In a victory for flatulent, overblown government the (mostly Democrat) windbags in the Washington State Senate today approved a massive inflation of the gas tax.
UPDATE: Speaking of flatulence, the methane-filled members of the P-I editorial board, whose biggest passions are more taxes and more subsidies for the ferries they ride into work, are fans of the gas tax.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at April 20, 2005 07:56 PM | Email ThisTolls are always a great idea, though. When they finally build a new I-5 bridge or a third Columbia River crossing in Vancouver, all the studies point to tolls as the best way to pay for it. It's the ultimate user fee....you cross the bridge and you pay, you don't cross the bridge and you don't have to pay for it.
And the sad truth is that the Puget Sound region actually subsidizes infrastructure in the more rural parts of the state. If the rest of the state (eastern, southwestern wa) didn't have the Puget Sound tax revenue to help pay for things, those folks would end up paying a lot more.
All in all, an okay plan. Not great, not even good, but it could have been a LOT worse.
RM
Randy M.,
Where did you get a project list I would like to see it.
RM is right, Eastern Washington gets more money than it sends in, especially with transportation. Plus, Eastern Washington needs good transportation in the West; most of their goods get shipped out from Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Olympia, Portland, etc.
Lets face it, when we voted for 695, we got rid of a ton of money for transportation (The year before, we had passed a referendum (R 53?) written by the GOP which had dedicated most of the MVET to Transportation. And what happened? Yep, the roads got worse. Since we refuse to have a MVET, income tax or something else like that, gas tax (which is basically a user tax) is the only way to go. And we need the work.
That being said, if the Viaduct or 520 are not done as toll roads, then I think we should take the toll off the Narrows. And it would prefer a MVET, which taxes you based upon what you choose to spend, vs. the gas tax, which taxes most people by what they have to spend.
There is a reason, in a very devisive time, that this was bipartisan. It is needed. And hell, you get performance audits in DOT. Not bad, when you think about it.
Posted by: JDB on April 20, 2005 09:05 PMI suspect the money went to pay for studies of the environmetal impacts of freeways and to buy more people's houses and lands to flood to "mitigate" the loss them in the rights of way.
It seems to me, and maybe I'm wrong (feel free to corret me if I am), but doesn't our current state of transportation chaos amount to something of an emergency? Is it not beneficial to the public interest that we build more roads to solve this problem?
Then why can't government agree that they will do their best minimize environmental and to follow best management practices (these probably already have been explored and codified by the folks at DOT) and then just get the job done.
We don't need to study, hold meetings, study more, hold more meetings, do follow up studies, propose mitigation stategies, negotiate endlessly with special interests, and then study some more, before announcing we are going to build a road. And then we will still need to go through another six rounds of litigation with those same special interests, even more studies and ultimtely quadruple the time and costs and end up exactly wher we would have ended up if government had treated this as priority is realy is and just gotten the job done.
The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is an albatross around the necks (and wallets) of Washingtonians. What I outlined above may seem a little hyperbolic but this is what has happened to some public works projects (3rd runway sound familiar?) where the luddites had pockets big enough to keep the process going and going.
So the Dems in their infinite wisdom rather than confront the barriers (luddites) to fixing our transportation infrastructure and thus make fixing it easier, faster, and much cheaper, have decided to create more enviro-law millionaires by throwing our money at them.
Well, they do pay for Dem's to get elected. I suppose they should expect something in return. It's the American way after all.
The sad truth is that we do have the money to fix our roads without raising taxes, it's just that we have to redistribute it from all of the wasteful welfare and other entitlement, art funding, and subsidy ridden failures like Sound Transit and the Washington State Ferry system.
This state is so far gone into the leftist, statist mentality that yet another tax is pretty much par for the course.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 20, 2005 09:09 PMThat bill also blows holes in the $30 tab limit, adding gross weight fees and motorhome fees! That'll really P off a few folks!
Posted by: GS on April 20, 2005 10:07 PMBTW, I'm not in favor or raising the gas tax. I think there is already too much waste, fraud and abuse that could fund these projects if only the Legislature would pass a true performance audits bill so we know where out money is actually going.
Posted by: Tucker on April 20, 2005 10:19 PM"No new taxes because we have all the roads we need and they are in perfectly good condition to get me where I need to go."
Sounds a lot like the liberal environmentalist position of the 70's. Maybe you two should hook up.
Posted by: Unkl Witz on April 20, 2005 10:28 PMYeah, they have so many perfectly good roads here in Olympia; they are actually reducing the number of lanes to the tune of $1 million because they couldn't figure out what else to spend the taxpayer’s money on before the end of the fiscal year!
Posted by: SP Fan on April 20, 2005 10:34 PMSee http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/TaxFacts/TFDB/TFTemplate.cfm?Docid=434&Topic2id=90 for a table.
If our gas taxes are the 4th highest, then why aren't our road conditions the 4th best in the nation? Our Democrat politicians insist on squandering transportation money on environmental controls and useless boondoggle projects like Sound Transit.
Our gas taxes are the 4th highest out of 50 states; there should be plenty of tax money available for road projects unless (gasp!) they're wasting it through incompetence. Whatever happened to the idea of accountability and performance audits?
This is only happening because Korruption County managed to install Queen Christine as Governor. If Dino Rossi were officially in office, we wouldn't be looking at this tax increase.
Without doing a thing, Olympia is receiving over 9 cents per gallon to the general fund from the sales taxes collected at these inflated gas prices. Something not being mentioned anywhere by the MS media.
I am hearing stories about raising the gas tax even higher, at the Federal Level, it is just on some railfan boards. One person had the idea of raising it $1.50 a gallon to fund passenger rail including High-Speed trains around the country. I draw the line on that, it is way too high, America lacks the political and technical will to carry that idea out(as evidenced by the Acela Express). I was thinking that Senator Swecker, a Republican by the way, was going too far, 20 cents a gallon, even though their were accountability reviews, the ability to suspend the thing, and it would only be 1 cent a gallon a year. The Viaduct has to be replaced, North Spokane still has an incomplete freeway, and it makes no sense to only have one freeway in the state's 2nd Largest City. I would rather use tolls to fund the Megaprojects, have those who benefit the most, pay. I can see the people of Gig Harbor's problem, having to pay this gas tax for the viaduct, North Spokane Freeway, Interstate Bridge(Vancouver), and $3.00 a day to get to the rest of Pierce County when the new Tacoma Narrows Bridge goes on line. That is why I want tolls on the North Spokane Freeway, Interstate Bridge, Alaskan Way Viaduct, and Evergreen Point Floating Bridge, I bet the Gas Tax could be lower if they did that, and even better, become a new revenue stream. Until the new Tacoma Narrows is finished, the only toll bridges we have left are the ones powered by Diesel Engines on Puget Sound. The last toll bridge with concrete that I remember, was the bridge on US 101 between Astoria, Oregon and Meglar, Washington, on the Columbia River, and it is now free to use.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 20, 2005 10:47 PMSen Alex Deccio - District 14
deccio_al@leg.wa.gov
Sen Bill Finkbeiner - District 45
finkbein_bi@leg.wa.gov
Sen Mike Hewitt - District 16
hewitt_mi@leg.wa.gov
Joyce Mulliken - District 13
mulliken_jo@leg.wa.gov
Dave Schmidt - District 44
schmidt_da@leg.wa.gov
Dan Swecker - District 20
swecker_da@leg.wa.org
Joseph Zarelli - District 18 - zarelli_jo@leg.wa.org
"and subsidy ridden failures like Sound Transit and the Washington State Ferry system."
The state ferry system recovers 80% of its cost through the farebox. That means 20% of its budget is "subsidized" . Compare that to 30% recovery for bus and 13% for light rail (70% and 87% subsidy respectively).
But those are nothing compared to the roadways YOU drive on that are subsidized 100%. So when looking for subsidy ridden failures, I suggest we start with YOUR roads.
You left a major Republican off the list.
His name is George W. Bush and in the 4 1/2 years he's been in office, we've suffered a gas "tax" increase of more than $1.00 a gallon.
9.5 cents over 4 years is diddley squat compared to the massive increases in gasoline prices that have made the Bush White House and its oil company cronies laughing all the way to the bank!
And by the way. Not one cent of that $1 gas price rise we've suffered because of Bush's oil buddies has gone to highway improvement here. At least this tax will do some good in Washington.
The Bush gas tax all goes to build nice homes for a handful of millionaires in Texas.
Posted by: Nelson on April 20, 2005 11:15 PM
EXACTLY !
Where in the Hell is the money from our *last* gas tax increase going to?
This tax is just another form of citizen robbery by the Democrats! They steal elections, income, property rights,......etc...Incredible!
Also, the Ferryboats have a high farebox recovery of around 80% for good reason, the boats are OLD!! The ones they just ordered, will replace ones from 1927, and the state got them third hand in 1951.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 20, 2005 11:32 PMRight now, we BI residents pay $20.00 round trip for each vehicle and driver. Add some passengers and the price jumps. I expect that fairs will now increase further due to the gas tax hike. So, those of us who rely on ferries will be paying additional $$ for this tax -- we will pay more for the gas that goes in our cars, and more for the ferry fairs as well. Also, please don't forget how the fairs go waaaay up in the summer months to soak all the tourists.
Like Vcrw stated, the ferry system recoups 80% of its costs. The ferry system may be imperfect, but overall, its users pay a dear toll/user fee for service. So, please don't throw all of us in with all the "subsidy ridden failures." If you had to pay an 80% user fee for all the roads you travelled in addition to the taxes you pay, I think you would be stunned at how much your daily commute would cost.
Posted by: SheriJo on April 20, 2005 11:38 PMI bet one of the disasters with the Ferry System was the Chinook-class Passenger-Only Ferry. The Chinook and Snohomish are in mothballs, and I bet the time will come soon when they, like the older Tyee, are sold off on eBAY to a company that will use them, on Puget Sound.
I read about a disater in BC, called the Pacificats. Think the Chinooks, only they carried cars too. They reduced travel times between VI and the Mainland, just like the Chinooks reduced travel times between Bremerton and Seattle, and in the case of the Pacificats, they not only did some damage to shorelines with their wakes, they also were gas guzzlers. I think the BC Liberals did the right thing by canceling those boats. Our state may have done the right thing with the Chinooks. Could be considered corporate welfare for Dakota Creek Shipbuilding, who built the Chinooks.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 20, 2005 11:46 PMWhile it was operational, the Chinook was a boon to Central Kitsap residents. (Some good friends of mine.) It's too bad it didn't work out. Our ferry system really is an amazing user funded mass transit system.
Posted by: SheriJo on April 21, 2005 12:04 AMI think the Chinooks were good boats, and it is something amazing. I noticed that the Victoria Clipper IV looked like the Chinook, just like the CLipper III looked like the Tyee. They were built in the same shipyards. There is a new design that the state should have tried for the Passenger-Only division, it is a hybrid Catamaran with hydrofoiils, and the boat was proposed by Kitsap Transit when they went to the polls.
They shoud apply user-fees to other parts of the highway system. I believe one of our congressmen keeps trying to get permission to use tolls on urban expressways.
Also, the Performance Audits, the GOP got the money they wanted, $4 million, over-ruling Senator Haugen. The gas tax hike could hae been worse. It could have been 15-20 cents a gallon, as two senators proposed.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 21, 2005 12:24 AMhttp://leap.leg.wa.gov/leap/budget/detail/2005/st0507P.asp
Your legislator should be able to email you a more reader-friendly list, with projects in your district specifically highlighted.
I should point out that the final version which was passed was actually smaller than the proposed transportation budget I've shown.
As someone mentioned in an earlier point above, the transportation budget (and its revenue source aka gas tax) is entirely seperate from the operating budget. While I, as a fiscal conservative, may have a TON of problems with the entitlement programs, wastful spending, and lack of accountability in the operating budget, transportation is a SEPERATE ISSUE. And as someone who considers himself pro-business and pro-economic development, I believe that we need to put money into our transportation infrastructure if we're ever going to get money out of it.
To use a transportation analogy, think of our road systems as a car. If you just do the bare minimum to keep it running (adding fuel), eventualy it is going to break down and cause you problems. But if you spend money on replacing worn tires, belts, hoses, get the oil changed regularly and tuned up, it will serve you reliably in getting you to and from work. Same deal with our roads.
And yes, if I had my way I'd divert money from givaway programs like the Basic Health Plan to pay for transportation, but that ain't gonna happen any time soon. Meanwhile, the roads NEED to get fixed, and it's going to cost a lot. If a gas tax is how we have to pay for it, that's what we'll have to do.
RM
Posted by: Randy M. on April 21, 2005 12:29 AMOk, so ferries may not be the best example of complete failure, but the point is that we've got a lot of government revenue being squandered. If we had better controls on our tax dollars, there would be more than enough to make sure our key infrasturcture was adequate, maintained and with an eye to the future.
Instead of eliminating waste, the solution always ends up being "just raise taxes." I'm sure this delights the liberal commenters. VCRW, let me know when you are ready to pay me 9.5 cents per gallon.
Posted by: Jeff B. on April 21, 2005 12:58 AM 'swecker_da@leg.wa.org' on 4/21/2005 5:51 AM
550 [PERMFAIL] destination not valid within DNS
'zarelli_jo@leg.wa.org' on 4/21/2005 5:51 AM
550 [PERMFAIL] destination not valid within DNS
Also, my husband will be retiring in a couple of years (required at age 60 for him) and our income will be dropping like a rock by 35%. Therefore, we'll no longer be able to spend $900 a month on our property taxes or many of the other taxes Christine has planned for us. Therefore, we may have to move from Washington.
The prospect is not one we ever wanted to consider, but we're doing a reality check and the reality is, that unless things in this state change a lot, I don't see how retired people or businesses will be able to survive here.
Posted by: Rae on April 21, 2005 07:08 AMRaising the gas tax makes that harder on everyone working in the state. In addition to paying more for every trip we make we will pay more for every commodity we must buy to feed and clothe our family. And with the cost of transportation increases the cost of goods will rise, in turn making homes less affordable.
Because the legislature refuses to do the hard job of balancing the budget, they are willing to pass that task on to the voters and make it harder to balance the household budget.
What choices will working citizens have to make now so that the legislature has more money to squander?
Posted by: Baynative on April 21, 2005 07:29 AMAt this rate, there will soon be an economic advantage to living on welfare!
Joe
Or is this just more contradictory rhetorical garbage?
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 08:26 AMit's contradictory rhetorical garbage with a generous side of breathtaking economic ignorance.
Posted by: libertarianobserver on April 21, 2005 08:37 AMSen Alex Deccio - District 14
deccio_al@leg.wa.gov
Sen Bill Finkbeiner - District 45
finkbein_bi@leg.wa.gov
Sen Mike Hewitt - District 16
hewitt_mi@leg.wa.gov
Joyce Mulliken - District 13
mulliken_jo@leg.wa.gov
Dave Schmidt - District 44
schmidt_da@leg.wa.gov
Dan Swecker - District 20
swecker_da@leg.wa.org
Joseph Zarelli - District 18 - zarelli_jo@leg.wa.org
Without Republican support, taxes would not have been raised yesterday.Without Republican support, taxes would not have been raised yesterday.Without Republican support, taxes would not have been raised yesterday.Without Republican support, taxes would not have been raised yesterday.Without Republican support, taxes would not have been raised yesterday.Without Republican support, taxes would not have been raised yesterday. ....
Posted by: Baynative on April 21, 2005 08:52 AMStop wasting your time.
Posted by: jimg on April 21, 2005 09:00 AM$10 billion for State pet projects- Alaskan Way viaduct;
$10 billion for the 405 bypass- Kemper Freeman and Rob McKenna plan;
$10 billion for the special tri-County tax;
$10 billion for Loud Transit;
What did I miss?
And you wonder why I want to be in the state of Cascade rather than the state of Confusion (er, Washington).
And no matter what side you are on- nobody is addressing the real problem- burgeoning government cost escalations hitting construction.
Yes, we need more money to build and repair roads.
Yes, we pass initiatives to eliminate the gas tax because we want the waste to be taken care of first.
Let me tell you, I will support the first person who wants to take this on. They would have my undying devotion. But they would have to have a track record at eliminating waste and running an efficient operation. So, does Jack Welch want to unretire?
Posted by: swatter on April 21, 2005 09:14 AMNot only what you said, but as the tax is a percentage the state must be making out like a bandit with the higher gas prices! With prices having doubled the tax revenue doubled too, which was not accounted for when the needs were originally calculated. Where did all that money go for them to extort an additional 9% on the higher price?
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 09:18 AMThe ferry system is part of the state highway system It is also a major tourist attraction to the state by drawing people from all over who enjoy riding them and seeing the orcas and whales. This results in secondary revenue being generated from food and souvenier sales. People don't come from all over to experience the serenity of driving I-5.
No, I am not for the liberal tax and spend way.The 9 cent a gallon tax increase is simply another "fix" for the tax addicted liberals that stole the election. Like a crack addict, soon it will wear off and they will be back for their next fix.
Perhaps if we didn't spend money building free "wet" housing for drunks in Seattle, there would be money for roads.
Posted by: VCRW on April 21, 2005 09:39 AMWhat a bunch of partisan hack hypocrites! You could care less about the price of gasoline. All you care about is criticizing some tiny tax that would contribute to all of our well being.
I've got a little math question for you:
Which hurts more at the pump -- a $1 a gallon increase in the price of gas over the past TEN MONTHS, or a 9 1/2 cent a gallon increase in the price of gas over the next FOUR YEARS?
When you answer the question honestly, then maybe serious people might pay attention to your opinions.
Posted by: Nelson on April 21, 2005 09:46 AMWe passed in this state a series of tax relief and spending control measures. We continually ask for accountability and responsibility. Instead Oly runs roughshod over us ignoring the will of the people.
This years budget shortfall is not because of a decrease in revenue. It is new spending above and beyond the increase in revenue that we do have. That is recklessness on the part of Oly. It's is nothing less than Enron accounting.
I am at the point of heading to Oly with torches and pitchforks, tarring and feather each and every elected pol and state department head then running them out of the state on a rail.
(metaphorically of course i don't want to be accused of advocating violence)
Then again we vote for tax relief then elect the same bunch of Jackasses to go to Oly.
We need a serious tax revolt in WA. We need to put the ring back in Oly's nose and give it a few good yanks.
1) Through the Bastards Out. No incumbent should be reelected in '04 and '08 none, not republican not democrat. Start over. Send a clear message WE ARE FED UP.
2) Repeal by initiative all the spending bills this session.
3) New initiatives to replace 601 tougher and with teeth. We should put strict limits on Oly's spending. They have been proven incapable of governing responsibility, if they won't do it legislatively we'll have to do it by initiative.
4) Let's come up with some kind of mass protest. Mail the gov. and all the legislators envelopes of tea leaves. Let's come up with something they can't ignore.
The gas tax is just a symptom of out of control government. Until we force Washington State Government back into its proper role in service to the people, not the Lord's and Master's of the people. Forget the gas tax, we need force government back into its place
Posted by: JCM on April 21, 2005 09:52 AM"serious people might pay attention to your opinions"
LOL@U...
It must be hard having so much hate in your life...
Posted by: MTD on April 21, 2005 09:57 AMWe need need roads and a gas tax is an appropriate user fee that is efficient to administer. This plan is a step forward.
Do we need to revampt our contracting process? Absolutely. Should this pay for a viaduct tunnel? Heck no, that is a Seattle luxury.
It's not perfect, but it's a start.
Posted by: mikeki on April 21, 2005 09:58 AM"With prices having doubled the tax revenue doubled too."
Gas tax is set on a pennies-per-gallon basis, imposed at the rack. If the price-per-gallon goes up the tax stays the same. It isn't a sales tax, it is a per-gallon tax.
Inflation eats into a set-price (i.e. per-gallon) tax just like any other set price over time. And, of course, better gas mileage -- while great for the environment -- results in lower gas tax revenues per vehicle. (It is pretty funny to hear legislators, like Bill Finkbeiner this morning on KTTH, talking about declining "tax-per-mile-driven." Clearly just a talking point to portray increased mileage as decreased taxation.)
Further, increased usage and population growth has generated more revenues. But we have built a lot of projects using bonds, i.e. we bought the projects on credit and are still paying them off. We are using a lot of our current gas tax revenues to pay for projects already constructed (and with 25 year bonds, we will be doing so for the foreseeable future -- and the 5-cent gas tax increase a year ago was almost entirely bonded).
Increased population has resulted in increased usage, which has also generated the requirement to spend more on preservation of existing assets. Repaving I-5 in various spots (through parts of Tacoma last year, in Federal Way, and upcoming projects in Seattle) costs a ton of money but gets us no new capacity. Same with any other repaving project. And we have worn a lot of bridges in this state down well past their working life spans. They need to be rehabilitated or replaced and all that costs a lot of "preservation" dollars but generates no new capacity. Same with replacing ferries (which are considered part of the state highway system under the state constitution). In fact, until the nickel-package virtually the only new capacity that had been put in place in the Puget Sound region over the prior ten years were HOV lanes.
Of course, the california-emission standards bill, passed by both houses and now sitting on the mock-governor's desk, will only deepen the revenue problem. This is because the only way to meet the emissions standards is to increase gas mileage, which of course decreases gas tax collections per-miles-driven, as Bill would say.
The most fair solution, though one which will drive privacy mavens nuts, is to eliminate the gas tax and go to a 100% direct user-fee (toll) driven system. Of course, this would involve transponders, which would drive the privacy concerns (no pun intended). And it would be unfair if other states didn't adopt similar solutions, since their drivers could drive on our roads for "free" while if we filled up in their states we would pay for their roads. (But other states don;t just rely on the gas tax, either, to fund their roads.) And it wouldn't eliminate the federal gas tax, which might also very well go up in the coming year.
A toll/direct user-fee based system would also allow us to price road usage according to scarcity, which you economists should like (if road space is a commodity, rather than a right). Such "value pricing" would encourage those who don't need to use the roads during peak-congestion period to stay off them by pricing road usage according to the scarcity of the resource -- higher when there is more demand (peak congestion) and lower during periods of free-flowing traffic. Current flat pricing as compared to usage does not send any economic signals to encourage rational allocation of road capacity, and in fact sends exactly the opposite signals, since we encourage every one to be on the roads at the same time due to our common work schedules.
Anyway, just stuff to consider.
Posted by: boboinparadise on April 21, 2005 10:02 AMYou also seem to ignore all the liberal states requiring various boutique gas, raising the price, as refineries can't just make super and regular. The need to make CA super and regular, OR super and regular, WA super and regular. Get the picture? That is why CA has significantly more expensive gas than WA.
But the dems talking points blames it on Bush, so I guess you need to keep up the party line?
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 10:06 AMWe don't have a command economy here. Maybe a brush-up on capitalism is in order for you.
Posted by: Steve on April 21, 2005 10:18 AMThe Senate version of the gas tax bill does include real performance audits for transportation... and that's a good start. Hopefully, this will show that real performance audits of everything in state government is the way to go too.
We can be thankful that the stupid ideas of charging every homeowner $4/mo for the privilege of living here, and every employer $2/mo per employee were removed from the bill. I also think the local option taxes are gone.
I do agree with Nelson about one thing... 9 cents is peanuts in the long run... it's only 3% at today's gas prices. That could easily be made up by switching to a more efficient car, truck, etc. For instance, moving from a hog that gets 13 mpg to just 15 mpg is a 15% boost in economy, which more than offsets the gas tax.
As for the rest of Nelson's ravings, he's full of crappola as usual. He thinks GWB waves his magic wand and suddenly gas goes up and his cronies get rich. Sorry Nelson, it doesn't work that way. The USA is not the only consumer of oil products in the world. With the emergence of 3rd world countries and their higher consumption of fossil fuels there is real pressure on the supply... and that drives prices up.
Maybe Nelson could tell us why we haven't built any refineries in the US lately. Hmmm, might have something to do with the environmentalist wacko Dems that make it unprofitable to build new plants. Ha, it's all George Bush's fault :-)
Posted by: Tucker on April 21, 2005 10:28 AMI think the dems use the fact that they have screwed everything else up that everyone gets exasperated and say something has to be done. They rely on raising taxes. What has to be done is they need to be accountable with the money they have rather than frustrating the *&^ of their employers (us) until we give in and let them have more of our money to fix the problems they were going to fix with the last increase.
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 10:36 AMIt is because we don't trust our government to spend the money wisely. As it is, the money is wasted on environmentalists trying to determine what the effect of a road will be, on special interests (unions) that demand artificially high wages, and on boondoggles that won't return a good bang for the buck.
All the government has to do to get everyone in Washington state voting for tax increases in the name of building roads is this:
(1) Stop the stupid environmental regulations on roads. We shouldn't waste a dime wondering how many trees will have to come down.
(2) Stop the corruption in the WADOT. Annual unrestricted performance audits will clean that right up.
(3) Stop wasting our money on transportation boondoggles. Why do they have to be run by the state? Can't we bid out this service to multiple private companies that are held accountable? I mean, we can hire contract busses and fleets to run routes and pay them according to how many passengers they carry. Let them figure out the routes they want to run that will carry the most passengers at the highest profits. Let them tell the state how much it will cost to go into neighborhoods and extra-Seattle cities.
(4) Develop a comprehensive state-wide transportation plan. We need more freeways, and wider ones (not I-5, but I-405, SR-167, etc...), throughout our region. We need freeways that don't focus on Seattle as a hub, but instead start focusing on other urban and suburban areas, not just in the Puget Sound area but in Eastern Washington. If we build the roads, people will move their businesses to where the roads are built. This will be true especially if we approach a locality and explain that we want them to become another urban center and we will build the roads if they handle the rest.
Down here in Federal Way, the school administration finally figured out what we wanted. The superintendent is visiting neighborhoods gathering information on a 20-year school construction plan and he is upfront and honest about the cost. We have annual performance audits of every school and the district, and we know exactly where every dime is being spent and how it is performing. This is the right way to do it. Sell a plan. Don't raise money for no purpose at all. I believe that Federal Way will pass this plan because it is being sold as "we need this; this is how much it costs." not "we can raise this much money, and this is what we can do with it if we get it."
We fought the entire revolutionary war so that we can tax ourselves to do what we wanted with the money. We didn't fight it to be told how we are going to raise and spend the money.
Posted by: Jonathan Gardner on April 21, 2005 10:36 AMEVERYTHING that is bought and sold is tied to the price of gasoline. This tax gets layered into a gallon of milk 10X over.
You might drive a hybrid or walk to the grocery store but the hay truck, grain truck, milk truck, distribution truck still has to drive to and from the farms and the processing plant. Nevermind that the disposable income of all the employees has now gone down by $20/month just to get to their jobs.
Add it together and you get a 4 dollar gallon of milk.
Posted by: Andy on April 21, 2005 10:41 AMMost notable, in my opinion, was Tucker, who agreed that compared with the total inflation basis of gas prices, that the proposed new tax was, indeed, "piddling."
However, I would give a rebuttal, Tucker, to your other comment, when he responded to me thusly: "He thinks GWB waves his magic wand and suddenly gas goes up and his cronies get rich. Sorry Nelson, it doesn't work that way."
Actually, Tucker, it can work that way. All GWB has to do is what Clinton did, when market demands started pushing up gasoline prices -- he "waved his presidential wand," as you put it and ordered millions of barrels of oil released from the US strategic stockpile.
That new supply stopped the gas price inflation dead in its tracks and within a few months, after prices came back down again, the government again bought enough oil to refill its stockpile.
Simple supply and demand. The government has huge supply to negate and short-term market shortages; just the threat of doing that would keep prices in some semblance of balance. But of course GWB, being an oilman himself, refuses to help out the American consumer and instead prefers to let his old buddies run amok with gas prices.
Everyone knows about the increased demand equations from China and other countries, but still the free market will also respond to immediate supply issues -- such as putting our stockpiled crude supplies into the market, or merely threatening to do so.
Again, just a president "waving his wand" and talking about that would knock down prices 30-40 cents at the pump in a matter of days.
Also, as for another poster who talked about his personal experiences in the '90s at a Mobil oil refinery when everyone said prices would rise, I would point out that at that time, crude was selling around $15 a barrel and the oil industry was getting creamed. Of course they were going to go up from there. But the "dream" of the industry then was to have $25 a barrel crude.
Thanks to Bush and his oil policies and Cheney's arrogance, we are now at all time record prices of $55+ a barrel. Nothing except US Administration complicity with the oil industry can possible explain that inflation; not China, not US demand, not market forces -- nothing except encouragement by the Bush Administration.
And you guys rant and rave about a piddling 9.5 cents a gallon OVER 4 YEARS!!!!
Posted by: Nelson on April 21, 2005 11:11 AM
WA:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/projects/SR18auburntoI90/MValley_IHobart/
SD: http://www.sddot.com/geninfo_projects_missriverbridge.asp
And back in WA - 4.3 million for shrubs & trees?
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/SR18AuburntoI90/CovingtontoMapleValley/
Where does your data come from that says oil prices are coming down in the future?
How does their "arrogance" effect the Saudis, Russian, Iranian, Libyan, .... price? Are you saying that these countries charge us more than other countries? Again, for Bush to be so stupid you sure give hime a lot of credit on being able to manipulate world oil markets so significantly. You also assume that the strategic reserves (which wouldn't be in reserve if we used it so you can drive your car a bit cheaper)when released would stay in the US without changing the amount imported. Where do these figures come from? If that is not true then why do you say supply would rise in the US, reducing the cost?
If you picked up another dem talking point, you would find that they are all for having expensive gas to try and get people on social engineered transportation (AKA public transportation). I guess they only like higher prices if it is tax?
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 11:34 AMAlso, buses need good roads, as evidenced by Metro route 14, a Trolleybus Routes(Uses no gas, run on electricity). There is a spot at Jackson St and MLK Jr Way where it is full of potholes from sidewalk to sidewalk. I bet that wears out tires pretty fast, especially on weekdays, when the 14 runs full, usually from Downtown to MLK Jr Way and S Jackson St. (I ride the route a lot, so it is first hand experience). All 3 routes that handle S, Jackson St from Downtown, the 7, 14, and 36 run full.
Also, Metro is the right people to maintain LRT, as the vehicles last a long time, and they have a track record. In 1978 they purchased 109 new Trackless Trolleys, the motors from 100 were recycled and are still in service in the new buses despite their bodies being retired in 2003. They got 24-25 years of service out of those buses. The Federal Grants that pay for new buses(up to 80% of the cost) say the buses have to be used for 12 years. Metro just retired the disgrace that was the AnsaldoBreda Tunnel Buses, and they are scraping 60 of them together to refurbish them as trackless trolleys, with the Diesel Components disabled or replaced by ballast, and the Electric Motors downgraded to handle the surface voltage. Since they had once had 235 of those, they should use the motors from the others to build modern low floor buses. The Trackless Trolleys are 10% of the fleet but carry 25% of the ridership. Electric Motors last a long time. The ones in the Waterfront Streetcars still have their original motors, and they were built in 1927. Why is it that the very people who attack Metro and other transit probably get new cars every few years?
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 21, 2005 12:09 PMI used to be for the removal of the Snake River Dams, but they should stay, just improve the fish passage. I was for restarting construction on WNP-1 at Hanford 4 years ago when WNP-2 was down for refueling during a major power crisis. It goes down again for refueling(every 2 years) in June. They will be boosting it's output. Also, wind turbines are a good source of powwer. They can put a couple at Nine Canyon, where Energy Northwest(WPPSS) already has a few. I would put a few at Atlantic Base in SODO, but the people who know more about windpower would say that it is not windy. I have heard that up in Calgary, they use the wind-swept Canadian Prarie to generate electricity for their Light Rail system. Enviros killed two Seattle City Light projects in the late 1960s. Ross High Dam and Kiket Island Nuclear Power Plant. Just like they get blamed for the lack of refineries.
Hydrogen Fuel is a good fuel. It can replace Gasoline, but he development is slow, and every time it gets into the public news, the debunkers(led by a few oil companies, others are actually supporting Hydrogen research) say just one word to scare everybody, Hindenburg. It is enough to scare people, just like anti-hybrid people say the buses will electrocute people. I rode a few, especially home from a few assingments with the temp agency, and had no problem. I think Shell and BP are the ones researching Hydrogen.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 21, 2005 12:26 PMOil, as a resource, is not particularly "finite."
Despite the popular mythology, oil is not fossil in origin. It is created in the mantle as a result of tectonic flow. It comes from a natural cracking process of methane by magma in the mantle. Its limits are only accessability and extraction.
If the "finiteness" of this resource is truly of concern to you, you might start by reading: Power from the Earth Deep Earth Gas -- Energy for the Future by Thomas Gold [J.M. Dent & Sons, Ltd, London, 1987] ISBN 0-460-04462-1.
alaric
Now we know there's some dishonesty going around. They're trying to sell this a a roads-building tax. What in the honk is un-Sound Transit doing getting any of this? They have their own funding source. They used to promise that because of that they would not be asking for state funds. What bunk.
And why is (mass)'transit' getting any of this? They already have funding. People who buy gas drive cars. They should not have to pay for those who do not by riding buses. If they want 'transit' money, tax the relatively few people who ride the bus.
Posted by: Michele on April 21, 2005 12:32 PMUsing federal reserves to lower prices is as stupid as the legislature screwing with pension funding in a non emergency situation.
Candrew- You must mean wasting gas on frivolous things like bread and milk distribution? See my earlier post for the full economic inflationary impact.
Posted by: Andy on April 21, 2005 12:34 PMIt was proven that National City Lines, which bought up Streetcar Systems and converted them to buses, using GM Products exclusively, was a front company of General Motors. Some of the PCC Streetcars(industry standard from the 1930s) that were retired when NCL took over a system were brand new. Many ended up in Toronto, and some ended up back in the US(San Francisco needed some more in the '70s to cover a short-fall until the BOeing LRVs arrived).
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 21, 2005 12:43 PMThough I guess you could put it in any state or federal congressional building and all the hot air from that source would drive windmills forever! :)
Michele, you are right - is there any tax on car use in this state that the dems advertise that it is for roads, but it goes to fund their pet projects, probably before roads. That is why I am against the tax (or any tax) until they properly document what they did with all the other money. Until they can show they are responsible they do not get more!
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 12:47 PMIt's just Socialist (Collectivit) propaganda to herd us like cattle onto government transportation and destroy individuality.
Posted by: Difranco on April 21, 2005 12:52 PMNelson, no, the people at the refinery were predicting a spike in global demand. They just thought it was going to be sooner.
Posted by: CandrewB on April 21, 2005 12:53 PMI think most people here on either side agree that the bigger the car/SUV/truck the higher the survivability in an accident. So, if true, then isn't it relatively cheap insurance to be in something where you win so that your kids walk away? Especially if you are driving 50-100 miles to work. Sample gravestone:
My darling Jessica
1995 - 2005
Died in a car accident,
but saved fuel!
No thanks. The small price (especially relative the regular insurance) of the extra fuel is worth it. After an collision between a Mini and an H2, the H2 just has to turn on it wipers to clear it off.
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 12:59 PMThere are a whole bunch of things that do not make sense on a safety standpoint. Motorcycles? Mountain climbing?
Posted by: CandrewB on April 21, 2005 01:14 PMThat is true. But I do not sit in rush hour or drive for fun. It is an efficient way to get where I want on my schedule, and be able to carry children in it safely. Using your arguement, you do not do anything in the safety department - no safety belt for example - as you could get injured some other way, so what is the point?
One of the things that does not make sense on a safety stand point is to buy a zip on car to transport, what I consider the most precious of cargo, my wife and kid when for a small amount more in fuel I dramatically increase their survivability in an accident.
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 01:33 PMIf you really truly believe that, the (low) forecast for ANWR is 1 million barrels a day for many years instead of just 60 days. If it really had that dramatic a result then we should be drilling that tiny spot in the ANWR to provide that big difference. The advantage of ANWR is that we do not need to buy back the 60 million barrels to restock. Problem solved.
Posted by: Fred on April 21, 2005 01:43 PMThe fact is, most of the highway system that goes into rural areas goes between metropolitan areas. The highways are there to serve the commercial and transportation needs of the metropolitan areas and only coincidentially serve the rural communities they go through.
If you don't believe me, ask yourself this question: suppose there was not a soul living between Seattle and Portland - do you think that I-5 would still have been built?
Of course it would have been built, and paid for entirely by metropolitan area tax payers. Under the current scenario, the metro tax payers get help in paying for their highways from the rural taxpayer.
Posted by: DeadManVoting (aka Iguana) on April 21, 2005 01:45 PMI-5 was not built for moving frieght, it was built for people. There already was something that moved people efficiently. It was three railroads working together, not agaisnt each other, and the arrangement survived the threat of US99 and I-5, right up until May 1, 1971. It was a pool arrangement where the passenger trains were pooled between Seattle and Portland, tickets cross honored, and revenues shared. They Great Northern, Northern Pacific, and Union Pacific each operated one passenger train a day between Portland and Seattle, and alternated running the Night Owl train. If they had used a technology that was failing on the East Coast out here, they could have given US99 and I-5 a big fight. Reason why I think it would have worked here, what do you think Amtrak Cascades uses? The very technology that was a failure. It works up here, plus, they used a standard locomotive to pull it, instead of the fancy thing the east coasters used in the '50s.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 21, 2005 02:01 PMAnd left wing stalwarts like McCauliffe voted against it.
Stefan...get your head out of the sand. This is a good thing that even hard core righties recognized.
Anything done by this government will be bad as far as you're concerened. Makes all of your arguments less believable.
Posted by: Fred Hartwick on April 21, 2005 02:24 PMThe "Chunnel" across the English Channel only cost about 16 billion. It was over 30 miles long with 20 some odd under water. The viaduct was predicted to be about 12 billion for only a few short miles worth of road.
Higher taxes for efficient, common sense spending - sure.
Higher taxes for wasteful, wrong headed spending - no.
Posted by: Jack on April 21, 2005 02:57 PMThe Chunnel is a masterful piece of engineering. It was done right. But it cost $21 Billion and three years of digging. Been there and done that. Drive onto the train and it took about 30 minutes station to station from Foulkestone to Calais. Hertz Europe gave reduced price tickets when you rented a car for two weeks in England as a special. No bumpy train tracks, almost as smooth as the TGV (Te Grand Vitesse) bullet train in France. Wonderful adventure, took my sister and niece with me to Paris by driving. Nothing like high speed driving in Europe, especially going way over 200 klicks on the Autobahn! Bugs really go splat on the windshield at those speeds. I recommend it to everyone.
But the low cost was in the chunnel building contract. They had real overruns due to rock boring. They had to stay close to budget and the unions didn't have workers who watched workers. Everyone worked to get it done. The newspapers were watching it from the British and French sides.
Here in WA State, you have union guys who's sole purpose it to do nothing but watch others, and make $20/hour doing that. Do you think the Slimes and the Puke-Indigestioner will watch what's going on? Doubt it.
Maybe they should chunnel under the Sound so we can bypass Seattle. I think we should have Tim Eyman submit a referendum replacing UnSound Transmit with Sound Chunnel! Whaddya think?
Just think we can bypass all the McDermott stupidity and enjoy our ride too. And the greenies, and weenies, and treehuggers can't complain cause there is nuthin living way down there in the dirt. So this will reduce traffic through that stupidly constricted I-5 by the Convention Center. My friends who visit me asked why in an Earthquake zone did these bozos build a convention center over a main artery. I said cause their bozos? Eh?
Posted by: Puddybud on April 21, 2005 08:46 PMPrivate Enterprise missed a big oppurtunity in the 1950s to create something good. The problem was, one of the three RRs on the Seattle-Portland Corridor quit buying new cars in 1955, and UP was more concerned with their Long-Distance streamliners. In fact, their pool train included cars from the Chicago-Portland City of Portland, and the NP train hauld through sleepers from the Southern Pacific train Cascade from Los Angeles. Now Private Enterprise has decided small town America does not deserve to be served, as recntly evidenced by Greyhound's region-by-region abandonment of service to small towns. In the case of I-5, they cut service to Blaine and Castle Rock, the reason, Amtrak is faster on the region up here. The maximum that Greyhound can go is 60MPH, Amtrak can go up to 79MPH. If track and signal improvements are made(over-regulation helped tie the railroads hands), the maximum speed of the TALGO TPU is 110MPH. That is about 50MPH faster than Greyhound on the city-center to city-center market. Also, once the Pt. Defiance bypass is complete, 11 minutes will be shaved off of Amtrak Cascades time. I think if Amtrak Cascades can get under 3 hours, they could make money, I heard they do not lose much money anyway, about $11 a passenger. I think they will be able to do much better. I have seen spots on the BNSF main with speed limit signs. They say T-60, P-60, and F-35(One example). F is for freight, P applies to regular Amtrak trains and SOUNDER, and T applies to Amtrak Cascades. Imagine if the sign said T-110, P-90, and F-79. First freight mobility would be increased, taking the pressure off of I-5, and there would be something between personal cars/Greyhound and Horizon Air.
A Chunnel under Puget Sound would have to be rail, because of it's length. Even the best ventilation systems will not work. In the middle of Puget Sound, where are you going to put the vent-shafts? Tankers could hit them. I would be for building a bridge between Seattle-Vashon Island-Southworth(Heard it has been pitched before). In the 1950s, Governor Albert D. Rosselini proposed replacing the ferryboats with a series of cross-sound bridges, the State Senate said no, it cost too much $100 million. As a Transportation Commissioner, he pitched the idea again, he agreed it was too much, at Several Billon dollars.
Posted by: MASSTRANSITFAN on April 21, 2005 09:18 PMWhy do you liberals always place the blame for things like this on the President? He does not control the price of gas like you say he does. It's the evil Karl Rove who does that!
As to the gas tax...and our RINO's who supported it, I can only hope that all are thrown out in the next election cycle. Wheres that initiative I can sign???
Posted by: BlueKnight on April 22, 2005 03:25 AM