The other day I suggested that Washington state dramatically increase the motor fuel excise tax to pay for a massive investment in rail and other mass transit infrastructure. It was admittedly a bit of a thought experiment, as our state Constitution mandates that all motor vehicle fuel excise tax revenues be dedicated towards “highways,” and of course, amending the Constitution remains exceedingly difficult.
But then I got to thinking. Article II, Section 40 specifically refers to “excise taxes.” There’s nothing in the Constitution that says we can’t also levy a sales tax on motor vehicle fuel, and there’s nothing to mandate how such revenues might be spent. Thus all the hooey we’ve been fed about how we can’t spend gas tax dollars on anything but roads and ferries is exactly that… a bunch of hooey. A simple majority in both houses, and the stroke of the governor’s pen is all we need to create a dedicated fund for building mass transit. And of course, the people are free to vote yea or nay via referendum or initiative.
This isn’t just amateur legal analysis on my part. I checked with a constitutional scholar who assured me that my reading was correct, and that similar proposals have indeed been debated from time to time. And it’s not such an original or off the wall idea; nine other states already levy both sales and excise taxes on gasoline.
The point is we can tax gasoline to help pay for transit, and we need to start having this conversation while consumers are still able to absorb rising prices. With few transit alternatives, demand has thus far proven rather inelastic, even as fuel prices have nearly tripled in real dollars over the past decade. If this sort of energy inflation continues — and with increasing global demand and approaching peak oil, there’s no reason to suspect it won’t — there might come a point over the next decade or so when today’s common driving habits become an unaffordable luxury for the vast majority of working and middle class families.
Such a mobility crisis would have a devastating impact on the economy of a region as automobile dependent as ours, and it is past time we started building towards the transportation needs of the Twenty-First Century rather than waxing nostalgic on the car culture of the Twentieth. With all the Olympia talk of taking a comprehensive approach to transportation planning that considers transit and roads as part of an integrated system, it seems downright silly to perpetuate our segregated funding system. If roads, buses and rail are really part of an integrated system, why must transit compete for property, MVET and sales tax dollars, while roads enjoy the additional succor of a dedicated gas tax? It just doesn’t make sense.
The Seattle Monorail Project didn’t fail because a West Seattle to Ballard route wasn’t needed, or because the dollar-per-mile cost was too high. It failed because it didn’t have an adequate revenue source to pay off the bonds over a reasonable period of time. But had the Legislature granted Seattle the taxing authority to allow voters to additionally levy a sales tax on gasoline, we could have easily afforded the Monorail or some other transit project.
Perhaps I’m wrong, and mass transit isn’t the solution to our transportation needs. Perhaps Seattle and the surrounding Puget Sound region really is unique. But that policy debate and the transportation planning that comes out of it should not be shaped by a constitutional canard that says that gas tax revenues can only be spent on roads.
We can tax motor vehicle fuel to pay for transit. And we should.
Interesting.
And of course you are right to suggest that nothing but good can come from starting the dialogue and keeping it going. . .particularly in the light of a real possibility of funding whatever transportation solutions that emerge.
However, we will still have the regressive, knuckle-draggers to deal with. . .the neo-cons locally who appear to be enamored of the Bushite paradigm :As with Katrina, do absolutely nothing until we are engulfed in the disaster, and then profit from the ensuing chaos and disruption.
Just standard Republican strategy. . . . .
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18803399/
None of the Publican candidates want to be associated with this right wing asshole on his funeral day – pay attention righties – you’re all worthless to each other in the end…
The Seattle Monorail “failed” because of determined and well-organized campaign by Seattle’s political/business power elite to kill it off. It was viewed as conflicting with long-standing development plans concentrating on growth in the northeast and southeast areas of the city, and competition for funding with the already-ordained Streetcar to Nowhere.
Tax & spend…
Tax & spend…
Tax & spend…
Tax & spend…
Tax & spend…
Tax & spend…
Tax & spend…
Tax & spend…
Libertarian @4,
Tax & invest.
What would the tax need to be, per gallon, in order “to pay off the bonds over a reasonable period of time?” Any ideas? And would there be a reduction in the excise tax for roads then?
It seems to me that if the tax jumps the price of gas too high, you’ll get people crossing the city line to fuel up. (There is a similar situation in Illinois – there are no gas stations on the Cook County side of Lake-Cook road, as the Cook County gas tax makes it impossible to compete with stations on the Lake County side of the road.) But you’re right, it’s a conversation that should be had, so those sorts of issues can be worked out.
Personally, I suspect that you’ll see more alternative fuels and electrics coming onto the scene if gas starts to get out of reach. I’m dubious that Seattle can manage to create a Rapid transit system from scratch at this late stage of the game, and the busses don’t work well point-to-point over long distances.
The Monorail failed because of bad leadership, and the seeds of its destruction were planted when the Monorail board was given authority to appoint itself. Otherwise, I agree with your comment, Goldy. I think the legal analysis (which, as you candidly point out, did not originate with you) is sound. I think your strategic thinking is sound. I think your crystal-ball gazing is sound, too. There was a time when everyone in this country had a horse, followed by a time when everyone had a car, but history is moving on and the car culture, like the horse culture, will not endure forever.
In the last couple of days, I’ve noted news reports indicating high gas prices finally are forcing people to cut back on discretionary driving. That’s the way supply-and-demand is supposed to work: Limited supply drives up prices until higher prices force demand down to the available supply. Unfortunately, gasoline demand is inflexible and it takes a lot of price increase to get people to cut back even a little bit. Concomitantly, it doesn’t take much of a supply disruption to cause a price spike. We’ve probably got another one coming locally because I see in today’s news that BP is taking 100,000 bpd of Alaskan crude off-line because of a water leak.
The long term picture is somewhat fuzzy. Although we may be facing a Hubbert’s Peak in conventional oil, and certainly have passed it in terms of cheap and readily accessible conventional oil, there is an enormous amount of unconventional oil potentially available at the current price level. Once wellhead prices get, and stay, above $40 you’ve not only got arctic and deepwater alternatives, but tar sands and heavy oil. Venezuela, alone, is sitting on three times as much heavy oil as all the Middle East reserves put together — over a trillion barrels, which more than doubles the world’s oil reserves. Politics, not economics, is what stands in the way of developing that resource. Executive summary: Long-term, there’s plenty of $60 to $70 oil, enough to sustain current consumption well beyond our lifetimes. Whether it will come to market is a different question than whether it exists.
So, Goldy, it’s not a given that cars are doomed. Actually, the picture for car drivers looks worse short-term than long-term. So, it follows that the inevitability of mass transit for average citizens is not a given, either. The big picture, in my opinion, is not cars per se but our profligately wasteful exurban lifestyle under which millions of Americans live miles and miles from where they work. We need to redesign the physical organization of our urban centers, period. That would do far more to conserve the world’s fuel resources and reduce carbon emissions into the atmosphere and oceans than pushing people out of cars and onto buses or trains.
Voice of Chalk Scratching:
Why do you love to foist regressive taxes on my people? This tax takes mo money from the po peeps!
@4 No doubt the difference between “tax and spend” and “tax and spend judiciously” flies over YOUR head.
@#4 – lets do nothing at all. Better yet give back the current taxes and let the roads go to shit. You people are idiots.
@4 And, undoubtedly, you do not understand that raising the gax tax does not raise the pump price of gasoline. The pump price (taxes included) will always rise (or fall) to the level where supply and demand approximate balance. How much of the pump price goes to oil companies and how much to the state is irrelevant.
Gasoline taxes are some of the more progressive taxes out there, including the sales tax on all petroleum products. They need to be state-wide and evenly distributed (per capita) across the state for WADOT and other localized mass-transit subsidies, supports, and long term developments. If someone wants to spend the $40k+ for a large fuel guzzling beast then let them help pay for the roads they chew up and the pollution they create. If someone wants to drive a V-10 Ferrari around and get 3 mph fine, they can support mass transit too.
Frogman@1 said: “and then profit from the ensuing chaos and disruption.”
Surely you speak of the Shaw Group – Democratic Donors! This was covered a year ago.
Moonbat!s; no memory!
@13 Do you have any idea what Shaw Group makes, puddinghead?
ROGER RABBIT QUIZ
Hey kids! It’s time for another Roger Rabbit Quiz! Here’s today’s question:
What does Shaw Group make?
[ ] 1. Gasoline
[ ] 2. Cotton candy
[ ] 3. Shoes
[ ] 4. Electric drills
[ ] 5. Large diameter steel pipe
[ ] 6. Voting machines
[ ] 7. Articulated buses
Note: There is only ONE correct answer!!!
Hint: Shaw Group did NOT make the fucked-up pumps that don’t work which were installed by a no-bid contractor in New Orlean’s pumping stations after Katrina — those were made by a company owned by a buddy of Jeb Bush.
@10 Libertarian stupidity is trying to give Republican chicanery a run for our money.
Roger Rabbit History Quiz
Q: How do you recognize a Libertarian at an 18th-century barn raising?
A: He’s the guy sitting on a log chanting “socialism!” while everyone else works.
“Tax-and-spend” is the height of fiscal responsibility compared to “borrow-and-spend”, otherwise known as “crank-up-the-printing-presses-and-spend”. Right now, every dime any of us has is losing value like crazy. The only people who benefit from this is those who already have so much cash that they can lend (read that, invest) it to other people at high enough rates of return to keep up with the spiral. Roger, you should be doing all right for the time being, but any of us whose primary source of income is a paycheck based on the sweat of his or her brow is getting royally buggered.
“…and we need to start having this conversation while consumers are still able to absorb rising prices.”
Too late!
Keep raising taxes and more people will move away or avoid Seattle altogether.
Gotta sell stuff to collect the taxes.
What? No Economics courses in that Liberal Arts curriculum you took in college?
This tax takes mo money from the po peeps!
SOLUTION: LET THE POOR AND THE MIDDLE CLASS WRITE OFF FUEL TAXES FROM THEIR PAYROLL AND/OR INCOME TAXES.
RUNNING A CAR IS EXPENSIVE. MOST POOR PEOPLE CAN’T AFFORD TO RUN A CAR.
@19 No one gets hurt more by inflation than retirees on fixed pensions with no COLAs, which is what I am, but I’m doing all right because I can live on next to nothing.
I’ve had to do it all my life, so I have lots of practice. I can’t avoid taxes or high health insurance costs, but by eliminating debt and exercising relentless discipline over discretionary spending, I manage to live within my modest means.
You should understand that my stock market nest egg started very small — years ago, I scraped together $10,000 from several years of IRS refunds and stuck it in tax-sheltered retirement accounts — and it’s a six-figure chunk now purely because of my stockpicking skills. It’s not throwing darts, my boy. You gotta understand what the numbers mean and stay ahead of the herd, but there’s also some luck involved. Sometimes your luck is bad. I once spent $1,500 on a stock I believed was ridiculously overpriced only because Mrs. Rabbit insisted on it, and made it clear to Mrs. Rabbit that I thought she was crazy. Its name was Starbucks and it’s now worth over 20 times what we paid for it.
@19 You’re getting royally buggered by our fucked-up tax system, Art. That’s why I don’t work anymore. The job I quit was out of town, so I had apartment and commuting expenses I couldn’t deduct. And I had to pay 7.65% FICA taxes and a 28% marginal tax rate on my wages. Meanwhile, some rich asshole who makes capital gains by flipping real estate or stocks pays 15% with no FICA (or nothing, if it’s in a tax-sheltered account), and some other rich asshole who inherits $1.5 million pays nothing. See what I mean? You’re getting screwed. So did I, when I worked. The solution is don’t work! Flip stocks, not hamburgers! Let the Republican business owners empty their own trash baskets and run the machines themselves! Fuck ’em, this is THEIR tax system, so why should you work under their tax rules, when they’ve skewed the rules toward themselves and screwed you? The thing to do is save a little money, buy some stocks, flip ’em, buy more stocks, flip those, buy even more stocks, and keep flipping ’em til kingdom come. The stock market will go up forever. The pigs in Washington D.C. will make sure of that, because if it doesn’t, they might have to work for a living.
But the biggest favor you can do for yourself is to pay off debt, then never borrow again. Every penny you pay to interest is wasted money! You’re simply working hard to put cash in someone else’s pocket. Fuck that! I paid off all my debts and by living on the peanuts that were left after the debt payments, and now that I’m used to living on next to nothing, I can manage on a modest income.
@21 Last time I checked, real estate prices were still going up like crazy because people are flocking to Seattle as fast as the moving vans can get them here! Why? Because this state is a tax haven for the affluent, that’s why. Because we make the poor and working class pay all the taxes so the rich can skate.
FINALLY DUG UP A JUICY QUOTE ABOUT WOLFIE:
“While Mr Wolfowitz has finally done the necessary thing by resigning, he has damaged the institution, and continues to damage it every day he remains as its president. He cannot continue to be the face of the World Bank.
“He has demeaned the Bank, insulted the staff, diminished its clients, and dragged this institution through the mud. He has put his own interests before those of the institution.
“In making a statement of gratitude to Mr Wolfowitz, the Board has done the same. They have attempted to save his face, and in so doing have destroyed that of the institution they are entrusted to protect.”
ALISON CAVE, HEAD OF WORLD BANK STAFF ASSOCIATION
(THE ABOVE IS KNOWN AS “ATTRIBUTION”. QUOTES ARE ENOUGH BUT I HAVE TO BE BEYOND PUDDYBUD’S REPROACH.)
YLB COMMENT: THE CORRUPTION OF THE BUSHIES IS TOTAL. EVERYTHING THEY TOUCH TURNS TO CRAP. BUT SOME DEAD-ENDERS (LIKE PUDDYBUD) CONTINUE TO WORSHIP THEM.
Lib @ 4
You know, I think I’m with them and agin you.
Yes, “tax and spend” is what governments do. Tax to raise funds. Spend them on needed services.
However, I think Goldy’s prescription to raise taxes like crazy to spend on an infrastructure Manhattan Project is a pie-in-the-sky scheme aimed at moving the center of discussion leftward. I’m certainly not against his proposing it; but we’re not going to do it on the scale he proposes. Still, it is useful getting people to think about mass transit with (a) gas prices heading skyward and intimations of the “end of oil” upon us, and (b) the revelation just today that “CO2 emissions from fossil fuels…are increasing at three times the rate experienced in the 1990s.” As I read in another source, this rate of increase is higher than the high-end IPCC estimates. Suck it, MTR.
You have nooooo idea how much it costs to work. Gas … car insurance … parking fees … work clothing … blackberry … coffee … etc. etc. And it’s ALL taxed!
But the CEO’s private jet isn’t taxed. That’s what’s called a “business expense” and is fully deductible. So are the hangar fees … and the pilot’s salary … and the fuel … and insurance … and landing fees … and maintenance ….
In fact, the Busheviks have gamed the tax code so much you can make a PROFIT from owning a private jet or a yacht simply by buying it and tying it to a fencepost. The tax breaks add up to more than the plan or yacht costs. And the working class is paying taxes to pay for the tax subsidies the rich guys get. See what I mean about working? Why should ANYONE do ANY work under a system like that? Even Marie Antoinette couldn’t get away with that.
I read something in the business press a few days ago about the difficulty businesses have managing today’s young workers. They don’t want to work hard, they don’t stay with the company, they come to work wearing no underwear, etc. etc.
Well, I have news for Mr. Businessman: The destruction of the work ethic in this country is your fault, not their fault.
Why should they stay with the company, when the company isn’t loyal to them? Mr. Businessman, you would outsource or eliminate their jobs in a heartbeat if there was a buck of profit in it, so what on God’s green earth makes you expect any loyalty from them?
Why should they work hard for a company that offers no health benefits, no pension plan, no job security, no stock options, no nothing? All they’ll ever see is what they have in their hand on payday, meager as it is. You expect loyalty and maximum effort in return for THAT? And don’t forget, they don’t even get THAT because the government is taking 1/3 of it so you can have your plane and yacht.
Why should any businessman expect much effort from a generation of workers that has no incentives to sacrifice or work hard? Why should they work hard so Mr. Businessman can be rich? Want motivated workers? Try sharing the wealth, that always works. It ain’t rocket science.
And try amending the tax code so workers are treated fairly. If a working stiff who makes $30,000 a year gets $10,000 of tax exemptions, then a scion who inherits $1.5 million should get $10,000 of tax exemptions, no more and no less. If a working stiff can’t deduct his gas to get to and from work, then a CEO shouldn’t be able to deduct his jet fuel to get to a Caribbean spa or Hawaiian golf course. It ain’t rocket science.
@27 Make no mistake, puddinghead and his ilk are culpable. The Busheviks couldn’t do this stuff without the support of their lemming legions. Every time puddy shills for the GOP crooks and liars, he’s committing another crime against humanity. We won’t forget that.
If I remember correctly, isn’t there also an extra surcharge added on to the price of new vehicles with low MPG numbers, like big trucks, high-end luxury cars, supercars and such? Why not boost that surcharge, albeit with exceptions for those who would actually need those vehicles for work (i.e. family farmers, small businesses and tradesmen), rather than those who buy them out of vanity (or small penis size).
goldy et al…….you must be so proud…. another democrat that vowed to “clean up the government” gets away with murder [just not the kennedy kind…we think]
check it out if you have the stomach for it.
“http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070522/ap_on_go_co/congress_murtha
roger@ 30….why don’t you read the news report before you stick your big foot further into your big mouth.
gee…and here all you’ve been saying is “those republicans sure are liars and crooks”
HAH!
29 Roger, you forgot what an impediment it is to persuade a young adult of the importance of wisdom, honesty and hard work, when a shiftless, ignorant, lying, drug-addled upper-class twit gets to be President of the United States.
HEY GHOST –
TAKE A DIP IN THE FILTH WITH THE DUKE-STIR.
JUST AN APT METAPHOR FOR THE MESS THE DEMS HAD TO INHERIT FROM THE PARTY YOU SUPPORT WITH YOUR VOTES AND CASH.
Ghost, the relevance of what you’ve brought so far to this discussion is matched by your understanding of HTML.
What’s puzzling is that the right has been telling a story about how cutting or eliminating taxes will make everything all better. I’d expect you’d have some sort of reasoned argument for that concept to bring to a discussion about taxation. Then again, maybe you don’t…after all, the Republicans have cut taxes (for rich folks, anyway) every time they’ve had the opportunity for decades, and guess what? Everything’s still fucked up! Can you propose anything, other than more of the medicine that’s been making us sick?
It appears once again, that another righty, stuck in an indefensible position, responds by interrupting the conversation and throwing poo around like a jealous monkey. Every once in a while, you express something intelligent enough that I try to hold out some hope about you. Then there are times like these, when I find myself thinking that if someone looked between your legs, they’d find John Craig Herman’s testicles.
THOUSANDS OF AMERICANS DEAD, COUNTLESS MORE IRAQI NON-COMBATANTS DEAD, THOUSANDS OF BODY PARTS AND CRUSHED LIVES, COUNTLESS BILLIONS WASTED FOR A USELESS WAR WITH NO HONOR.
GHOST IS JUST FINE WITH THAT.
YET SHE HAS NO STOMACH FOR A DEM CONGRESSMAN GETTING HOT UNDER THE COLLAR WITH A REPUBLICAN WHO HAD JUST STABBED HIM IN THE BACK – SOMETHING GHOST DOES ALL THE TIME.
Goldy says:
An investment would imply a return at some later date. As you well know mass transit, at least around here, requires an ongoing subsidy to remain financially viable, i.e. Metro, Sounder Train. I would consider that tax and spend.
Roger Rabbit says:
I don’t consider spending billions on a mass transit system, i.e. light rail, that will be under utilized, provide little or no relief to traffic congestion and require an ongoing subsidy to be judicious.
Roger Rabbit says:
Roger you do realize Reagan proposed eliminating a number of business deductions to flatten the tax code, but the Democrats in Congress stopped him. Deductions of expenses associated with corporate jets is not solely a phenomenon of Bush policy. Corporations have been taking these types of deductions for years. While I agree with your sentiment, your facts are just wrong.
As of January 2007, the Democrats are responsible for writing the tax code and have the ability to change what can be deducted from corporate taxes. Why haven’t they? And why won’t you criticize them? I thought one of the main tenets of the Democrats in 2006 was reducing lobbyist influence in DC. The tax code seems like an excellent place to start.
While we are are on the topic of corporate jets, why are Democratic candidates flying in corporate jets, yet the campaign only pays the equivalent first class airfare? I realize this is allowed under the rules, but you criticize corporations for following the rules, yet candidates of your own party get a pass. Nice double standard.
Roger Rabbit says:
@21 Last time I checked, real estate prices were still going up like crazy because people are flocking to Seattle as fast as the moving vans can get them here! Why? Because this state is a tax haven for the affluent, that’s why. Because we make the poor and working class pay all the taxes so the rich can skate
HMmmmmmmm moving to Seattle, King co, and what is the political leadership makeup of those areas? Hmmmmmmmmm?
Just a bunch of limosoine liberals!!!!!!!!
Thanks for pointing it out RR
Libs have the ball here RR, run with it, or shut up.
ConservativeFirst:
An investment would imply a return at some later date. As you well know mass transit, at least around here, requires an ongoing subsidy to remain financially viable, i.e. Metro, Sounder Train. I would consider that tax and spend.
Let’s turn this around.
On what planet are highways self-supporting? They’re not, unless you count being paid for by gas taxes, license tabs, and fees on trucks to be self-supporting.
I suppose we could open up highway construction to BOT consortia which collect tolls for the use of their roads. This has been done in the UK, Continental Europe, and Canada, but only Socialists seem to believe in privatized infrastructure. It’s not done in this country outside of the Pennsylvania Turnpike.
I don’t consider spending billions on a mass transit system, i.e. light rail, that will be under utilized, provide little or no relief to traffic congestion and require an ongoing subsidy to be judicious.
Where is mass transit under-utilized? Portland’s train is at or beyond capacity. The Skytrain here in Vancouver is at or beyond capacity. The light rail in Seattle is going within 3 blocks of my house. I will be looking forward to the day when I can jump a train and not have to drive or spend 35 minutes (plus wait time) taking a bus to downtown.
Do you have a study somewhere which shows the train won’t be used, or are you just assuming because you’ll never use it, nobody else will?
21/41 Maybe…just MAYBE, some of the people coming to Seattle are doing so just because it’s kind of a nice place. When I worked downtown, I’d go eat my lunch in Steinbrueck Park and watch all the tourists taking each others’ pictures with the majestic view of Elliott Bay and the Olympics behind them. I’d often think of how most of ’em had paid a lot of money to come and see that, while all I had to do was take a block-and-a-half stroll from my office.
Another thought is that perhaps some people with bucks but an ability to think out of the box got tired of driving their Benzes across the lake in first gear, and decided to buy a condo near the office (and maybe the Columbia Tower Club). Some of those folks probably still have the big house in Medina and go hang there on the weekends…or sold that off and picked up something nice on Maui to go kick back at every now and then.
Transit is part of the solution. Another is living patterns changing over time, and more people living closer to their gigs. One thing’s for sure…we’re never going to pave our way out of congestion.
I hate to sound like a typical east-sider, but it seems to me you’re talking about increase gas taxes statewide to pay for mass transit that, in all likelihood, will only benefit the dense cities in the western part of the state.
Spokane is so sprawled out that I just don’t think mass transit is feasible here. Where are we going to put 100+ miles of tracks or tunnels? Frankly, I think we’d be better off building that mythical north-south freeway than trying to retrofit Spokane for public transit.
The stipulaton that gasoline tax must go to roads-only is a constitutional inequity. Travel by car presents a severe impediment to the other means of urban/suburban travel: walking and bicycling, and the practical implementation of mass transit. Yes, that was a complex concept flying over your head. Who? Huh? Whaa?
The monorail was so poorly engineered, it wasn’t worth building as proposed. Poor engineering is another complex concept that most Seattlers never understand. Huh? Whaa?
Ghost- By my reading, what Murtha did was nearly identical to the Ted Stevens rants about his bridge. Do you condemn him?
Jesse @ 44:
A few things.
First, the core point is that the Puget Sound area needs some pretty substantial quantities of money to get out of gridlock. That will probably mean transit. Rather than sitting around saying “there’s no money. there’s no money.” some money has to be shaken out of somewhere.
Second, I believe very firmly that municipalities should pay for their transportation needs with their own money. Sales taxes levied on gas in King County should be spent in King county. Sales taxes on gas in Spokane County should be spent in Spokane county. Build anything you want with it. It’s your money.
Now, on that point, you may want to look at light rail in another small, spread out city. Calgary, Alberta 20 years ago looked a lot like Spokane does today. A rail line was built for the 1988 Olympics. The line went a long ways out on to the prairie where nobody really lived.
A funny thing happened. Communities started building up along the line in the Southwest section of the city. Having a rail line running through the neighborhood made it a desirable place to live because you could get downtown quickly and leave your car at home.
The same thing is happening in Vancouver with the Eastbound line that goes out to Burnaby and New West. It went through a bunch of low-density single family neighborhoods. Land owners along the line looked at it and said “Wow. My property is now 15 minutes from Downtown Vancouver. Why the hell do I have a two-story office building and a massive parking lot there?”
Big office buildings and condos started going up. Access to transit made it possible to make the neighborhood denser.
Transit doesn’t have to follow development patterns. Transit and urban planning will make development occur.
Portland is spread out all over Hell’s half acre. So is Vancouver (the one up north, that is). People who work in New York take the train into Manhattan from ever-lovin’ Connecticut.
Isn’t there a rail line that runs out along the Spokane River all the way to Coer D’elaine? Seems like that’s a golden opportunity waiting for someone to recognize it and act upon it.
I’m thinking more and more that Ron Sims’ idea of taking over the rail line through Bellevue is a good one, but tearing up the tracks and turning it into another showcase for the Young and Beautiful to parade their Spandexed butts on sunny Saturdays is really, really dumb.
@35 Well yeah, the “example thing” is a problem too.
@35 But then, George got to be president like Stalin got to be general secretary. It had nothing to do with voting and everything to do with who did the counting.
@39 “I don’t consider spending billions on a mass transit system, i.e. light rail, that will be under utilized, provide little or no relief to traffic congestion and require an ongoing subsidy to be judicious.”
We think alike, CF. I don’t consider spending billions (and thousands of lives) on a war to keep Iraqi oil off the market and gasoline at $3.50 a gallon judicious. However, thanks to Cheney’s war-for-no-oil,* mass transit is looking better all the time. I hear the buses are standing room only.
* The dot-connecting that reveals Bush didn’t invade Iraq to get its oil, but to make sure its oil stayed in the ground, comes from Greg Palast’s book “Armed Madhouse,” which explains many other things as well.
For example, I mistakenly believed Cheney is the real power in D.C., but I was wrong. Cheney is a loyal servant of Big Oil. James Baker IS Big Oil, and Cheney takes his orders from Baker (and Bush takes his orders from Cheney).
Palast reveals what was discussed at Cheney’s secret energy task force meeting: Invading Iraq to keep its oil off the market. And Palast reveals something else that’s fascinating: Bush wasn’t in on the discussions at which it was decided our country would go to war.
CF, here’s what happens if gas stays above $3 a gallon: Gas tax revenues drop like a rock … and no more roads.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention who President Baker works for. Officially, he’s the King of Saudi Arabia’s American lawyer. In actuality, he’s an employee of the king.
So now you know. This is Saudi Arabia’s war, and its purpose is to eliminate a competitor. And all of us are merely employees of the king.
@40 “As of January 2007, the Democrats … have the ability to change what can be deducted from corporate taxes.”
Bullshit. We can’t override a veto. The status quo stays in place until Bush agrees to change it or we get a new president, whichever occurs first.
@41 “shut up”
Make me. My burrow, 9 PM tomorrow, bring your balls and a gun.
@41 Hate to break it to ya pard, but Washington (the whole fucking state, not just King County) is a tax haven for the affluent. My proof is the Gates commission’s findings that:
The poorest 20% of households pay 17% of their income to state and local taxes
The richest 20% of households pay 4% of their income to state and local taxes
If that isn’t a tax haven for the affluent I don’t know what is.
@41 “While we are are on the topic of corporate jets, why are Democratic candidates flying in corporate jets, yet the campaign only pays the equivalent first class airfare? I realize this is allowed under the rules, but you criticize corporations for following the rules, yet candidates of your own party get a pass. Nice double standard.”
If Republican candidates do it, why shouldn’t Democratic candidates do it?
By the way, I didn’t criticize corporations for loaning their jets to candidates. I criticized Republicans for giving rich guys tax breaks on jets and yachts while screwing workers. Not the same thing, idiot.
Note, my last 3 comments are in reply to #40.
@42 “It’s not done in this country outside of the Pennsylvania Turnpike”
and Chicago.
@44 Sounds like Spokane needs more (not less) growth management. What are you guys gonna do when the oil runs out? Ride horses?
@47 Getting the money is easy, jsa. All we have to do is spend the existing gas tax paid by King County drivers in King County instead of shipping $127 million of it a year to eastern Washington ingrates.
jsa @ 47:
If the money is going to be spent at the county level, then why not impose the tax at the county level too?
Roger Rabbit @ 62:
Growth management is nice, but funding transit through gas taxes means it’ll be paid for mostly by the people who benefit least from it: the ones whose needs aren’t met by public transit.
Pelletman@57: As I remember it was you and others who kept saying the amount of money flowing from King County eastward to the other “non-blue” counties is the big problem. So, since the rich peeps seem to live on this side of the state and this side of the state seems to vote blue forever, I say it’s high time you liberals paid your fair share of taxes.
I say the ass scratchers on this board should open their wallets and give liberally!
Jesse @ 64:
Two issues with running the tax at the county level:
First, I am not sure you legally can do that. Municipalities have the ability to level supplementary gas taxes, but I recall they’re capped at a pretty low level. A few cents a gallon. Let me check on that.
Second, human nature is a bitch. If King county has high gas taxes and Kittitas county doesn’t, we’ll suddenly see that gas station up at Snoqualmie pass become fantabulously huge. Rural or semi-urban counties have transportation needs too. Take the money and build that freeway they’ve been talking about since my dad was cutting teeth. I don’t care. As Puget Sound fills in and gets dizzyingly expensive, you will probably find that Spokane won’t stay a small podunk town for very long, but that’s your problem, not mine.
I know you believe that gas taxes are taking money from people who drive cars to people who don’t, but I’d argue the world doesn’t really work that way. First, non-drivers still buy groceries, iPods, shoes, etc. In my neighborhood, none of that stuff got delivered to the store by helium balloon. Furthermore, a lot of people still own cars, still fill them up with gas, etc. and just choose to commute by train.
Rog @ 63:
While the evil me would love to cut off the East’s money tap and give them a finance lesson they’ll never forget, that’s rage at work. It’s not good government policy.
How much rail will $163 million buy anyhow? Will that give us a Green Lake station so you can get out and deflower South End and Capitol Hill bunnies as well?
jsa on commercial drive says:
Well this planet of course, you’ve heard heard of toll roads, right?
I’ve ridden Max in Portland a number of times (even during commute time) and it’s never been full. As far as I’m concerned anecdotal evidence just doesn’t cut it here.
The Sounder Train is an excellent example of under utilized mass transit. Metro is another. With the exception of buses that travel to downtown at rush hour, or within the densely populated areas of Seattle most buses run nearly empty. I’d call both cases under utilization.
Even Sound Transit has reduced the ridership numbers for light rail since the project was proposed. Mostly in an effort, I believe, to make themeselves look good, when the project goes on line. They did the same thing on the Sounder Train. Given the lack of success on that project I’m not optimistic about light rail.
Roger Rabbit says:
If revenues from gas taxes “drop like a rock” that would indicate that the roads aren’t being used so we wouldn’t need to build more. That being said, I think your premise is faulty since gas has been well above $3 a gallon for a while, but people’s driving habits have changed very little.
Roger Rabbit says:
Democrats could still pass the bill and show they are serious about reducing lobbyist influence, but clearly they aren’t. Special interests, like the oil industry, are now lining their campaign coffers since they are in power in Congress.
Roger Rabbit says:
According to you Republicans are corrupt and Democrats are not. Apparently that isn’t true, since they are both benefitting from the use of corporate jets. As with the tax code, the Democrats control Congress, they have the ability to change campaign finance rules. If Bush vetos such a bill it becomes a campaign issue in 2008. Unfortunately Democratic candidates might have to live the lifestyle they want everyone else to live by flying commercial. All pigs are equal, some pigs are more equal than others I suppose.
Roger Rabbit says:
(expletive deleted)
In the last 30 years, 26 the governor has been a Democrat.
A similar history for the Legislature.
If the Democratic party is so
liberalprogressive, why are these taxes so regressive?Priceless.
ConservativeFirst @ 68:
Well this planet of course, you’ve heard heard of toll roads, right?
Yes, of course. Let’s step back a minute.
A per-gallon tax on gasoline is about as fair and equitable a tax as you can hope for. People who drive more (i.e. use the roads) will pay more. People who don’t will pay less. People with larger vehicles pay more, etc. Nobody likes paying taxes, but unless you’re starting with a premise that all taxation is inherently theft, this is about as fair a levy as you’re ever going to get.
Once you go to tolling individual roads, we are working on the premise that every individual road has to pay for its own upkeep. Do you REALLY want to go there? I keep houses right in the middle of two big, dense cities (Seattle and Vancouver), and what commuting I do is on that little strip of highway between them. If we’re doing tariffs on a per-passenger-mile basis, I’ll be skating cheap.
If you’re paying the true costs of your road out into the countryside or into suburbia, you may not like how the numbers spin out there.
You’re correct that anecdotal evidence on ridership doesn’t cut it. According to the skytrain.info website, the Vancouver skytrain takes 180,000 people per day. The Portland MAX is at about half that (thus quoth the dreaded Wikipedia).
The question then comes up as to what the costs are of creating capacity for 95,000 or 180,000 largely single-occupancy vehicles. Not only do you have to count operator costs (gas, insurance, blah blah), you need to add in infrastructure costs (roads, upkeep), and costs to your employer (parking spaces in from of your office are not free. I know. I get to write the check for them every month).
By most accounts, the cost per passenger-mile for rail is lower than for roads. Where these numbers come from and what factors they add in is something I can’t give you a definitive answer on in the time alloted. Sorry.
Addendum to last message:
One big problem that you need to bear in mind with commuter rail is that the tracks are owned by the BNSF Corporation. As far as BNSF is concerned, the primary purpose of those tracks is to transport freight. Commuter rail, in fact all passenger rail, takes hind tit to freight and logistics.
You wind up in a Catch-22. You can use BNSF’s tracks, but you do so on their schedule, when they want you to. Your rail service stinks because it’s not flexible time-wise.
Or you can lay your own tracks and do anything you want with them. This makes your costs explode, and makes it harder to be profitable.
In the Bay Area, they got lucky. There was an existing track that had been amortized 50 years ago and had never been used for freight. The municipality took it over, and put a commuter line on it. We are not so lucky, unfortunately.
Republicans
Spend $ Steal…
Spend $ Steal…
Spend $ Steal…
———-
Libertarian
Bitch & Moan…
Bitch & Moan…
Bitch & Moan…
@71
On the SF penninsula they had to buy the tracks from the railroad as well as paying for many improvements: raising the tracks to allow cross streets to go under; additional tracks in sections; etc.
uptown @ 71:
I understand the rail line was purchased. My choice of words was poor. I don’t know what the purchase price was. I can’t imagine it would be anything close to the cost of purchasing a 50 mile right-of-way and building new track, but maybe I’m wrong there.
Good thoughts, Goldy. Maybe an initiative? It won’t fly in Olympia, they’re all too scared of the electorate.
If you have to ask, you can’t afford it. If you can see train coming, it’s too late to get out of the way. By the time we see the edge of the cliff, we won’t be able to slow down.
By the time people realize what we all should have done 40 years ago, it will be too late. Hang on, everyone. It’s going to be a rough century.
Not that I’m giving up on changing things, but… I can’t type anymore. It’s too depressing.
jsa @ 66:
You wrote, “If King county has high gas taxes and Kittitas county doesn’t, we’ll suddenly see that gas station up at Snoqualmie pass become fantabulously huge.”
Actually, I was going to make this point in my last response but took it out at the last minute: if Washington has high gas taxes and Idaho doesn’t, we’ll suddenly see the gas stations in Post Falls become fantabulously huge. Gas is already cheaper there; it wouldn’t have to go up much over here for that to become economical.
You wrote, “Furthermore, a lot of people still own cars, still fill them up with gas, etc. and just choose to commute by train.”
Well, let me make this personal: I’m 100% confident that a rail line wouldn’t do anything for my daily commute. I can’t afford to move or change jobs, so I’m one of those people who simply won’t benefit.
Why should I support a higher gas tax just to make transportation cheaper in other parts of the city, or for people who might move to some new rail-enabled community in the future?
The long term benefits are nice and all, but I have bills to pay now, and those gas taxes are going to hit me every week.
It’s still tax and spend, regardless of what you think of the Libertarians.
uptown says:
Republicans
Spend $ Steal…
Spend $ Steal…
Spend $ Steal…
———-
Libertarian
Bitch & Moan…
Bitch & Moan…
Bitch & Moan…
05/23/2007 at 12:01 pm
====
And the left neeeeever complains about anything.
Yeah, right…
Jesse @ 71: Why should I support a higher gas tax just to make transportation cheaper in other parts of the city, or for people who might move to some new rail-enabled community in the future?
Well, I don’t have kids and I don’t plan to — why should I pay taxes to support schools?
Maybe because I appreciate reaping the social benefits of having a public school system. Food for thought… indirect benefits are still benefits.
That was a response to 75, not 71.
Wendy @ 78:
The social benefits of public schools are clear: education leads to less crime, a better economy, and people who aren’t boring to talk to.
The benefits of building a train for other people to ride, while I’m stuck paying who-knows-how-much(*) to build it? Not so clear.
(* Seriously, how much are we talking about? If our gas prices are going to be more than about 60 cents higher than the prices in Idaho, then suddenly everyone in Spokane will find it cheaper to drive across the border whenever they need gas.)
Legislatively it might seem like a simple proposition. Politically it would be a nightmare. The 18th amendment dedicates motor vehicle fuel taxes to highway funds. The public won’t distinguish between excise and sales taxes.
You’ve been hanging around Eyman too long if you think we can simply change that amendment. It would be challenged with initiatives and in the courts before the Governor’s signature was dry.
Goldie how about putting out that legal authority that says you can have a gas sales tax, that would not be viewed as a gas tax subject to the limitations of the 18th amendment?
thanks.