520 Floating Bridge

[Superman]

I know this is a local issue but:

1) I'm sure conservatives from all over the country know perfectly well what the problem is here and

2) I'm interested in hearing comments

Among the folks who are in government or in executive positions in industry, there is a conclusion that is, according to them, beyond opinion. The conclusion is that we are fifteen years, at least, behind in improving and maintaining our local transportation infrastructure. Both sides of the aisle have been in agreement with this for that period of time. But Tim Eyman has voters convinced they can get more gubmit services by reducing taxes.

This morning, news reports say that a mixture of various tax increases, PLUS a $6 toll, will be needed to address the 520 bridge problem. Engineers insist this bridge will NOT be the place to be in an earthquake. Earthquakes happen here. There is a major fault running under Puget Sound.

Comments? Some folks might say we do not need to spend any money. Just let roads fall apart.

Some folks will pretend that the costs of these improvements is WAY WAY WAY overstated because gubmit is 200% inefficient.

Whatever. I say we've got a transportation infrastructure crisis right now, and it's going to be terribly, painfully expensive on several levels (money, construction congestion, etc)........and that our ongoing failure to address the problem is going to strangle our local economics. Traffic congestion slows commerce and makes it more expensive.

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by Superman


.....because gubmit is 200% inefficient.

If you think gubmint is only 200% inefficient then I can't take the rest of your post seriously.

[Jeff Higgins]

It is a real problem in this area. Having grown up here, I have seen its decay from what was once an idylic, relatively unpopulated area. An area whose freeways, even at the height of rush hour, were never congested. It has decayed into an area where the freeways are at least congested 24/7, and almost impassable during rush hour. I believe we now have the dubious distinction of the highest traffic density in the nation, when measured as cars per lane/mile. Something needs to be done. No one argues that.

This area's freeway system was built in the '50', '60's, and '70's when our population was one fifth of what it is today. It served admirably then. Problem is, no one was prepared for the massive population explosion we have experienced through the '80's, '90's, and into this century. Our leaders did not adequately plan for it (Democratic leaders through the entire growth period, by the way). Our unique position between the mountains and the coast, with all of its attendant waterways, valleys, and ridges, does not readily accomodate more roads. We are in a bind.

So the Democratic answer is to raise more money to spend to fix it. Not to re-direct existing funds, but to demand more. Fiscal responsibility and foresight are demonstratably not in their vocabulary. They are inarguably the ones under whose leadership we find ourselves in this mess. It happened on their watch. Now their only answer is, well, their only answer to so many things - "we need more (of your) money".

It seems to altogether escape them, and their followers, that the roads that need fixing now were built by an area population one fifth of what we have today. With, presumably, one fifth the tax base, even using a very simplified one-to-one population/tax correlation. We are, of course, taxed at a higher rate than we were when these roads were built, but this works for the sake of argument. So, in other words, the very traffic sitting with you on 520, 405, I-5, I-90, or wherever, is adding substantially to the tax base. The public coffers are swollen beyond the wildest dreams of those who were charged with initially building our roads. Now the ones charged with fixing them, the very ones that allowed the population to so far outstrip the infrastructure, cannot find the money. Incredible. Incredible that anyone buys into that.

[David]

You're not seeing the big picture. We don't need to worry about infrastructure or education or health insurance. The big problem is terrorism and lowering taxes. Get with the program.

[thrown_hammer]

As long as the UN can land jets on the freeway I don't see a problem.

[island911]

Originally posted by lendaddy
If you think gubmint is only 200% inefficient then I can't take the rest of your post seriously.

Word!

Here we have a State (WA) which is running a huge surplus yet imposes an "emergency "gas tax measure. (gas is now cheaper in Hawaii btw)

Super, take a trip to Texas ...you'll see Big infrastructure. . . and they seem to build the big stuff with ease. Here, however, roads and bridge projects are closer, in implementation, to Boston's "Big Dig" -- that is, politicians seem more interested in spending (taxing) Big Bucks, and using the project for political positioning, rather than for achieving a smart outcome for the taxpayers.

Btw, the city of Seattle has a clear plan to slow & limit traffic...unless its owned by, and controlled by, the gubiment .

[Superman]

Originally posted by island911
Word!

Here we have a State (WA) which is running a huge surplus yet imposes an "emergency "gas tax measure. (gas is now cheaper in Hawaii btw)

Super, take a trip to Texas ...you'll see Big infrastructure. . . and they seem to build the big stuff with ease. Here, however, roads and bridge projects are closer, in implementation, to Boston's "Big Dig" -- that is, politicians seem more interested in spending (taxing) Big Bucks, and using the project for political positioning, rather than for achieving a smart outcome for the taxpayers.

Btw, the city of Seattle has a clear plan to slow & limit traffic...unless its owned by, and controlled by, the gubiment .

Quite a smattering of subjective and unsupported innuendo. Here is a link to a study which divides states into high wage and low wage states. In other words, Northern states and Southern states. TX is in the low wage category and was included in this study. Washington State was in the study also, as a high wage state. As it turns out, the total cost per mile of building highways was inversely proportional to the hourly wage cost. Nearly twice as many labor hours are needed for low wage highway building, compared to high wage highway building. Which makes sense. Quite frankly, one thing that labor folks know about the New Orleans problem that others may not, is that the reconstruction problem there will not be addressed by local (Louisiana) labor. Ten NO construction workers are more expensive, and less productive, than one travelling high wage journeyman from the North. New Orleans knows that in order to rebuild, it will need to import constrution labor. Among insiders, that is a widely recognized brute fact.

Oops. Here's the link:

http://www.faircontracting.org/NAFCnewsite/prevailingwage/new/wagesproductivity.pdf

[island911]

Wow... really? Union labor org's have a Study to support their high wages? who would have thought....

[JeremyD]

How funny is that...

[Superman]

Great data, Island. Obviously, it will take me quite some time to go through it.

[djmcmath]

While I'm less familiar with the 520 bridge than I should be, I know most of the other roads in the Puget Sound area, and can testify that infrastructure is sorely lacking.

Further, I'll say that it isn't a problem localized to The Greater Seattle Metropolitan Area. Boston suffers from the same thing. So does Hartford. And Norfolk. And DC. And Baltimore. Even Spokane and Coeur'd Alene suffers from poor infrastructure.

Fundamentally, this country has failed to realize the critical importance of having roads that make sense. Hitler recognized how critically important infrastructure was -- that's why he built the Autobahn, and made the trains run on time -- because infrastructure is what makes the economy go! That's one of the things that the USSR failed at -- they still have dirt roads through most of the country, while Eisenhower was building freeways.

We've missed the boat. We're 20 years behind the infrastructure power curve, and we'll have to fight to catch up. But that will cost money, which we'd rather spend elsewhere.

[legion]

Originally posted by djmcmath
We're 20 years behind the infrastructure power curve, and we'll have to fight to catch up. But that will cost money, which we'd rather spend elsewhere.

Yep, on universal healthcare, cable for inmates, and other feel-good programs.

[red-beard]

Roads, bridges, infrastructure, basic schooling, defense. These are the things that I can agree should be funded.

And I also think that every state should look to Houston for design solutions on limited access highways. It is not just about the number of lanes, etc. It is how the traffic enters and exits the freeway. It is where the traffic goes when it exits. How much separation is there from the main lanes to the exit road? How many cars can the access road take before backing up onto the freeway?

[Superman]

Who are you and what have you done with Red-Beard? The Redbeard we know and love didn't post insightful, intelligent affirmations of the importance of effective and well-planned infrastructure

[MichiganMat]

Let Macquarie buy it:

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=MIC



Privitized infrastructure, I can hardly wait. Eventually we'll all live in sovereign enclaves. I'd personally try to get access to Mr. Lee's Greater Hong Kong

[Superman]

That's one of the interesting issues. Since Tim Eyman has folks convinced that taxes are always bad, when we need to build something big and expensive, the alternative is to have a private company build it for us, and then collect tolls. And some folks here might be thinking that's cheaper than building it ourselves. Hmmmm.......

[MichiganMat]

And just to counter any "only liberals ruin roads" arguments, John Engler didn't touch a road for his entire 12 years of service to the state of Michigan... and that was after he lowered taxes enough to bankrupt most of the state leaving it drowning in the bathtub. Thanks John! Boy, you really put some pie on the face of that beotch Granholm, good one dude!

[lendaddy]

Originally posted by MichiganMat
And just to counter any "only liberals ruin roads" arguments, John Engler didn't touch a road for his entire 12 years of service to the state of Michigan... and that was after he lowered taxes enough to bankrupt most of the state leaving it drowning in the bathtub. Thanks John! Boy, you really put some pie on the face of that beotch Granholm, good one dude!

lol, yea that's what happened

I'm off for a beer, feel free to revise more history while I'm gone

[MichiganMat]

Hey, uh, you're rolling in cash, get me one too?

Edit: Poor taste, even by my standards, I apologize. Context? Len's mfg. company has been on the rocks (last I heard anyways), Engler is now the president of the National Association of Manufaturers, taxes in MI have gone up under Granholm, and the state is in the middle of a major job and real estate crisis. Good times back home.

[teenerted1]

whats wrong with paying tolls to rebuild 520 bridge? thats how it was paid for the first time.

do you know where the old toll booths use to be? i do. i remember the first few years living here that we had to pay to get over to Seattle. that was almost 30yrs ago before 520 went past 148th st in bellevue. talk about taking the long way to east of one stoplite Redmond.

now i dont live on the eastside so why would i pay for a road i wont use much? dont go to gig harbor much too but i can always take the long way around to avoid the toll when that bridge is done. if you want to avoid the toll on 520 in the future you just be stuck in the alternative. i90 will finally be the slow route across the lake.

do you expect the ferries to be free too?