Initiative 912

[Superman]

Another interesting issue. It would be hard to find anyone in the know including legislators on both sides of the aisle, who is not insisting that Western Washington MUST invest in transportation infrastructure upgrade. The virtually unanimous consensus among insiders (here, you have the opportunity to avoid the transportation question altogether my declaring those "insiders" to be gubmint trash) is that the passage of Initiative 912, which would roll back the legislature's 9-cent gas tax increase scheduled to be phased in over time, would be economically devastating to the State. And yet, voter anger is probably great enough, and greed powerful enough, and selfishness rampant enough (we don't need no stinking taxes) that it could pass.

You know where I stand on this. I think our economic outlook is being throttled by this problem, and we're at a point where it is going to be quite painful, in both traffic disruptions and also taxpayer costs, to do what absolutely, positively, undeniably (I guess you'll be the judge of that) needs to be done. But as always, I'm interested in the silly, ignorant and misguided opinions you guys have that disagree with mine.

Another thing. They say there are few good comprisons between public and private efficiencies (you listening, Len?), but that we probably have one here. The embattled Monorail project. It's one of those public/private partnerships. The public pays the bill, and the private firms do all the rest. Well, the voters approved $2 billion because that's what the private interests said it would cost. The private companies now sheepishly admit they want something like $11 billion to build it. Hmmmm. First $2 billion. Then $11 billion. I've never seen a public agency mess up that badly with math.

And finally. Will we have to see the collapse of the Alaskan Way Viaduct or some other similarly unstable public transportation structure fail and kill some motorists before we accept that maybe public works are necessary for the public good, and that their cost is lower than the cost of not addressing the problems?

[1967 R50/2]

Considering how the recent LARGE increases in the cost of gas has only caused grumblings and NOT panic, economic crisis or even much inconvenience, I'd say 9 cents is a gallon is small potatoes.

The issue is: Will that revenue actually be spent on roads? Doubtful.

A better solution would be to heavily tax trucks. Took some college logisitics. Almost all road damage is caused by 18 wheelers. Regular cars just don't have the mass to inflict much damage on the road surface. Unfortunately this will never happen as the teamsters are such a powerful lobbying force.

[Moses]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2


A better solution would be to heavily tax trucks... Unfortunately this will never happen as the teamsters are such a powerful lobbying force.

Any taxes on trucks will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher freight charges.

Maybe we need a user fee for our roads;

Total miles driven X vehicle weight = tax rate.

[1967 R50/2]

Originally posted by Moses
Any taxes on trucks will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher freight charges.

Not necessarily.

If the tax is properly constructed trains, ships and planes will look much more attractive to shippers than trucks.

The situation was much this way before the construction of the Eisenhower Interstate System anyway.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Hmmmm. First $2 billion. Then $11 billion. I've never seen a public agency mess up that badly with math.

See:
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
United Nations (Oil-for-"Food", et al)

..voters approved $2 billion because that's what the private interests said it would cost.

Sounds like serious contributory incompetence and/or dereliction of duty on the part of the government officials in charge of bidding out this project and/or putting it on a ballot to begin with.

'Cause nobody here has had a five-fold cost overrun on a project they've decided to undertake....

I'm also taking your word on the figures involved and the accuracy of the initial RFPs and the stasis of what the gov't has decided it actually wants done vis-a-vis the package they put out to bid.

I don't think a gas (and diesel) tax is a bad idea for road infrastructure ... it does a decent job of spreading the cost amongst the users. What I'm very wary of, however, is the government, in its infinite greed, repealing said tax once the project is paid for. Where is the incentive to stop taking money from the teeming masses so in need of your stewardship, guidance and hectoring once the express purpose for which they were being taxed is removed?

Witness the NYS Thruway -- "oh, once the financing bonds are paid, we'll repeal the tolls on the Thruway," said the gov't when putting the plan to the proles. The bonds have been repaid and the state RAISED the tolls.

If instead of eliminating tolls as promised, they'd lowered the tolls, mumbling something about Thruway maintenance costs, etc., then I could understand, but it's just too easy to gouge folks for pet projects/interventions/welfare effectively unrelated to the NYS Thruway. A government is only about as powerful as it spends itself into being (enforcement costs...); and what government pointyhead is going to reduce his power?

JP

[legion]

Hey, we have the wonderful tollway system in Northern Illinois. Same promise...tolls will be repealed when the bonds are paid off. That was 20 years ago...and they just doubled all tolls (to a minimum of $1) this year!

Still...additional taxes is not the only way to get money for a project. You could pull money from another worthless project (like public art ). Our wonderful governor is very good at this. He managed to find $10 million for stem-cell research even though the legislature voted it down, the state's budget is way in the red, and it really is only a bailout for venture capitalists who realized the research was going nowhere. I'm sure the money got siphoned off of education or roads...it always is.

[island911]

The money-grubbing corruption in the state of Washington is staggering.

The dem's in charge have invoked "emergency measures" (wink wink) to push thru additional massive taxation ( 9-cent gas tax increase) for the sake of raising money for . . ..drum-roll .... "future needs."

They think that a new bridge will be needed here. . one there. .. maybe somesort of cool project could be built here and there....

They have ZERO plan/cost estimate, beyond some, sorta, kinda , prolly expensive things that . . .well let's just start TAXING LIKE CRAZY WHILE WE CAN.

What's great is, these corrupt politicians, who invoked the "emercency clause" (and the very tough to challenge rules that come w/ it) thought 'no way can the people fight this ...they won't have enough time to gather the bazzilion signatures required to challenge."

HA! . .to see a stream of people carrying boxes of petitions (against this "emergency tax) up the steps of our state capitol was a big ol' nah, na, n'nah-na

[Superman]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Considering how the recent LARGE increases in the cost of gas has only caused grumblings and NOT panic, economic crisis or even much inconvenience, I'd say 9 cents is a gallon is small potatoes.

The issue is: Will that revenue actually be spent on roads? Doubtful.

A better solution would be to heavily tax trucks. Took some college logisitics. Almost all road damage is caused by 18 wheelers. Regular cars just don't have the mass to inflict much damage on the road surface. Unfortunately this will never happen as the teamsters are such a powerful lobbying force.

Y'know I chalk this up to the preference given to commercial interests in our society, obove personal and family interests. You just can't go on taxing businesses (they say), it chokes the goose that lays the golden eggs. But yeah, virtually all highway damage, certainly the wear ruts, are caused by tractor-trailer rigs.

[island911]

.. .and passenger cars with studded tires. (around here)

[Superman]

Originally posted by island911
The money-grubbing corruption in the state of Washington is staggering.

The dem's in charge have invoked "emergency measures" (wink wink) to push thru additional massive taxation ( 9-cent gas tax increase) for the sake of raising money for . . ..drum-roll .... "future needs."

They think that a new bridge will be needed here. . one there. .. maybe somesort of cool project could be built here and there....

They have ZERO plan/cost estimate, beyond some, sorta, kinda , prolly expensive things that . . .well let's just start TAXING LIKE CRAZY WHILE WE CAN.

What's great is, these corrupt politicians, who invoked the "emercency clause" (and the very tough to challenge rules that come w/ it) thought 'no way can the people fight this ...they won't have enough time to gather the bazzilion signatures required to challenge."

HA! . .to see a stream of people carrying boxes of petitions (against this "emergency tax) up the steps of our state capitol was a big ol' nah, na, n'nah-na

Island, you know how I enjoy your slipping sideways, getting some jabs in on gubmint, and slipping away without anyone actually noticing that you have left the topic completely alone. Here, I can only guess out loud and if your tactics don't change then you'll respond in some way but no one will still have any idea what your actual assessment is. Here's a couple of point blank questions, that each and every person close to the problem (these would be the corrupt folks you mentioned) knows has been studied ad nauseum and has the ability to address quickly and directly:

Is there a transportation infrastructure problem in Western Washington? Not a corrupt gubmint problem, but a transportation infrastructure problem. Do you give any credence to the hundreds or thousands of corrupt insiders who have been insisting for a decade that the problem is critical and accute?

If you have noticed that there is a problem, do you have any concept of the consensus of opinion as to how much money it is expected to cost to restore our roads to safe and functional condition? I'll admit here that the figures they use are frightening.

I know you like to pull my chain, Island. On this topic, there seems to be some consensus, as I've mentioned probably to many times. The current wisdom is that if we have enough "Islands" out there in taxpayer land, then our transportation situation is going to get so bad that Seattle will be like a 356 Speedster than crumbles in your hand. Quite a nice thing in its day, and would be great to restore, but the cost of the restoration would be more than the car is worth.

And it surprises me more than a little, that business interests are not being voiced here. Or perhaps they are. If the taxpayer doesn't solve the problem, then private business will be delighted to perform our $200 billion in road construction, and charge us only $500 billion.

[Overpaid Slacker]

Maybe I should get tax credits for putting 3x the miles on the Aprilia this summer than I have on the 930....

JP

[Superman]

Originally posted by island911
.. .and passenger cars with studded tires. (around here)

True.

Hey, Island. You're an engineer. They say the 520 bridge is not safe. Well sure, it's not going to suddenly sink, but you knew about the Viaduct and the Sea Wall.....what is the problem with the 520 bridge?

[Jeff Higgins]

I think what irks most people is the manner in which they (yes, those nasty Dems) went about this. Any tax increase would have, under those circumstances, caused an outrage. The first thing they did upon returning to work this year was to repeal the law enacted by initiative that would have required a super majority to raise taxes. Just too damn inconvenient for your average tax-and-spend Dem to rally bi-partisian support. I think the nine cents is secondary to that. If they would have kept the law intact and had gained enough support to pass the new tax, I think it would have a much greater measure of credibility.

So here we have a governor that won under very questionable circumstances; many feel her party "stole" the election in King County to get her in. First thing she does is repeal the "will of the people", the initiative that was meant to keep taxation a bit in check. Her next inspired act is to raise taxes for one and all to pay for what is very clearly a King County transportation problem (with some spillover into Pierce and Snohomish counties). No, it's not about the money this time. The whole set of circumstances leading up to the increase have left a very bad taste in most people's mouths. The "Governor of King County" and her maternalistic party are trying to make a fed up citizenry take their medicine. It may be good for them, but they are not happy and they are not going to swallow it.

[island911]

Okay, supe. . in a nutshell; our locco 'gubmint' is the problem.

You moan about the transportation mess around here. Do you, for a moment believe that our politicians have the answers? . .. All that they want to do is have giant bridges, trains, mono-rails built in their name.

That is quite different than allowing engineers solve choke-point problems, at say, some intersecting freeways.

These power-hungry, money-grubing dem's want to spend-big for the sake of living large.

An EVEN BIGGER issue, is the (false) premise that the Seattle -meto area is where EVEYONE want to go . . .where EVERYONE wants to be whisked about in a fabiously expensive train. (side note; I hear that as it is now, the amount of money spent keeping the Sounder-train going could have bought an Escalade for each of it's regular commuters . . .and just think how much tax those gas-hogs would add to our economy )

Seattle is a great place to visit and all, but more and more people are working from home offices, or suburban towns.

This idea that all of the state ought to pay for Seattles uber-expensive projects is just wrong, and poor planing.

[Superman]

Okay, so no answer, Island? Yes we do have a transportation infrastructure problem, or no we don't. Check a box.

Frankly, I'm not so sure about Monorail or Sounder trains. I notice those are competing agencies (actually I don't think Monorail is an agency but...) and that WSDOT is not in those games. Competing agencies for the same purpose. I wonder if competition is really appropriate here.

And I wonder if you really are so clouded with anger as to assume that nobody is doing queueing analysis. Hard to believe, but do you really think WSDOT is a large building packed with engineers and nobody is doing queue analysis, and nobody is even asking relevant analytical questions?

And are you aware of the ratio of King County population compared to Washington State, and the proportion of tax revenues generated here versus there, and the proportion of highway funding spent here, versus there. Are you like those Eastern Washington yokels with the completely false but deeply held conviction that rural money is spend on urban road projects, instead of the truth. Truth is, as I can only believe you already know, that rural tax bases are subsidized by urban ones, particularly with regard to roadbuilding. That's one of my most important points. The Seattle commercial machinery is what powers this state. Shall we let it die on the vine?

Telecommuting is taking some pressure off, yes. If you guessed that Superman is a big fan of telecommuting, you'd be correct.

[island911]

Originally posted by Superman
Okay, so no answer, Island? Yes we do have a transportation infrastructure problem, or no we don't. Check a box. . ..

Oh I see; like if I asked you; "are you still beating your kids, yes or no, or no. Check a box. "


Here's a couple "no cost solutions"

dis-allow Baseball games to coincide with rush-hour traffic. . . or let them play somewhere else. (we voted against their stadium, and they promised to leave if they didn't get it . . . so wtf are they doing clogging our already heavy rush-hour(s)?

Forget the uber costly, mountain-moving, third runway, at politically hoarding Seatac. and allow PainField (or other northern location) to become a major passenger airport. (Edmonds, Lynwood, everett, marysville . ..all served by not having to cross into King-Seattle county. ...I know; how are the polliticians going to get their chunk of flesh, if they don't visit?)

Supe, 520 leads where? From suburbia, to a big city. It always clogs on the city side. I suppose it makes sense to increase the size of the parking-lot on the lake.

[Superman]

Originally posted by island911
Oh I see; like if I asked you; "are you still beating your kids, yes or no, or no. Check a box. "


Supe, 520 leads where? From suburbia, to a big city. It always clogs on the city side. I suppose it makes sense to increase the size of the parking-lot on the lake.

Your baseball game schedule suggestion sounds good. That'd solve about .001% of the problem. If you were in charge of that, you might find that all MLB baseball games in our time zone start at 7:05. I dunno, but as long as MLB allows it, it makes sense to have the games at non-rush hour times. If possible.

Now to the other 99.99% of the problem. No, the bridge does not simply clog on the "city side." I've noticed that heading East, the bridge gets clogged, and then things open up as soon as you're on land. But all this is not my real question at all. What they are saying is that there is a safety problem with the age of the bridge and the structural design. I was interested if you knew anything about that. I respect your views as an engineer. So, if you know something, fine. If you don't and your inclination is to declare that 520 bridge problems are a farce concocted by the dems and libs to glorify their mind-control agenda, then don't bother. There is apparently something wrong with the 520 bridge. A la Viaduct.

[island911]

"That'd solve about .001% of the problem. " pull another number outta yer ass.

I've read our state funded propaganda of how the 520 bridge "is just a tremor away from shutdown or collapse. . .., the loss of life and disruption to our economy . ..."

and more rhetoric

The 520 bridge is living under a death sentence. Experts believe the bridge will reach the end of its useful life by 2025, by which time at least the pontoons will have to be replaced. It has been plagued by crippling mechanical problems over the past ten years.

There ya go, "crippling death plague" . . .what more is ther to know?

Be scared . .be VERY scared!

Look, supe; I'm not apposed to building more roads and bridges. I'm just tired of this state 'gubmint' refusing to be realistic . . they look for thhe BIG grandious projects (stadiums included) as their litmus test, and excuss, to squeeze the tax-payer harder, and harder.

As to the specifics of the 520 bridge engineering; from what little Ive seen the solution of tearing it down, for the problems it has, is like taking a 911 to a crusher because it got some rust in the wings.

[Racerbvd]

Originally posted by 1967 R50/2
Not necessarily.

If the tax is properly constructed trains, ships and planes will look much more attractive to shippers than trucks.

The situation was much this way before the construction of the Eisenhower Interstate System anyway.

Well, while I know nothing of that area (bridges, roads, ect) ships, planes & trains can't get to most companies since many have expanded away from rail lines, airports and not every town has a port or airport.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Superman
Well, the voters approved $2 billion because that's what the private interests said it would cost. The private companies now sheepishly admit they want something like $11 billion to build it.

Hmmmm. First $2 billion. Then $11 billion. I've never seen a public agency mess up that badly with math.

San Francisco Bay Bridge earthquake retrofit after Loma Prieta earthquake:

Cost estimate: $200 million.
Current cost: $5.5 billion. Project incomplete.

Ten years later, with cars driving over an unsafe span every day since.

THREE "temporary" bridge toll increases to help cover costs. Temporary increases that have expired: 0.


I'm sure you'll have an appropriately snarky way of telling everyone that this one example does not count. However, this one case illustrates that, just because you haven't seen a public agency mess up that badly, doesn't mean they don't.