OK, since I obviously know nothing about public disclosure I'll let you all read about it for yourselves.

http://www.leg.wa.gov/RCW/index.cfm?fuseaction=section&section=42.17.260

And thanks for the bash responses, nice to know you care

The point I am trying to make is that fraud in government is not policy and is not condoned, that the process is open to inspection with reasonable curbs to protect privacy, and that it costs money to do things the honest, safe, and responsible way. Now if you consider honesty, safety, and responsibility government waste, well, I fully understand why you are Tim I-man fans.

I'm done with this one <img border="0" alt="[wall]" title="" src="graemlins/wall.gif" />

It's getting near the end of the year, and I was doing so well ignoring this thread, but . . .

I'm a fan of the philosophy that the price of criticism should be the offering of a constructive alternative. I'm not going to try to fundamentally change our state government; that would be equivalent to changing human nature. We get what we get because that's the nature of pluralism. Some of you want a hatchery funded. Some bleeding heart liberal wants more money spent on welfare of prison drug counseling. I'm not judging the rightness or wrongness of either action. The fact is that enough citizens want each of those actions so that the legislature throws money in both directions.

I thought I'd join this fray to propose an alternative to the failed Reforendum 51, the one that would have begun several transportation projects but not finished any of them (sounds like it was written by a committee, doesn't it?). If transportation is important to the state, then R51 was less than a half-assed attempt at doing anything real. So here goes:

Any transportation solution that works will cost some serious money. A user fee is probably more fair than other funding mechanisms. Gas is cheap in this state. It must be, look how well SUVs and other gas-guzzlers sell. Instead of raising the gas tax $0.09 like R51, I'd propose raising it $0.50. Now that would raise some serious dough.

Like many folks, I've spent too many hours of my life stuck in the I-5 gridlock, slowly moving parking lot, inhaling a little too much CO and other brain damaging fumes. Many of us think that the transportation solution (Eyeman included) has to look like more of the same. More roads for each of us to drive our single occupant vehicle that is capable of hauling 5 to 7 in comfort and taking up lots of space.

I learned about flawed transportation solutions from no less an authority than Click and Clack from Car Talk. It was they who said "Pave America first." Pave it all, then you can drive any where any time. Of course there'd be nowhere you'd want to go, cuz whatever it was, it would have been torn down and paved over to achieve the drive anywhere anytime goal. It was then that I got it through my carbon monoxide afflicted brain that we cannot pave our way out of traffic gridlock in Washington state with a population of nearly 6 million people and about that many cars. There ain't enough space to build enough roads to the places that most people want to go. So an effective solution lies in an alternative to more roads.

So here's my pitch for the legislature. I already proposed a funding mechanism. I've noticed that the Max in Portland and the Metro in the Washington D.C. area move a lot more people per unit area than I-5 does, and they keep on moving when I-5 grinds to a halt. I think maybe taking the center lanes of I-5 out of auto traffic and converting to rail lines would be a better and more efficient use of space already allocated to transportation. Imagine Metro-style trains zipping north and south along the I-5 corridor from Olympia to Everett, with transfer stations at numerous major intersections where a commuter can catch an east or west bound bus to his or her destination.

A common criticism is that people are unwilling to give up their cars for alternative transportation. That is true - as long as driving a car remains a viable alternative. But increasing gridlock is the cure to gridlock, as it becomes an incentive to get out of the car and take an alternative. I'll probably drive as long as it is the move convenient alternative for me. But when it takes me longer to drive to Seattle than to take a Metro-style train, hell, I'll switch. And I think that is what will make the majority switch. People don't take the Metro in DC because they think it's the coolest alternative; they take it because the driving is the pits, and takes longer. Those who are still driving do so because it remains faster or more convenient than other alternatives. Same thing will happen here. Sooner or later. Well, it's already later.

There you have it folks. Salmo g. branches out from fish solutions to transportation solutions. Maybe I'll take on world peace in the new year. Speaking of, Happy New Year everyone!

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Spawnout,

May I suggest a new and (perhaps) a more fitting screen name?

You are a flashy fighter (lots of jumps and much splashing).you swim around with your mouth open (easy to floss),you will eat anything green(forget the ingredients), you are predictable, and above all else you are PROLIFIC!

Some wont eat you, some like you smoked.

Hence............CHUM SALMON............

Herm

ps.

Please take this in the spirit it is offered.
(just havin a little fun)

We might have a good time fishin, I think I could straighten you out.

H

Salmo g. for president!!....or governor atleast!

Salmo G. Interesting post but flawed.

You stated " increasing gridlock is the cure to gridlock, as it becomes an incentive to get out of the car and take an alternative"

Where has this logic been proven? It hasn't, because it isn't true anywhere. Public transportation does not reduce gridlock. Never has, never will. Gridllock is necessary to force people to use public transportation, but this doesn't reduce gridlock.


The only thing that reduces gridlock is more roads. Granted this solution may be temporary but it is the only solution.

You are right that the only way people will use public transportation is when all other means of transportation are completely jammed. My eight years living in Japan proved that to me. Japan has wonderful public transportation(best in the world), but people there still prefer to drive cars whenever possible and the roads are jammed beyond belief. It often took me and my coworkers over one hour to travel three miles to the office and yet they preferred driving so they didn't have to sit in a bus with people they didn't know.

This goes back to the underlying truth.... People are willing to pay more for public transportation so OTHER PEOPLE can use it. Just like taxes where OTHER PEOPLE should pay more!

My question to you is; When was the last time you rode on a bus or train? If it were available, do you honestly think you would use it? Or would you like OTHER PEOPLE to use it? Who are these OTHER PEOPLE?

I will vote for a gas-tax increase when the money goes towards roads, not mass money waste or carpool lanes for OTHER PEOPLE to use.

Good discussion- all info regarding gov spending should be sent out via internet to taxpayers to see how the money is spent, with a detailed breakdown on how many gov emploees get cars, spending accounts etc..

turn the light on and the cockroaches will run --

Salmo G,
Why just Oly to Everett?Why not the Whole I-5 System. Our states border runs From Vancouver to the Canadien border.From the ocean to Idaho.Much to some peoples surprise.Or dismay.
Too many people think that the only place that needs solutions to traffic problems are the area your talking about.
I realize that as a state in the whole everybody subsidzes everybody else in the state.
So fixing the small area your talking about isny going to help the rest of the area.

And again, Who is going to use this awesome mass transit system? Are you?

I drive the I-5/405 mess almost daily. I know it better than most. Actually it isn't bad at all after driving in Japan. Only from 7am-9am and 4pm-6pm is the problem really visible unless there is an accident. There is still plenty of land available to fix these areas if a decision would be made to seriously try.

Remember, the only way mass transit works is when you have gridlock. If you don't have gridlock few people use it and the money is totally wasted. How are you going to feel when your $ is spent on mass transit and gridlock remains? Actually how do you feel now because that is what is happening. Social engineering from Olympia. Don't you love it?

ET,

I last rode a train and bus while in Washington D.C. last October.

More roads cure gridlock in theory only. We cannot build roads faster than the driving population increases. We cannot afford the expensive rights of way in the places where people actually want to go. Adding more lanes to freeways after a certain size is ineffective because the number of interchanges and associated traffic merges becomes the bottleneck causing gridlock. When the driving population passes a certain threshold, roads and single occupant vehicles are no longer an efficient means of transporting people to where they need to be.

We prefer roads and cars, but we're unwilling to admit that we've exceeded their limit of effectiveness in certain areas. The choice is continued gridlock or alternative transportation. I'm on that balance point that I'll choose whichever will get me where I need to go most conveniently (usually the fastest). We can choose what we prefer (and sit in gridlock breathing pollution), or we can choose what works. Is there really another choice?

HuntNfish,

I only suggested Oly to Everett because that is the most crowded section of I-5, altho I've been caught in significant slowdowns around Centralia and Vancouver, but far less than the Puget Sound metro area. Obviously, I-405 is also a good candidate for alternatives, as are some others. Ya' gotta' start somewhere, and I was just offering a conversation starter.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g,

I agree that more roads can not reduce congestion forever, but they can temporarily(probably for the next 20 years at least) if we try.

You agree with me that in order for mass transit to work, you must have gridlock, right?

So our disagreement centers around the question; Are we resigned to letting traffic gridlock continue to get worse and worse so there is mass transit for OTHER PEOPLE to ride and we can sit in gridlock? I'm not.

Perhaps we should convert the HOV lanes to single pss. vehicles and let the higher occupied vehicles use the remainder.

This would inspire more use of carpools and transit in my opinion.

It is very true that we need something to get people to set in buses or trains and get out of their single occ. vehicles.

herm

All this discussion about mass transit and befrore that the question of government waste. What do people here on the board think about Sound Transit and the light rail nightmare?

Salmo,

Boy did you take the bait!

Happy New Year Salmo!


Cowlitzfisherman

ET,
I agree mass transit works mainly when it's the alternative to gridlock. Most of us will only take a train or bus if it's cheaper, faster, and more convenient. I don't agree that we can beat gridlock, even for one year, let alone 20, with more roads. A main reason is that we cannot build them fast enough.
Vic,
The problem I see with Sound Transit is that it is located on existing RR lines that for the most part are not located where most people want to go. I think it is designed to fail because it can only serve a small number of commuters.
CFM,
If the hook doesn't sting, the bait can be worth it. Can't fish, so might as well have fun with this.

Sincerely,

Salmo g.

Salmo g.,


We will agree to disagree. Wish I was fishing. I'm passionate about this issue, because I used mass transit frequently for five years. IT SUCKS! Crammed into a cattle car with a bunch of other life-less drones... most of whom are coughing or wheezing....

By your own admission, most people only take a train or bus if it's cheaper, faster, and more convenient, right? Lets look at that:

Faster - Mass transit can only be faster if there is complete gridlock. Think of all the stops and transfers you need on mass transit.

Convenient - What is more convenient than jumping in your car and driving straight to where you want to go?

Cheaper - Roads are cheaper now and we have plenty of room if we'd look at it seriously. Our WA population really isn't growing that fast and may actually be declining with this economic slowdown. At some point, mass transit(bus and rail) will be a necessary evil, but thankfully we are nowhere near the population density required to make it feasible. We are not New York, Chicago, or Tokyo, yet. We should make long-range plans(30+ years) to decide where we are going to put the light rail, etc. I concur with your idea of right down the middle of I-5. Best spot for it, just 30 years to soon.

So again mass transit fails at least two of your three requirements. And you still haven't answered my question. Who is going to ride on it? Not me. Not anyone I know. You?Anyone on this board? Who are we building this for?

The people who support more taxes for mass transit do so because they believe the false pretense that it will alleviate the gridlock by forcing OTHER PEOPLE to ride it and then they will be able to commute more easily in their cars. WRONG. We will be sitting in our cars as the empty trains and buses go by. Ever take your boat on the train? How about your suitcases? Work material? Tools?

Supporting higher taxes for mass transit is saying "I accept gridlock."

ET,

I would like to refute yer assertions that mass transit is not convienient, fast or cheap.

The only two mass transit systems I have any real experience with are The Bart system in San Francisco which seemed to be all of those as was the subway system in Singapore.

Sincerely,
Roger

My Dad always carpooled when I was a kid in the 60's. He allways said it just seemed stupid to waste the gas when 3-4 people lived within 2-3 miles of each other and were all headin to 2-3 miles of each other. A little inconveinence to save a resource for future generations. Me, I got an Expedition and am lookin pretty special.
I don't think we will have to worry how internal combustion engines are gonna be gettin people to work in thirty years. I'm gonna make damn sure of it.