While I'm reluctant to open up another can of political worms here on the BB I'm curious about what you fellow fishermen and women think of I-745 here in Washington. It's the latest idea from Eyman that says 90% of all transportation spending should go towards building new roads. Guess who the biggest backer$ of this initiative are? The asphalt pavers association.

I got to thinking about it as I took the scenic route home to Seattle from the Skykomish on Sunday. I couldn't help thinking what a shame it would be to see the road from Monroe to Fall City turned into a four-lane mess.

With all our talk about habitat degredation and loss of watersheds this seemed like a good issue to bring up. So let's hear it.

B. Gray

Mr. Eyman thinks that directing more dollars to roads will help solve our traffic problems. Doesn't he have any idea how many years new roads will be tied up while studies are done to try to determine what impacts those roads will have on wetlands, salmon recovery etc? There are no simple solutions anymore. I can't think of any road that has more than a couple miles length to it that wouldn't go through a wetland. His "solution" is no solution at all.

Kevin

Being in the asphalt business,It doesn't sound all that bad to me.Hopefully any new improvment's won't affect salmon and steelhead recovery effort's.Goodluck,
STRIKE ZONE

If it pass' maybe they'll fix the roads we already have.If they make new roads with the money that means more dwellings and what do you get with more roads and houses,more run off and more people and more cars.

How's about campaigning for family planning and birth control thereby getting a lid on our population explosion.

Man, humans are stupid! We just don't seem to learn from our mistakes.

Well I don't like to get into any political stuff but now I am. This is sapose to put 90% of the money from GAS tax into roads. what is wrong with putting the money where is is sapose to be. not into some lazy dudes pocket so he can sit home an colect welfare while I work and pay taxes. this has nothing to do with fishing its about putting the money that is sapose to be for roads where is belongs. I don't understand the argument of it being a bad thing. think of the jobs it could make by allowing more road work to be done. I say the money is from a tax that is only on cars, like the tab fee it should only be used for roads. how much more simple can it be. don't tax the gas and spend it on the ball park or what ever they want. they can't handle the money so we need to draw pictures and show them simple stuff. I also like the idea of taken the Lotto money and useing it for schools. although I don't think money will solve any problems there. but that is another argument.

my 2 bits
dcrzfitter

Vote NO !!!!!
this bill was sponsered by the Asphalt industry and will hurt public transportaion and other areas of transportation just like the licese plate thing last year it saved a few bucks in the short term but long term it hurts all of us...my .02

------------------
Row Quietly and fish a Cataraft }<<(('>----<'))>>{
Release all Wild Fish

[This message has been edited by Osprey (edited 10-26-2000).]

EricW,

Count me in for the population control bill! Everyone is always complaining about traffic, growth problems, too many people...but you never hear word one about maybe not having so many kids! I wonder how many people who complain about living density have large families? Hello! We have a finite amount of environment yet we keep putting more people into that finite space. Is it possible that limiting population numbers might help?

It would be a tough road to hoe (I.E. impossible) though because I think most people feel that popping out 10 kids is their God-given right.

Kevin

Read your voters guide and then decide. Kevin no time to get this one up for a vote but maybe next cycle,ballot title, Birth control initiative RU-486.Explanatory statement not needed.

While I agree with population control, I think the problem in the Puget Sound area has more to do with economics than people having too many kids. Eveyone wants to come here to get thier part of a booming economy. The latest info I have read is that developed countrys have leveled off their population growth, it's the third world countrys that are breeding themselfs to death.
One thing I have notice about building new or larger roads to solve traffic problems is that they ruduce the targeted traffic jam for a while, then developers come in and find every square inch of buildable property in the area and make an easy commute a selling point. Within a short time the traffic is back to gridlock and there is another push to build more lanes. On the other hand I don't see people giving up the conveniance of a personal vehicle and using mass transit. I don't know what the answer to this problem is. Maybe more rain and snow.

Build a 12-lane freeway, with the idiots on the roads out here, and you know what you'll get? A 12-lane traffic jam, most likely filled with 15,000 ten-seat SUV's all carrying ONE passenger.

I think gas taxes should go to TRANSPORTATION costs, not just building more lanes. More lanes would be great, but there's more to transportation than just building roads.

Fish on........

Well said, Dan. There's a hell of a lot more to transportaion than building roads. Gas taxes are already earmarked for transportation, including roads, buses, ferries, snow removal, etc. Why should we let some rich guy who makes his living selling cheap watches to frat boys tell the DOT how to do their job? Look at southern California and tell me that laying more pavement eases congention. I'm not knocking people who make a living building and maintaining roads (Strike Zone). I'm sure there are plenty of Microsofties browsing the board, even good Democrats, having a hard time voting for Gore and Cantwell considering the alternatives would likely be better for their interests in court. But that's another story.

Anyway, I have to hope people won't be sucked into simple short-term solutions to complex problems.

Back to fishing...

Though I am not form the "Wet-Side" anymore (moved out here 5 years ago) I can provide my insight into the effects of I-745. Simple fact is, you can make all the lanes you want to and you will not curb the traffic problems. "Pave it and they will come" is more like it. The puget sound region is going to have to move towards mass transit that actually works sooner or later (just like many other major cities). It is not a matter of if, but when.

Since the vile topic of politics has been brought up, be sure you vote no on the trapping ban. Someone should put a initiative on the ballot to end wildlife management by referendum. The only change I would have liked to see was I-696, and it lost. Trapping is almost exclusively used to control disease in wild populations. I never used to believe it, but I think you can bet if this one passes, next year it'll be some form of hunting. I certainly hope not.

The easy solution -

No more immigration.

Off shore reef made out of the high seas drift net fleet and the local net fleet.

Dozens more fish and game cops.

Kidding......sorta.

WOW!!!!!!!??????population control???? I thought reproduction was, in fact, one of the few God given rights......Spending 90% of the money where 90% of the traffic is, is a too simple solution for a too complex problem????? You all have lost me this time.

[This message has been edited by wit45cal (edited 10-26-2000).]

Asphalt Companies sponsering a Bill?Come on do you really believe that?lester

wit,

There are diminishing marginal returns on money spent to build additional lanes. Sooner or later, you get no results, even though you are spending more. Hence, my earlier comment.

Fish on.......

Wit,

Yes, reproduction is a right and I don't think anybody on this board would ever seriously think that it could be challenged (although we've all certainly met people who have "sterilization" written all over them). The point was that people express shock and dismay that there is so much urban growth and traffic problems yet we continue to have more development and increased population. Don't you see a correlation? We aren't a farm-based society anymore so I'm not sure that 10 kids is a good idea because families don't need 10 free field workers anymore.
And yes, spending 90% of the money where 90% of the traffic is, is too simple of a solution. We can never keep up with the expansion either budget-wise or logistics-wise with all the hoops that need to be jumped through. There is much more to building more roads than just laying down some concrete. Telecommuting, mass transit etc. are a start... Simple solutions to concrete problems don't always work. Remember that we once thought that just putting in a bunch of hatcheries would solve all our "simple" salmon problems.

Kevin

How do you all get to work? How about your neighbors, friends and relatives. The fact is that no where in the US does mass transit carry more than five percent of the commute. Not even New York. And building more lanes works. There is a reason that LA is now better than Seattle for traffic, MORE LANES!!!!!!!! A massive road building project begun in the seventies. Dan, you're from Lacey...What exactly was the reason for the DOT spending ten years on the 101 - I5 interchange??????? I think they added more lanes to ease congestion did they not.

So far on this thread I have seen support (tacit or otherwise) for population control and vehicle choice restrictions. You lefties never cease to amaze me. It is exactly the individual freedoms here in america that make it so desirable to the rest of the world. That includes your freedom to drive all alone in a lexus school bus if you wish. I never hear of any lefties volunteering more money on april 15 than the IRS says they owe but every Nov. 7 or 8 you all tell me that I don't pay enough. You gotta have pretty low self-esteem to think you can't be trusted with you own money.

wit,

Yes I live in Lacey. Yes, they did build additional lanes and a maasive interchange to ease congestion, both at the Hwy. 101/I-5 interchange, and the Hwy 101/Black Lake Blvd. interchange. And as far as I can remember, it takes longer to get through either area now, than it ever did. It's a simple function of the volume of traffic outpacing the roadbuilding process. If you wanted the highways under construction on a full-time basis, you might be able to build lanes fast enough to handle the increased volume. But I remember when the I-5/101 construction was taking place and the massive traffic delays that occurred. I don't think that improving alternative transportation options is a waste of time and money. I think that to say it is a waste is shortsighted.

Fish on.........