather have MTA than to not have subways and trains. MTA needed to be reformed. Sound Transit is an organization that could fail and need to be reformed as well. That’s the nature of implementing public transit. If it was easy, corporations would do it.
No, I think this measure stinks to high heaven. I think they are promising things they will never deliver, that roads will be built in places I will never go, and transit will be the last priority, because they will keep coming up with other measures due to the fact that transit is an automatic yes in these parts.
Roads will be built in places you’ll never go? I didn’t realize that we were supposed to expect this bill to cater specifically to our individual needs. C’mon, how can I take your viewpoint seriously when you complain about something like that?
Then, after all that, you still do not understand why I argue that the first step at Sound Transit needs to be accountability?
I don’t disagree that accountability is important.
That we need direct political representatives, instead of a system designed for political cover?
Hell no. That’s a surefire way to guarantee that it will fail because the people who need to be building the system will instead be continually campaigning to save their jobs. It will encourage them to spin, rather than be honest. Didn’t we go through all that with the monorail?
Or are you just using the debating trick that the Republicans use, shift the answer to a question that is on firmer ground, “should we have transit”?
That’s the question, here. Should we have transit? I think you and I agree that we should. Beyond that, either you trust Sound Transit to deliver, or you suggest an alternative path to achieve it. Saying, “I don’t trust Sound Transit” is a cop-out. If you don’t have your own solution to this problem, stop sniping at the people who do.
Please Lee, argue like an adult. I hung your weak ass argument out to dry, using the example you submitted. Take it like a man, not a Republican.
You did nothing of the sort. I pointed out that transit projects have been done in other cities even when the transit authorities have been appointed like Sound Transit, and even when they’ve had serious accountability issues.
The anti-rail folk often argue that they shouldn’t have to subsidize transit riders, when in fact it is transit riders who have long been subsidizing roads via the sales and property taxes that pay for the bulk of their maintenance.
Whoa. I’m all for spending more on mass transit, but this simply isn’t true. The bulk of road maintenance spending is via the gas tax, not through sales or property taxes. Obviously property taxes fund a portion of roads spending through the county roads funds, but nowhere near the majority of spending. Pretty much all transportation spending through the sales tax goes to mass transit.
If you’re going to make an argument like this, you’d better get your facts straight.
#50: Fine! As long as the property owner pays the government (of the people, by the people, and for the people — remember that part?)for any environmental degradation that the building does to the human survival environment that extends beyond the private property.
Your thing is just a scheme to exact blood money from the government. It would raise taxes, not lower them.
You are a Greedy Fraud, Piper.
@68, Lee, you need to read some books.
I suggest “Still Stuck in Traffic,” by Anthony Downs, which is what UW civil engineering prof’s recommend for starters.
The arguments you are making are quantitative at root, so you either need to understand numbers or find an authoritative citation.
the original topic was appropriate revenue sources for transport. the current issue ought to the RTID ballot. it relies upon the MVET, proportional to vehicle value, and the sales tax, that is unrelated to each household’s or firm’s use of the roadway network. the sales tax is clearly inappropriate.
the RTID sales tax will be levied for about 30 years as they bond against the revenue stream.
the sales tax is inefficient, unfair, and regressive. We should say NO to the RTID and send that message to the Leglislature and the RTID. the sales tax is inefficient in this context as it does not send a price signal to roadway users. It is unfair, as it will tax poor households at a higher rate and tax non drivers heavily.
scotto is correct: global warming is a key issue. using the sales tax to widen limited access highways while the majority of our global warming gases are produced in transportation is counter productive. if we are in a global warming hole, the first thing we should do is stop digging.
a major concern about the RTID project list is that it does not seem to be the highest priority set of projects, as it does not include enough maintenance and focues on expansion of limited access highways. I-5 needs about $2 billion in rehab work and WSDOT does not have the funds. there are many bridges that need replacing and RTID only funds the South Park Bridge completely.
what is really needed in systemwide dynamic tolling of the limited access highways. tolling will come eventually regardless of the outcome of the joint ballot measure’s vote. we ought to use tolling to shape the mega projects. the RTID course is to widen the highways first and consider tolling later. we should use the law of demand in the design of the mega projects. new highways such as the SR-167 and SR-509 extensions should be tolled from their inception and not later after they have led to sprawl and the congestion of the SR-99 corridor.
the gas tax revenue of the state is not keeping up with maintenance needs as the Legislature is spending it on new projects. local maintenance is not keeping up either. the City of Seattle just imposed higher property taxes to increase maintenance.
@56 @69 Piper et al.
I believe in accountability but not necessarily in everyone paying full costs. Ferries are an interesting example. It is true that we all subsize folks living on Vashon, etc. BUT, I see the fereies and the xistanc eof those communities as part of the local quality of life.
The answer it seems ot me is simple .. accountability. It should be simple matter to find out how much subsidy folks at ether end of the ferry are getting. Someone might be shocked to find what they are paying per year for the subsidy.
I do not think the same applies to subsidies for suburban sprawl. Certainly few Seattlites would be willing to pay much to subsidize Issaquah. Also, it is worth pointing out that at least ferry ridr pay a toll. There are no tolls offseting the billions of dollars we now need to pay for waht amounts to predictable costs 520 or 99.
@73
The arguments you are making are quantitative at root, so you either need to understand numbers or find an authoritative citation.
I’d say the exact same thing applies to you, especially when you claim that RTID will “cook the planet.” Somehow, I don’t think Downs has your back on that one.
SeattleJew @ 75:
The answer it seems ot me is simple .. accountability. It should be simple matter to find out how much subsidy folks at ether end of the ferry are getting. Someone might be shocked to find what they are paying per year for the subsidy.
It is actually fairly difficult to get those numbers out of WSF.
One reason is that they swing a lot seasonally and depending on the day of the week. Seattle B’town, Bainbridge Island, and Vashon are fairly regular deals, as traffic is commuters from the islands to the city on the weekdays, and a mixture of tourists and islanders on the weekend.
Port Townsend and the San Juans are a different matter altogether. Four months of the year the ferries run full as everyone and their mother goes up to the islands or out to the peninsula. The rest of the year, the ferries run well below capacity, and presumably operate at a dead loss. So what is the cost of the ferry service? On a yearly basis, that’s a knowable number. On a per-run basis, not so much.
so this is ripped from another blog, but you can search the source yourself, it’s easy enough. you can see why there is such a huge push for light rail and why the WA gov. keeps pushing for the same fatally flawed plan. I want a rail system. But I don’t want the argument “Well we already started this one we just need to keep going.”
“Keep Washington Rolling” is the PAC that is paying for part of the “pro” RTID/ST2 campaign.
The information below comes from the PDC website. Go to hera.pdc.wa.gov/wx/fieldsearch.asp. In the field “FILER NAME,” type these words: keep wa rolling. Then click “send query.” That will take you to a list of Keep Washington Rolling’s PDC filings.
The form C3 filings show who the contributors are, and how much they’ve paid. The form A filings show whom that PAC pays with the money it gets.
The PAC-funders who benefit from these two local governments’ taxing and spending practices fall into several categories:
Entities that Make Money Directly From ST/RTID Taxing and Spending:
CH2M Hill Inc. $50K
Operating Engineers Local $50K
Washington State Building and Construction Trades Council $40K
Washington State Labor Council $35K
ACEC Washington $35K
Laborers’ Northwest Cooperation $35K
PB (Parsons Brinkerhoff) Americas $30K
HNTB Corporation $30K
HDR Engineering $30K
Perteet Inc. $30K
Washington State Labor Council $25K
Wilder Construction Co. $25K
Builders United in Legislative $20K
PCL Construction $20K
Associated General Contractors of Wa. $20K
Architects and Engineers Legislative Council $15K
Woodworth and Co. $15K
Lakeside Industries $15K
K&L Gates PAC $10K
Iron Workers Dist. Council of Tacoma $10K
Washington St. Building and Construction Trades $7K
KBA Construction Management, Inc. $5K
ARUP North America LTD $5K
Seattle Building and Construction Trades $5K
Pierce Co. Building and Construction Trade $2.5K
IBEW Local 191 $1K
Renton Carpenters Union $1K
LADS Local #1144 Political Education $1K
IFPTE Local 17 $1K
AFCME Local 109E $500
Entities that Make Money From Real Estate Development and Sales:
Wa Assoc. of Realtors $50K
NAIOP $50K (trade association for commercial property developers and managers)
Weyerhaeuser $50K
Touchstone Corporation $10K (commercial real estate developer)
Entities that Would Benefit from Infrastructure the RTID/ST2 Taxes Would Partially Fund:
Microsoft Corporation $200K
Mariners $75K
Pemco Mutual Insurance Company $50K
Aerospace Machinists Indust. Dist $10K
Puget Sound Pilots $5K
@77 I do not see why that would be a problem. The balance sheet shjould be annual just as taxes are.
What I do think is that this would lead to folks making better decisions. Bluntly put, do I want the great pleasur eof taking visitors on MY ferries or would I rather the money be spect repairing the viaduct or proviidng health care to the impoverished?
Another outcome might be better ideas of how we distribute taxes. Our current system, as Goldy says, is VERY regressive. Put another way the system favors the welathy minority over the voting majority, It may well be that an informned electorate would feel that the wealthy should pay more for niceties they get more out of than other people.
A good example, IMHO, is our lack of a special tax on waterfront property. We ALL pay the costs of maintaining Lake Washington but obviously certain folks get a lot more return. In effect the tax payers subsidize waterfront housing.
I wonder what would happen to an initiative to make the real estate tax progressive? Why should the taxes on a 500,000 home be the same as those on a 35,000,000 home? Are the differences in benefits to the owners merely proportional to the evaluations of their homes?
A further benefit of progressive real estate taxation might be to tamper the inflation of living costs here. Again, the low taxes on expensive homes effectively subsidize their growth in value.
@74 eddew …
birds of a feather !
I like your post. The RTID initiative is a politically inept effort. The trick, it seems to me, is to turn it down w/o sending the antitax message that the MSM will inevitabley promote.
One answer if any of has the time, might be to develop a counter inititative requiring that schedules maintenance be paid for out of taxes and requiring that any fund raising initiative include a financial statement of the impact not only of paying a bond but paying for maintenance. If this were done right, the result might get side support from the right and the left.
Maybe Richard POpe would be willing to organize such an effort?
SeattleJew RE Ferries @75:
Aren’t ferries the most cost effective form of public transportation at this time. i.e. they recoup more of their costs from ridership fees than any other form? Buses, trains, etc.?
@81
I don’t think that is true but would love it if so. Does anyone know?
@78 who benefit us?
The list is interesting for another reason.
A very few of the supporter ARE us! That is they are entities that many of us work for and therefore also benefit.
Oddly that number is small. Other major regional employers seem uninterested … e.g. Amazon, Starbucks, Nintendo, Alaska Air, AT$T, Boeing, the shipping industry, truckers and teamsters. Even Vulcan, a major beneficiary, is missing.
This is worrisome. If the RTID is good for the region why aren’t these folks also players?? One possible answer is that RTID disproportionally supports the Redmond::Seattle corridor. This could explain support from Msoft and the Mariners but not from Amazon or Boeing who depend on NS traffic or from the downtown businesses and real estate interests.