Comments on "Social Engineering" Is the Taxes I Pay So You Can Drive

Light rail construction is well under way. Soon, there will be frequent operations between Downtown and the Airport. The taxes have not increased one penny, the whole time. Professional planners are planning to enlarge the train system now! With your help, we can make Sound Transit Two a reality. Find out how – go to soundtransit.org. Thank you.

Building houses close to jobs (Seattle) generally means really expensive houses compared to houses far away from jobs (Burien, Issaquah, whatever)

Another Erica-hates-cars post. YAWN!

ECB likes to forget that not everyone is a young, able-bodied person that can live 2 blocks from her job and ride a bike everywhere. there is plenty of housing near jobs, they just aren't always affordable.

I'd love to have ECB look for a house and blog about that experience--see what the stranger salary and a house does to her commute and travel options!

Using the 'houses are expensive near good jobs' is a red herring. The real issue is the lack of mass transit in the city. Land prices are always going to be expensive in a metro area, it's where people want to be, but that doesn't mean someone who has to live in Renton, Kent, Shoreline, or even close by like Seward Park or Madison Valley should have to drive alone to work. Mossback wants all our transportation dollars put into roads so he can be free to ride alone to work and sit in traffic all day. Erica wants money put into mass transit options so everyone can have the choice to ride the bus/monorail/lightrail/walk/bike/skip to work and where ever else the want to go.
Both are forms of social engineering. The region just has to decide what kind of society it wants to live in.
Personally, I agree with Erica.

Nothing crack-backs ignorance quite like five times the ignorance!

ddvelin: ECB likes to forget that not everyone is a young, able-bodied person that can live 2 blocks from her job and ride a bike everywhere.

So the United States is the only country in the world that has elderly and disabled people? Do all the other countries that are not so automobile-dependent just put their elderly and disabled out on ice floes or something?

The real issue is the lack of mass transit in the city.

There is "mass" transit, just not rapid transit. And I support all tolls of all kinds. Roads aren't anyway, why let people drive like they are?

The real issue is the lack of mass transit in the city.

There is "mass" transit, just not rapid transit. And I support all tolls of all kinds. Roads aren't anyway, why let people drive like they are?

The real issue is the lack of mass transit in the city.

There is "mass" transit, just not rapid transit. And I support all tolls of all kinds. Roads aren't anyway, why let people drive like they are?

Jesus fucking christ.

ddvelin-- You know what? Shut the fuck up. I'm 34, I own a condo on Capitol Hill, I've never owned a car in my life and I've never made more than $31,000 in a year. I can make my mortgage payments on my temp wages. It's just a question of priorities and planning.

ivan-- You can shut the fuck up too. Car culture is a losing proposition on every single front. There isn't a single metric where cars provide a net benefit to society. The fact that nobody gives a shit doesn't make Erica wrong, it makes everyone else a bunch of fucking idiots. The fact that people like Erica continue to complain about the automobile economy is actually a compliment to people like you: she does it because she honestly can't believe you could possibly be that stupid. Keep proving her wrong. She'll get the message eventually.

Not to say this wasn't a boring fucking post of Erica's, but you hecklers are a pack of smug self-destructive tools whose ignorant bullshit is going to take the rest of us down with you. Bad enough you're all so fucking stupid, but you're actually proud of the fact into the bargain.

ECB likes to forget that not everyone is a young, able-bodied person that can live 2 blocks from her job and ride a bike everywhere. there is plenty of housing near jobs, they just aren't always affordable.

That's the point -- the government's "free" massive highway system has made it so affordable housing can only easily be built in the middle of nowhere. Toll systems are one very small way of counteracting this social engineering so that, hopefully, alternatives to driving and urban near-workplace housing will increase.

There isn't a single metric where cars provide a net benefit to society

Uh, other than the getting around part. If cars provided no benefit, no one would drive them...

There are many intelligent points to be made that would unravel Knute's article. Is anyone on The Stranger staff capable of making them?

Another condescending ECB post. She forgets that it's the rest of us transporting goods and services that indirectly and directly support her, her employer and advertizers, and the equipment and supplies they use, so she can sip her latte and type about how only she is so geeen and special.

Uh, other than the getting around part.

Where cars provide a net benefit to society. See how subtle that wording is?

So when you figure in the externalities that Erica mentioned (health, pollution, etc) cars cost vastly more than the value of the benefits they create.

@14
Yeah, like this one:
"Congestion pricing or value pricing or free candy, whatever you call it, is a way to force us to change our behavior. It's an automotive sin tax."

Damn right it's a way to change behavior. Just like the car companies did when they bought up rail lines and forced people become car dependant. The government failed the people then, and now, in some places, their trying to make amends by giving options to the people who don't want to drive. I'll vote for every single tax that will give us more rapid transit, bike lanes, and pedestrian priority projects. I am willing to spend money on the transportation choices I support, why aren't you.

I don't feel like ECB's condescending or that she's oblivious to how shit gets done. She has forward-thinking goals. I'm all for it. But I do agree with you, Raindrop, that motor vehicular transportation on roads (and ships, planes, and trains) is what brings, oh what, 95% of everything people have and use to where you buy it from.

It's not going to be easy.

I'm still sold on higher gas taxes as a revenue-generator/driving-discourager. People who drive more pay more--indexed for the fuel economy of your vehicle, no less. Plus they're collected by private business, so there's no new bureaucracy or technology required for collection.

"Building housing far away from jobs" is nonsensical, unless you are (a) under the impression that some single entity controls both, or (b) wish that it did. Every job in the region is near some housing, and vice versa. Unless you think people should not be allowed to choose what jobs they take, I don't see what you're asking for here. Does everyone at The Stranger live on Capitol Hill? Should they be required to?

Also, you may be unaware of the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency, which is THE authority on all air-quality issues and regulations in the region, but it's ludicrous to suggest that anyone can "pollute the air at will". If you don't believe me, go outside and start burning some leaves in a burn barrel, and let us know what happens.

I’d also like to see licensing of bicycles (just like we do for cars).

Yeah, I'd like to see licensing of idiots. Frankly, the cost of having you around is diverting resources from more important projects. In addition to the fees you should have to pay just for taking up space, you I'd like to see you pay a special surcharge every time you post a comment on the web.

@20: Why should bicyclists pay for licenses? We already pay for the roads we use (via property and sales taxes) yet we do no damage to them.

I really wish you drivers would stop sponging off us cyclists!

I'll second J.R. @19. I think higher gas taxes are a better way to go. Encourages more fuel efficient cars which tolls do not. Also, easier to implement and do not require the building of toll booths and the paying of the people that staff them.

Hmm, basically what J.R. said...sorry its Friday..

Judah @ 11, 16, 22:

Good luck getting *me* to shut the fuck up. If you want to live like an ant in a fucking anthill, if you think that's "vibrant" in your urban fucking archipelago, more power to you.

But there will always be private transportation in this country and in this area, because there are more of us than there are of you, and I do not expect that to change in my lifetime.

Heaven help the politician who calls for tolls around here.

Hey, YGBKM, anytime you wanna take it down to numbers, I'm good to go. Calorie economy, time economy, resource economy-- any kind of cost/benefit model you wanna use.

Judah, I love you.

"cars cost vastly more than the value of the benefits they create."

Interesting comment, but it doesn't make much sense.

Do cars create value or is it the occupants of cars that create value? If it is the occupants and not the cars that create value than the cars are a tool used by its occupants to create value.

Three years ago I lived in Everett and commuted to Bellevue by car for work. I moved to Seattle proper and one of the first things I did was get rid of my car and switch to transit. Suddenly I had time to read again, I wasn't stressed out by my commute, and it was awesome that I was in walking distance from things that I wouldve had to drive for previously. Ant in an anthill? Hardly... What a clueless and entirely stupid thing to say.

My greatest desire right now is being able to speed to work on a train while idiots like you, who currently make my bus commute too long because I'm stuck in your traffic,continue to sit in traffic spending your precious time getting road rage at your fellow drivers.

I pay fares on my transit choices, so please explain to me why I have to subsidize your want to live in BFE? You made your choice like I made mine. Stop bitching and pay up.

wow.

the "wow" was in reference to the juvenile but threatening SUV post that seems to have been removed.

@ 23

Non drivers benefit from the property and sales taxes they already pay to support roads by having access to the goods and services that are brought to them by virtue of those roads. Should they get that benefit for free? No. We distribute the cost of roads across the entire community because the entire community benefits from them. People who drive subsidize the additional damage they do (along with a lot of crap they don’t use including but not limited to a monorail that does not and will not exist) through paying for tabs. All I’m saying is why not license bicycles and use those funds to pay for infrastructure that, by its nature, is used only by cyclists?

@30: Yes, my editor took it down. Abusive and threatening posts are not helpful or welcome.

People who don't support public transit or alternative forms of transportation and insist on driving their cars from here to eternity are provincial hicks. If you don't support the idea of living near where you work, you're probably a redneck. If anything Erica said actually offends you're a dick and part of the problem.

End of story. Evolve or die.

@32

Sorry ECB. It's been a long week. (and I don't even own an SUV) But Judah is a jerk.

@5

You are right - whatver transportation system we choose, it's always social engineering. There is no "neutral" way to build and finance transportation.

I don't expect it in a blog, but it'd be helpful to see the statistics. What would a gas tax that pays for all the costs of driving, including pollution, be? I've heard examples thrown out, but I don't know how valid they are.

The Puget Sound Regional Council did a study several years ago saying taxes made up 7% of all transportation costs - it'd be good to have that updated, with the costs of new transporation initiatives, as well as the skyrocketing cost of gas, factored in. Forcing people to commute by car (or pay high prices for in-city living) is a tax of sorts - the money goes to the auto companies instead of Uncle Sam or our local governments.

It'd also be good to throw in health benefits while we're at it. The more convenient it is to walk somewhere, the more you're going to do it. When I commuted to downtown Seattle, I walked 1 1/2 miles in my regular weekday commute. When I worked south of Everett, I walked about 30 feet during my regular commute. If you make it easier to walk, people are healthier, and we save health care costs.

Jay @ 33:

I support mass transit and alternative forms of transportation, I telecommute, AND I oppose tolls on roads that my gas taxes are already paying for.

Erica is full of shit, and you appear to be a member of her club.

Princess Caroline @ 27:

What's the definition of value? What is the composition of "value"? If cars are or were a means to create what we have today, then I would suggest they have been a valuable and little recognized tool (appliance, if your will)that allowed us to accomplish what we have to this point. Should cars be vilified? How about electric cars or cars based on hydrogen? Car technology is changing. Should we not recognize this and accept that they will not disappear? Are cars inheritantly evil just beacuse it is a car?

The level of antipathy toward and lack of sympathy for the very real plight of the working class people on display here will be the death of the Democratic Party.

Hope you guys enjoy your next Republican governor - I sure won't.

@1 - no, those taxes were just extended into infinity, and the overall amount each taxpayer is putting in has certainly increased significantly over the amount they were originally told they would pay as a result.

This is the same kind of doublethink/doublespeak that allows ST supporters to call Link Light Rail "on time and on budget" - just when is ST going to get to the core of the U-District again? Oh yeah, that'd be 2014 rather than 2006 as promised...

Mr. X - you just moved here, right? In 1996 the citizens of our region had the good sense to vote for permanent taxes for ST. Contrary to your misperception, no taxes were "extended." Everybody knows that.

Working class people? Is Seattle still a manufacturing city? Are there powerful unions and blue collar workers commuting into factories who aren't making 15 to 30 bucks an hour? What does the concept "working class" even mean anymore? The closest thing to a large underclass commuting into Seattle are underpaid service job workers and temps, just like a lot of people who actually live in the city.

Everyone works. Stop with the fake populism. If you can afford to fill your car up with gas everyday to drive several miles to work you're not a man of the people, ok? Those of us who get paid shit to do temp work in Seattle ride the bus, at least those of us who are smart enough to know what a sinkhole cars are in a budget.

Wilco,

I voted for ST in 1996 - and people like me voted for the 10-year program that was promised, not the fine print that the State Supreme Court later decided said that ST could interpret what they had originally promised to mean whatever they wanted it to.

Do try and pay attention...

Jay,

Fake populism my ass - the working class have increasingly been moved out to points north and south by the gentrification of this city, and a many of them have NO choice but to drive to get here. Taken a bus into town from Kent or Lynnwood lately? If not, STFU.

Frank Chopp and most of the Democratic leadership understand exactly what I'm saying, which is more than I can say for the staff of the Stranger or the self-righteous "green" snobs (like, say, you) who post here.

Mr. X -

It's a lot more expensive for a working class family to have to own a second car because of our lack of quality transit than for them to pay extra transportation taxes for SoundTransit. Families also aren't being given housing choices that are affordable, as there's a lot more sprawl being constructed than new, walkable neighborhoods. That's the type of social engineering that's taking place, although it isn't as lopsided as it used to be.

And it isn't a D vs. R battle per se - Chambers of Commerce in Kent, Auburn, etc. would love for Sounder to run regularly (as BART does) so citizens, workers and shoppers could take the train, instead of being forced to drive. Right now, Sounder is a demonstration commuter system, not a real system.

Oh you're right, the poor are being forced out by high rents. I'm well aware of that. But trying to make gentrification a justification for cars is a lame, and yes, competely fake stab at populism. I know plenty of people who make the commute in via bus. Want to know why? Because they can't afford car payments. And maybe if this supposedly blue collar class of people didn't have car payments and gas prices, they could afford to live in the city. I live in the city, and I make shit. You know how? The miracle of not driving.

The only problem I have with all of this discussion is that it gives legitimacy to the backwards, unemployed hack (Knute Berger). Let Berger hyperbolize his way into eymanesque irrelevance - don't encourage him.

Of course tolls work - there is nothing special about this region (other than the stubbornness of some of its electorate) that would prevent tolls from working. They're not perfect but the money has to come from somewhere. A gas tax hits working people just as hard as a toll will. Next?

Seriously, stop linking to crosscut. It only encourages them and they don't deserve the advertising pennies that are being generated.

Tolls absolutely work. Seattle is being far too stubborn about making the leap into the 21st century. It's this bizarre refusal to do anything any other city is doing and insistence on a Seattle way (which apparently means doing nothing at all) that impedes progress other than the new condos variety. When it gets to the point where people aren't even willing to pay tolls, you really know that at least part of the problem lies with the people, and not just the planners.

JMS @ 47:

What part of "we have a gas tax already" do you fail to understand?

Those of us who buy gasoline are already paying a toll. It's called the gasoline tax. There is no need for an additional road-use toll.

If there's a case for raising more money to pay for roads, make the case and raise the gasoline tax.

If you live where you don't need to own a car, and if that lifestyle suits you, then bingo! you have beaten the system.

But to advocate a toll for using the roads when we already are paying for using them, and you're not, is nothing more than punitive.

Those who try it will be writing their own political epitaphs. If they want to raise the gas tax, and can show us what we would get for it, then let's deal.

Oh, I would have the toll in order to discourage unnecessary driving in the city, not to pay for the roads. I'm not saying drivers should be tolled at all times, but at certain strategic points throughout the day. This toll could be used to pay for improving transit in the city.

All I’m saying is why not license bicycles and use those funds to pay for infrastructure that, by its nature, is used only by cyclists?

Because there's no such thing as infrastructure that's only used by cyclists? Because so-called "bike trails" are used by pedestrians and joggers? Because bike trails require significantly less upkeep than roads? Because the supporting construction and infrastructure-- road beds, signaling, law enforcement and drainage --is significantly less expensive and involved than for car roads?

Just a few ideas for you to consider.

And, you know, you getting zapped off the slog? Ha. That's awesome. Call me a jerk all you want: you got nothin' showin'.

Judah/Jay 2008!

"I voted for ST in 1996 - and people like me voted for the 10-year program that was promised"

Sure you did. and you voted six times "yes" for monorail. and you are going to be waving a hand-painted "vote yes" sign on a streetcorner for RTID in November.

As a young Kevin Bacon once said (wearing nothing but tighty-whities): "Thank you sir, may I have another?"

And the cycle of abuse and reconcilliation continues unabated . . . .

Not so fast with the praise, Cogswell.

I'm still waiting for Judah response to Caroline @ 27, and I am still waiting for Caroline's response to my inquiry
@ 37.

Whenever I read one of Erica's more heated screeds about cars, I feel like saying, "I'm totally on Erica's side. Just, I don't always feel like Erica's the best spokeswoman for our side."

Sometimes it seems like Erica is a fundamentalist about cars the way Christian evangelicals are fundamentalists about sex. Ted Haggard will preach the utter evil of gay sex and then go off and have a fling with a gay prostitute. Erica will preach the utter evil of automobiles and then go off and have a fling with a Mini Cooper. (Well, at least Erica is honest enough to admit she had a fling.)

You see, whenever Erica champions things like tolls and gas taxes, it comes across as wanting to stick it to the nasty drivers. But really, tolls and gas taxes benefit the driver almost as much as they do the non-driver. I can almost guarantee that, if the state committed to tolling 520 and I-90 to help pay for rebuilding 520 and to manage congestion, the change eventually would meet with widespread acceptance from Lake Washington commuters. The drivers -- those who would continue driving -- would appreciate getting their time back thanks to something finally being priced according to its value. The transit riders -- including those switching to transit -- would appreciate the improved service and the further "mainstreaming" of riding transit.

There's nothing inherently evil about cars. The myriad evils only come with the abuse of cars and the dependence on cars.

Cressona @ 53:

Oh, goody, a "concern troll." Tell me how all these great, wonderful things can't be accomplished by raising the gasoline tax.

You see, I don't *want* those fuckers taking pictures of my license plate and tracking where I have been and when. Don't tell me that is acceptable public policy.

Sure thing.

Interesting comment, but it doesn't make much sense.

Do cars create value or is it the occupants of cars that create value? If it is the occupants and not the cars that create value than the cars are a tool used by its occupants to create value.

Yes, cars are a tool used by their operators to create value. Generally they create value by saving time: a driver uses a car to cross a distance that would take much longer to cross on foot. As it happens, short of horse carts*, cars are pretty much the worst possible tool for that purpose. Most people are aware of this, but continue to use cars anyway because they "like the convenience" of being able to drive. But let's take a moment to consider what that convenience actually costs us:

Just in terms of fuel consumption, commuter rail is about 38% more efficient, per passenger mile, than automobiles. But automobiles produce nearly half the pollution that will be created over the life of the vehicle during the manufacturing process, and cars wear out and are recycled much faster than trains and train passenger cars. Then there's the question of time as money: the average American household diverts a 8.9% of their income just to purchasing their vehicle, 7.2% to maintenance and insurance, and 2.8% to fuel and oil. For most Americans, cars are their second largest investment after housing. So figure that in the next time you're calculating the cost of buying a cheaper house farther from where you work.

American car commuters spend a shocking amount of time stuck in traffic. Ten years ago the Federal Highway Administration posited the most conservative value of that time as $43 billion in lost productivity. Some economists estimated that figure at closer to $168 billion.

When you add the work hours spent paying for a car to the time spent sitting in one, it works out to a huge waste of time. Ivan Illich, in his 1972 book Energy and Equity figured that the average American spends four out of every sixteen waking hours either in their car or working to pay for it. When you figure in hospital time, traffic court and other externalities and secondary costs, it goes up to something like 27% of your waking hours either in or working to pay for your car-- approximately 1,600 hours a year. Given that the average American drives about 14,000 miles a year, your average driving speed, when you figure in all the time/money you spend on your car, is about 8.75 miles per hour.

Now, that's just at the consumer end of things; it doesn't account for the tax revenues that go into infrastructure for cars, nor does it figure in big externalities that are harder to quantify, like the medical costs of automobile-related injuries. Nor does it figure in the lost productivity of the 50,000 Americans who are killed by cars every year.

When you compare mass/rapid transit, strictly from a consumer perspective, it's a much much better tool that produces a lot more value for the cost.

* It's actually possible, if the use of horses is highly regulated and those regulations are followed, to get excellent economy out of horse carts. So, just to provide one example, horse shit makes great fertilizer and can be used to create methane for power generation and various other organic solvents that have useful applications in industry. A friend of mine did a study for his Masters thesis at Harvard Business school in the '60s, comparing the economy of using horses for logging versus the economy of using machines and found that horses were much more efficient, hour to hour, than using tractors or trucks to pull logs to the mill. The only reason it was more efficient to use machines was that they could operate at night, and even then it was only fractions of a cent more productive.

Historically, however, the horseshit and dead horseflesh was very poorly utilized and contributed to massive net loss of resources and a decline in air quality in the urban core.

Ivan-- the gas tax currently in place isn't paying for the infrastructure that cars use (never mind the externalities like pollution mitigation &c). If gas was to be taxed at a rate that would actually cover the shortfall, the tax would be massive. And this is where your whole "political epitaph" thing starts to come into play: as unwilling as people are to accept tolls, they'd be even less willing to accept a gas tax that would actually cover the cost of operating their vehicles. When it comes to paying for things, Americans definitely prefer the band-aid to come off in a series of small painful pulls rather than one excruciating yank. So some of it can be covered by gas tax, some can be covered by tolls. It works out to the same cost in the long run, but I think we're going to have better luck selling it to the voters.

The Big Brother thing is just a joke. Most people can already be tracked with their cell phones, credit cards and debit cards. Traffic cameras-- the kind used to issue traffic reports --already photograph most urban commuters. If anyone in the government actually cared enough about you to surveil you, the infrastructure is already pretty well in place.

Judah @ 56, 57:

Right! Just try it.

Ivan:

Okay.

" Generally they create value by saving time:"

I undestand the points you made regarding "what the convenience costs us" some I agree with and some I am skeptical, however you did not qualify nor quantity the "value" (as you put it) of generally saving time versus the cost of the convenience of a car. You completely ignored one side of the equation and focused on the other.

Bacchus, your question's not really clear. The value of generally saving time versus the cost of the convenience of a car?

The value of generally saving time is an illusion: you're not generally saving time in any real or meaningful sense. You're spending time stuck in traffic and time paying for the thing. The "quick" ten minute drive to the grocery store is actually the culmination of hours of effort directed toward paying for and maintaining your car. The drive itself doesn't take very long, but if you weren't paying for your car you would've had time to walk or take a bus or a train.

Back when my wife and I were dating she had a used car she'd paid about $1200 for. She paid $600 a year in insurance and something like $1000 a year maintaining the thing because it was an old used car. Then there was gas and oil and all that other shit. So we sat down and worked it out: $1600 a year in insurance and maintenance plus, conservatively, $1200 a year for gas works out to $2800 a year. And of course that doesn't figure in parking or any of that crap.

Then we worked out what she needed the car for:

Commuting - could be done by bus and on foot

Shopping - could be done by bus and on foot. On rare occasions when there was a really big load, we could call a cab.

Moving - Moving trucks can be rented for about $50 a day, or you can hire actual movers for about $400.

Short weekend trips out of town - Car rental companies rent for between $20 and $50 a day. Which sounds like a lot until you compare it to $2800 a year.

Additionally, in Seattle, there's something called Flexcar which meets pretty much all our car needs at a very reasonable price, and we don't even have to buy gas. With our cell phones we can generally even reserve cars on the fly and just grab one when we need it.

So on balance, most of our "convenience" needs could be met much cheaper with alternate tools.

Does that answer your question? If not, maybe you could rephrase.

And just out of morbid curiosity, which parts are you skeptical about?

If one is saving time from being engaged in an activity, it means you are engaged in the pursuit of another activity. For example, if that time saved is applied in an activity that produces a profit we would have to ascertain the costs involved saving time to pursue this additional profit versus the actual earned profit to realize if there is a benefit. What are the costs versus the benefits when simply looking beyond the estimated costs to the individual? I don't believe there has been an adequate
consideration of the increase in economic activity associated with
"saving time". You indicate it is an illusion because of the time spent working to pay for the car, however there is no measure given for how much more is earned as a result of not using the time walking or public commuting but utilizing it in a profitable activity.

In the case of your wife: IF she was to earn substantially more, as a result of the additional time she "saved" by driving to work versus walking or public transport, wouldn't it be a benefit to her? I would suggest it
should be, provided the benefit was greater than the aggregate costs associted with her driving.

Of course you will point out that this may not be the norm, however shouldn't we allow individuals to determine the "benefit" of saving time for themselves and isn't that what they are going to do regardless? Certainly you and your wife determined it didn't work for you, however that may not be the case for many others.

Don't get me wrong, next to golf, commuting either by car or public transport is the largest waste of
human resources and activity that
I can consider, however minimizing
commutes either by the creation of effective and efficient public transport or driving must be evaluated by what are their costs versus what
are their benefits.

"which parts are you skeptical about?"

Sorry, I forgot. The lost productivity
figures. I am always a bit skeptial of
figures that don't include comparisons, i.e. what was the total value of productivity for that year and the next year vs the cost of achieving that productivity (the lost productivity commuting). It doesn't give a total picture.

Mr. X chose to type this: "This is the same kind of doublethink/doublespeak that allows ST supporters to call Link Light Rail "on time and on budget" -"

*sigh* ST has been audited three times a year - every year - for a decade. NOT ONCE did the auditors find it was either over budget or late on anything.

If you are going to criticize the agency, find something real to spout off about. You're just looking silly.

Oswald, ST has never been audited for performance only accounting accuracy except kind of by the ST appointed citizens oversight committee (COP) a snip from their 2005 report below, please note the term over budget is used and the very humorous note about LINK being under budget because it wasn't opening until 2009 :

For commuter rail, light rail and express bus, total 10-year operating costs are at or below what was forecast in Sound Move. However, for all three modes, it is clear that planning assumptions related to cost per hour and cost per passenger were underestimated. • For Sounder commuter rail, Sound Move estimated the 10-year operation and maintenance (O&M) cost would be $169 million (including inflation). Despite higher hourly costs, actual total costs through 2006 are currently estimated at $105 million because less service is being delivered. Had the projected levels of service been delivered, Sounder operating costs would be considerably over budget. • The estimated 10-year O&M cost for Link light rail was $72 million, inflated to the year of expenditure, but actual operating costs are now forecast to be just $13 million through 2006. This much lower figure is due to the fact that Central Link is not scheduled to begin operation until 2009. • The 10-year cost of operating Regional Express bus service was estimated in Sound Move to be $350 million, including inflation, with actual costs through 2006 now on target to be at $353 million, despite higher hourly costs, because less service has been delivered. By 2006, Sound Transit expects to be delivering the 624,000 total hours per year projected in Sound Move. Had service not been ramped up more slowly, REX operating costs would be considerably over budget.

1) One thing I never see addressed when someone suggests tolls here is the adverse effect on the environment. Tolls create more idling traffic as people line up to pay, and that's extremely bad for fuel economy and air quality. E-Z Pass-type technology helps, but you're still typically looking at a long line-up of cars burning gas while sitting still.

2) It's not fair to support tolls with the attitude that drivers should have to pay them because they're making a harmful lifestyle choice. Seattle is a West Coast city laid out with a car culture in mind; we dragged our feet too long on transit in decades past and we're paying the price now. Meanwhile, everybody has to make a living, and everybody has to live somewhere, and those two places can't always be in close proximity. If you've managed to adopt a car-free lifestyle, that's great, but adopting some kind of weird militant attitude toward people who have not is ignorant and counter-productive.

@66-

Learn to read. None of those operations costs exceed budget. NONE OF THEM.

And the SAO's performance audit report that'll be released this summer will be just fine, thank you.

OK Oswald you love ST - but why deny the reality that they under estimated the costs by huge amounts. I could link to many news stories about ST going over budget on both LINK and Sounder but somehow you won't be able to accept the truth.

I guess if you hire a contractor to fix your roof for $10,000 dollars in a month time frame if he finishes 1/2 the roof in three months he's on time and on budget in your world.

Some uninformed whiner wrote: "I could link to many news stories about ST going over budget on both LINK and Sounder"

No, you couldn’t.

No such stories exist.

ST is under the voter-approved budget. That is because ST's board has the discretion to scale back projects to stay within the project scope the voters approved. That is what those elected officials did.

Get over it - and yourself.

BTW, the performance audit report will show ST is WELL WITHIN ALL the standards. Don't hold your breath for some smoking gun there.

Put in "Sound Transit" and "over budget" for your search - below are the first four hits

The Seattle Times: Local News: Sound Transit budget on track
The Sound Transit operations and maintenance facility is being built just south of this location. The original project, $1 billion over budget and three ...
seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/ localnews/2002181534_soundbudget16m.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

Sound Transit over budget on its Beacon Hill tunnel
. By LARRY LANGE P-I REPORTER. Construction of Sound Transit's initial 14-mile light rail line, ...
seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/ 267560_soundcosts21.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Sound Off
Today, Sound Transit estimates phase 1 will be completed more than a decade late and $11 billion over budget. That is a slippery statement. ...
seattlepi.nwsource.com/soundoff/ comment.asp?articleID=313393 - 88k - Cached - Similar pages

Seattle's 'Sound Transit' to Cost Nearly Double Original Estimate ...
Today, Sound Transit estimates phase 1 will be completed more than a decade late and $11 billion over budget. In November, Seattle-area voters will be asked ...
www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=20931 - 29k -

Oswald,

You're quite a piece of work. In 1996, Sound Transit promised voters a 21 mile light rail plan for which they were going to collect $3.9 billion in taxes over a 10 year period. They couldn't do that, so they moved the goal posts and redefined their budget, project and timeframe.

The rest is just after-the-fact rationalization. I can't believe you can still spout that true believer stuff with a straight face and without your head exploding.

X me thinks his head has exploded.

Oswald please explain how ST could go over budget. Apparently from your POV they can't because whatever they spend is what they spend therefore it must be within the budget. Once again was the roofer on budget and on time?

By Eric Pryne
Seattle Times staff reporter

A panel of outside experts yesterday delivered a generally favorable review of Sound Transit's preliminary cost estimates and other early planning work for a second round of regional rail and bus projects that could be on the ballot next year.

While more engineering is needed for more-accurate cost estimates, panel chairman Michael Meyer wrote, the contingencies Sound Transit has factored into its calculations are "appropriate for the planning stage."

A similar panel in 1996 pronounced Sound Transit's cost estimates for the projects it now is building "reasonable and prudent." That assessment proved far off the mark for many projects, especially the agency's Seattle light-rail line, which had to be scaled back after it came in $1 billion over budget.

Meyer, a Georgia Tech engineering professor who also served on the 1996 panel, said Sound Transit has more experience and is doing things differently this time. "They have a little bit more information to go on now," he said.

But, in light of the mistaken conclusion of nine years ago, Meyer said, "I'm certainly more sensitive to the cost side of things this time."

@ 71 - Those are three pieces of NON-evidence:

1. “The original project, $1 billion over budget and three [years later than anticipated]” That is an old story, from before the line was shortened from 21 to 15 miles. That was a proper reduction under Sound Move, and it kept the project WITHIN budget, as I posted above.

2. “Today, Sound Transit estimates phase 1 will be completed more than a decade late and $11 billion over budget. That is a slippery statement. ...” Whoever wrote that – and it wasn’t anyone from the agency – simply doesn’t know what they are talking about. Don’t believe every thing you read on the internet. Try to get something from an authoritative source for once.

3. “Today, Sound Transit estimates phase 1 will be completed more than a decade late and $11 billion over budget. In November, Seattle-area voters will be asked ...
www.heartland.org” Again, try to get something from an authoritative source. “heartland.org?” Puhleeeeze. That is about as sketchy a source as can be imagined. NOTHING but a nest of wingnuts who just LOOOOOVE their SOVs.

As I was saying, nothing from the Auditor’s Office, the outside auditors, or the courts says ST is doing anything wrong. Some dubious scribblings on the ‘net don’t change that FACT.

Now go find a worthwhile tree to bark up . . …

From # 72 - "In 1996, Sound Transit promised voters a 21 mile light rail plan for which they were going to collect $3.9 billion in taxes over a 10 year period. They couldn't do that, so they moved the goal posts and redefined their budget, project and timeframe."

Stop lying. Read Sane Transit vs. Sound Transit - it is a case that you must not be familiar with. The Supremes ruled ST can collect the tax for as long as it needs. That ruling was no surprise, it is what in fact Sound Move SAYS. That is what your neighbors voted for, for transportation alternatives to the SOV.

Methinks somebody needs to do a bit more reading and bit less posting . . . .

O.T.C-

War is peace, freedom is slavery, we have always been at war with Oceania, and the project Sound Transit promised voters in 1996 is on time and on budget.

You can keep repeating your assertions that ST is on time and on budget until you're blue in the face, but the fact that ST had to change the project they originally told voters they were going to build when it went over budget remains unchanged.

How much are they paying you, anyway?

To anticipate our ST flack's impending attempt to try yet again to rewrite the history of what people's understanding of the project was when they voted for ST, here's a fun blast from the past - a UW Daily endorsement of RTA Proposition 1 in the November 4, 1996 issue.

"In addition, the plan would create a 25-mile light rail system stretching from the U-District, through downtown Seattle and down to Sea-Tac...The plan costs about $4 billion and would be paid for at the local level by a 0.4 percent increase in the sales tax and a 0.3 percent increase in vehicle license tabs...The tax would run for 10 years..."

But they're on time, on schedule, and on budget - really!

Yes, I know that the courts found that there was a clause buried in the enabling legislation that allows ST to pretty do much whatever they want (a decision that ranks right down there with finding that a baseball stadium was public emergency) - but they didn't exactly campaign on the vote being a blank check (just imagine the TV commercial - "Give us money forever and we'll build you, um, something...")

Ivan @36: Roads are heavily subsidized by the property taxes we ALL pay, whether we use the roads or not. If roads WERE just funded by user fees instead of taxes on non-users, I would be less likely to support tolls.

ECB could you please give like actual facts to back your contentions. Roads are not heavily subsidized by property taxes. The biggest portion comes from gas tax, weight fees and license tabs. To the extent that general funds are used, much of that comes from sales tax paid directly from auto related business as well as B&O taxes. Yes, streets in Seattle are getting property tax money - a vote the stranger backed.

There seem to be a few misinformed posters here. Sound Transit can collect as much tax as it wants, and take as long as it needs, to build what the voters were promised. End of story.

---> www.heartland.org

Ah, yes - this crowd's still around? Still trying to prove global warming's a fiction? Hmmm.

whatever: According to the Federal Highway Administration Americans spent $7.8 billion in property taxes and State and local governments spent an additional $20.6 billion in general fund appropriations on roads and freeways in 2005.

And as long as we're lobbying for fact-based commenting, I'd be interested to know how you determined that the $20.6 billion "comes from sales tax paid directly from auto related business as well as B&O taxes". I don't have those numbers.

ECB wrote "Ivan @36: Roads are heavily subsidized by the property taxes we ALL pay,"

Breaks out Wa taxes and expenditures

www.eoionline.org/Taxes/ WashingtonStateTaxSystemOverview.pdf

Property tax only contributes 10% of general fund.
General fund contributes about $55M to transportation 2003-2005
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/databook/finance/gt05.asp

The total budget for transportation during same time frame $4.082B - not from property taxes
http://www.ofm.wa.gov/databook/finance/gt06.asp

The national stats provided indicated about a max of $10B out of $150 coming from property taxes hardly heavily subsidized (since prop taxes fell under local category much may be stuff like Seattle's street repairs)

Since bikes, buses, emergency vehicles, trucks, etc. use the streets and roads the small percentage of contribution from the general fund doesn't seem out of line and certainly not heavily subsidized by property taxes. 70% of state revenue from B&O and sales tax - what part of that does the automotive industry contribute - well over what comes back after all you've made the point of the huge savings that you get from not driving, right?

whatever:

70% of state revenue from B&O and sales tax - what part of that does the automotive industry contribute - well over what comes back after all you've made the point of the huge savings that you get from not driving, right?

Maybe. The average American spends 8.9% of their income on buying their car, then another 7.2% on maintenance and insurance. Of that 8.9% a certain fairly large percentage is financing costs, which aren't charged a sales tax. Likewise insurance. And I haven't researched this, but my recollection is that there's no enforced mechanism in place for taxing the direct (owner to owner) sale of used automobiles, so the part of that 8.9% that covers those types of sales is also not contributing to sales taxes. So cars contribute, mainly, taxes on maintenance and parts, and taxes on dealer sales of new and used automobiles.

I'm not sure about how the B&O taxes fall out. I'll have to research that one when I'm not at work.

Judah every used car sale is subject to sales tax.

The autos sales tax applies to buying, repairing, accessories, and just about everything but insurance (B&O applies to insurance as well as the rest) - so if your 15% of income goes to cars and of course, more if one actually owns one, since I assume your stats as averages include non owners such as you, and since food, rent/mortgage, medical services, other sevices etc. don't pay sales tax (they do pay B&O) car sales tax percentages would be well over the 15% total and even higher for the car owners. If 1/4 of income goes to housing and 1/4 to food then car expenses would make up nearly 30% of sales taxable purchases.

The fact remains that property taxes do not make up a large share of money going into roads.

Judah every used car sale is subject to sales tax.

Okay so, if I put a sign on a car and sell it for $1,000, how exactly is the sales tax on that sale collected?

When one sells a car one is obligated to fill out a form that includes mileage and the price that the car sold for. When the new owner goes to tranfer title he must pay the sales tax.

Fascinating. I had no idea.

Here's the link on how to transfer a car - fyi "use tax" is the same as sales tax but is paid directly by the buyer instead of collected by the seller and passed on to the state.

http://www.dol.wa.gov/vehicleregistration/transferownership.html

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

MSN I NIIPET
MSN

Holla and Happy Thanksgiving. notem671

alwkoep bnfcjxk mqfekp weyxhda odcbqhtep felimxrhc kpqc

alwkoep bnfcjxk mqfekp weyxhda odcbqhtep felimxrhc kpqc

alwkoep bnfcjxk mqfekp weyxhda odcbqhtep felimxrhc kpqc