I thought I could retire the "Die, Monorail, Die" headline when the Seattle Monorail Project died at the ballot box last November.
But maybe not. As the P-I reports: "Monorail car-tab fee may live on"
That could be a result of a bill passed in the state House on Tuesday that calls for greater consolidation of transportation planning and financing in the central Puget Sound region. The measure, House Bill 2871, also would shift part of the monorail tax to new non-monorail Seattle transit projects if the measure passes and city voters approve the change.Of course the Monorail wasn't killed by popular outrage. It was killed by Sound Transit and its allies who coveted the MVET. Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 22, 2006 09:57 PM | Email This
I don't know what bizarre alternative universe these politicians have been living in but in the real world this tax was hated and despised. Any politician who touches it is drinking political hemlock.
Posted by: Bill K. on February 22, 2006 10:31 PMIt's called "Seattle".
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on February 22, 2006 10:36 PMWe already have the proposed "train to nowhere" which p*ssed away taxpayers' money for 6+ years before they even started to lay a rail.
I don't mind paying for schools and basic services, but p*ssing money away on stadiums for "cry baby millionares" and the "new" library which is a HVAC nightmare because it is ten open stories high is absurd.
Die, Monorail-car-tab-fee, Die
Posted by: Green Lake Mark on February 22, 2006 10:56 PMAnd now they want to continue taking our money, even after we said no, so they can screw it up some more.
This region has had upwards of 30 years to come up with a workable transportation plan, the transporation planners don't deserve another chance.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2006 11:51 PMThat's what one would think if they believed all the garbage spewed on this thread.
The aimless right cranked out the same message when Clinton was elected - and all we got was this lousy t-shirt that said "8 years of peace and prosperity."
Face it: sound transit had nothing to do with the monorail. In fact, if you were to actually pay attention, and read what the monorail people are saying about Sound Transit http://groups.yahoo.com/group/friendsofthemonorail/message/17455 you would see it's not such a big conspiracy, afterall.
And you should also acknowledge that the monorail started out as the conservatives' darling, with supporters such as Rob McKenna, the Discovery Institute, and Sharkansky darling Emory Bundy towing the line for this pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Monorail was always promised as a cheaper, privatized, break-even alternative to light rail. Turned out to be a bunch of rubbish - conservative rubbish, that is. But the city bought it, thanks to the right wingers who sold it to them.
"The transportation planners and social engineers will never, ever, ever stop until we are all out of our cars and riding mass transit like nice little robots."
Sorry, Katomar. Since 35-40% of all commuters come into (and leave) the Seattle business district every day via transit, it would appear those "robots" make it possible to drive your car around with a lot less congestion. Put all those "socially engineered robots" into their cars, and - like magic - we would have unimaginable gridlock. So much for the baseless conspiracy theory. It's called common sense.
"We've easily got the worst mass transit debacle of any large city in the US. Sound transit is hemorraghing cash. "
Really, Jeff B? Ever heard of Boston's Big Dig - a road project? Tell us, did you just try to spew some general anti-transit talking points here, or are you actually speaking of something specific? 'Hemmoraging' usually means operating in the red. Do you mean to say sound transit is operating in the red? Please be more specific; we have enough useless rhetorical drivel already here.
"I don't know what bizarre alternative universe these politicians have been living in but in the real world this tax was hated and despised."
Which is why they originally voted in support of the tax (twice) right, Bill K?
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on February 23, 2006 01:20 AMSome of them happen to be life-long conservatives.
Posted by: FT on February 23, 2006 04:03 AMInteresting statistics, but they don't hold a lot of water. 35-40% of commuters ride buses you say? Great--that is only a decline of about 25% since 1980. How does that justify light rail? Oh, because of Portland's success with MAX? Portland's commute share using mass transit has dropped even faster since MAX has been put in. Let's not even get into the fact that the majority of the commute each day in the region goes to the 'burbs rather than to Downtown Seattle, something that is exceedingly difficult for a light rail solution to solve. The patterns are also changing fairly rapidly--15 years ago, commuters headed to Boeing; now they head to Microsoft; 15 years from now, maybe they head to North Bend or Everett or someplace else where land is cheap so it gives the next great "Seattle" corporate success a place to set up shop.
I have no problem with transit, but using rail as the "solution" simply throws money down a rat hole that could be better spent on other projects, relatively simple projects compared to the exceedingly grandiose Big Dig you cited (which is far more similar to what pro-transit factions in Seattle would like to do with the Viaduct replacement than to anything proposed by anyone on the right despite your characterizations).
Oh, and because a few people who are members of the GOP were initial supporters of a program (not sure if they were, but I'll assume you're not lying here) hardly means that the program had widespread GOP support. Seven members of the GOP voted for the new gas tax in the last legislative session--I don't think you could argue that was a positive issue for the right wing.
Posted by: Marc on February 23, 2006 06:02 AMIf the car tabs get reestablished to a high level again in this region, what is to prevent thousands of this region's residences from voting in Easter Washington. They can easily change their residence and avoid the tax.
I mean, if you can't challenge a person's voter residence, why can you challenge a person's legal residence? I can see it happening.
I thought of doing this a couple of years ago when the car tabs were high, talked to the local auditor that told me it was an honor system where my residence was, but didn't have the guts to do it.
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2006 07:56 AMBut alas, this money will likely go somewhere else. At least they are letting the citizens vote on it instead of finding some back door way to keep collecting the money.
Posted by: Palouse on February 23, 2006 07:56 AMIn particular, your statement, which I agree with, "the sooner you all throw out these macaroons and elect decent, etc....". If your thesis is to get rid of the leftists, then the only chance you have is with the R party (which I also dislike and would prefer another branch).
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2006 08:44 AMGiffy...nice elitist arrogance, there, pal. I'll take GA or MS anyday over people like you.
Posted by: Danny on February 23, 2006 08:46 AMStunning, but at least you put your socialism out there for everybody to see it.
Fine. Live in your little dunghole of a commune, but don't expect me to pay for it.
Posted by: jimg on February 23, 2006 08:47 AMNo increase in Police, Fire, Parks or useful infrastructure with this proposal, just good old fashion diversion of public funds to help your buddy stay in power.
Posted by: We Need A Change on February 23, 2006 08:47 AMBut the tax lives on. What's up with that?
But the city bought it, thanks to the right wingers who sold it to them.
You're straining your non-existent credibility to suggest that "right wingers" could sell Seattleites anything.
Bloviate on...
Posted by: South County on February 23, 2006 09:15 AM"Hemmoraging" usually means operating far in excess of budgets. In this case, it's illustrated by the "bait and switch" Sound Transit pulled off. We were promised one system by a certain date; what we got was the train to nowhere, someday, hopefully.
Please be more specific; we have enough useless rhetorical drivel already here.
Please see "Irony."
Posted by: South County on February 23, 2006 09:21 AMYes, how dare we allow people to vote in favor of taxing themselves. This has to be the most anti-American thing ever. We wouldn't dare want people to decide how they are taxes. Obviously the majority of Seattle residents are so stupid they don't realize that a lifestyle equal to Mississippi is available to them if only they listen to this board.
Posted by: JDB on February 23, 2006 09:25 AMJDB, the majority of Seattle residents may be that stupid. I'm inclined to agree with the premise. You and Giffy mock the South. Easy to do from the Evergroovy State. What an arrogant and condescending pri** you are.
Posted by: Danny on February 23, 2006 09:33 AMAsk why the region is spending $2B+ on a train to nowhere, when they acknowledge it won't ease congestion? It's not designed to ease congestion, it's designed to provide "alternatives." If I had an employee give me that kind of answer to a pointed question they would be out in the street before their shoes touched the ground. If you want a quicker commute, you'll ride our 19th Century technology...and like it.
Blather boy hasn't mentioned that fixed transit such as a rail line tends to lock in Seattle's dominance in the region, which is another unspoken reason for transit.
Posted by: South County on February 23, 2006 09:35 AMShame on me...I couldn't let this go by. Monorail came in much closer to thier cost and service forecasts than Sound Transit has...and the Monorail gave several chances for voters to say no.
Compare that with Sound Transit...Bundy became one of the most eloquent advocates for shutting the Monorail down. Rob McKenna was kicked off the Sound Transit board because he had more crediblilty on transportation issues than Sims...and he was an advocate for accountability.
Sims has steadfastly refused to allow Sound Transit to come up for a revote.
Posted by: South County on February 23, 2006 09:41 AM
You're right it is easy
And by the way name one county in this state that has a higher median inocme then King county and name one county that contributes more to Olympia in taxes and gets less back than king county. Without our liberal asses this state would be another poor southern hell hole.
Posted by: giffy on February 23, 2006 09:51 AMYou can have your revote on ST when we get our revote on Bush (its ubsurd both ways). We live in a Republic not a direct democracy. We also don't get to have constant votes on various projects. It breeds instablity and destroys any ability to get things done. Instead of bitchig gand moaning about things already decided why don't you get some ideas for how to reduce congestion. (and cutting transportation revenue though poorly concieved iniatives doesn't count)
Posted by: Giffy on February 23, 2006 09:54 AM"Sound Transit is a real embarassment to Washington. We've easily got the worst mass transit debacle of any large city in the US. "
Jeff, that's because the Puget Sound is blessed with an abundance of emotion based voters who don't consider the consequeneses of the latest liberal backed feel good legislation. They continue to support initiatives that have a higher cost than return to the community, as well as incompetent leadership (I'm referring to you Ron Sims).
These people who vote with their hearts instead of their heads have been brainwashed (this assumes the presence of a brain) into voting to tax themselves out of their own homes if they think the proposal meets one of the three following qualifications:
It's for the Children
It's for the Planet
It's for the Democrats
"Sound Transit is a real embarassment to Washington. We've easily got the worst mass transit debacle of any large city in the US. "
Jeff, that's because the Puget Sound is blessed with an abundance of emotion based voters who don't consider the consequeneses of the latest liberal backed feel good legislation. They continue to support initiatives that have a higher cost than return to the community, as well as incompetent leadership (I'm referring to you Ron Sims).
These people who vote with their hearts instead of their heads have been brainwashed (this assumes the presence of a brain) into voting to tax themselves out of their own homes if they think the proposal meets one of the three following qualifications:
It's for the Children
It's for the Planet
It's for the Democrats
Deal, I'll trade Chris(who I like) for a dem president.
Posted by: giffy on February 23, 2006 10:00 AMI am going back East, where politicians let people keep their money.
Posted by: Jason Woodruff on February 23, 2006 10:13 AMI lived back east before moving here to Seattle for grad school. Car tabs there cost me 40 bucks.
I don't want to think about how much they will charge me over here.
Posted by: Jeremy on February 23, 2006 10:25 AMSnort.
You got one right. Congrats.
Plenty of other commenters made the point, but really, do your research before you spout off. Sound Transit is currently running in the red such that it costs about $60,000 per passenger per year to run the rail service between Tacoma and Seattle and aboout $155,000 per year per passenger between Everett and Seattle, and that's just operating costs, not capital costs.
It would be cheaper to buy each rider a car and gasoline than to have them ride the rails. And given the tiny percentage of commuters who ride the rails vs. driving on the freeways, it would have almost zero impact on traffic if they got back in to their cars.
The point is this, yeah, mass transit is nice, I've been to London and Paris. I've ridden the trains. But it took them over 100 years of very concerted effort and a tax structure that is far more agressive than ours to get where they are. It's pure fantasy to think that we could get anywhere near these other large cities in widespread and useful transit deployment in any less than 50 years. And to do that it would be at an enormous cost to the feds, state and to all WA taxpayers and our children's, children's children.
The simple reality is that our money is far better spent on the immediate problem of roads that the vast majority have no choice but to use, and those same commuters will be using the roads for many years to come, even if we do embark on a realistic mass transit plan.
Show me something realistic and I will get on board, but so far, all we have seen is outlandish hemorraghing projects with very little ridership and/or ridiculous fantasy proposals to serve areas with very little commuter traffic like the monorail that consumed millions of dollars and man hours without ever turning a shovel of dirt.
Wake up, you are the one that is out of touch with reality. In the real world, money does not go on trees and we live in the present not the future.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 23, 2006 10:51 AMAbout six years ago, Koster lost to Larsen in the First Congressional District that would have gone to him if only half the Libertarians had voted for him. So, now you have Larsen and no hope on the horizon.
And Koster is probably more Libertarian than Republican. You gotten decide whether you want to thrown the rascals out or have a clear conscience (i.e. vote for the best man or woman).
Note: I vote for Perot the first time because I thought he could win. I won't waste my vote again.
Posted by: swatter on February 23, 2006 11:15 AMProjects approved by a public vote should be revoted if the result is significantly different than the promise. In the private world that's called bait-and-switch, which will get someone jail time.
In the public sphere, over promising and under delivering is called "an effective campaign strategy."
Posted by: South County on February 23, 2006 11:31 AMJust because the monorail doesn’t exist and the plug was pulled on the project (so it most likely never will)
doesn’t mean that it doesn’t need tax based funding for democrats. Don't you know anything about economics?
Wise up.
How about you have a vote on whether bus and train riders pay for privately owned vehicles that they don't ever even see, driven by people they never even meet?
How about an oil, filter, and tune up excise tax on a carton of milk?
If you're getting the service, pay the bill yourself!
Seattle libs = street beggars
Building the monorail - like the stadiums, the bridge, the viaduct, public roads, the library - is a pretense that enables politicians and rich, politically-connected businessmen to start a flow of money from you to them that you cannot opt out of. A few people become very wealthy building these things.
Rich men who want to become richer by building stadiums to increase the value of their football and baseball teams (i.e. Paul Allen, George W. Bush) have choices:
1) they can risk their own money to build stadiums that are not likely to make a profit, and probably end up less rich;
2) they can persuade a million or two people like you and me to pitch in $500 or $1000 each to build stadiums for them (fat chance that'll ever happen);
3) they can per$uade a few dozen politician$ to use the coercive power of the state to force you and me pay for their stadiums (they'll refer to them as "your" stadiums if it makes you feel better, but you won't be able to get in free or have your name on them anywhere).
Which choice do you think rich moochers and thieves will find easier, cheaper and more profitable?
The politicians, bureaucrats, moochers and thieves are willing to give up on actually building the monorail if they can still keep the money. In fact, they'll probably feel better off since they won't have to spend some of it to actually build something as unexpectedly complicated and expensive as a monorail. It's doubtful they have the expertise to get it built anyway.
But they act as if ending a tax for something that is never going to happen is like taking the money right out of their own pockets. Because that's where it was destined in the first place.
Posted by: ken on February 23, 2006 01:21 PMYour right about Europe, but con't forget to tell people they also have nightmare traffic jams.
Yes I've been there too. And if you libs care to notice or not. Their so called living has been heading down hill for years. Unemployment runs high all through out Europe. So hope you don't mind. I have NO wish to be like them.
Keep your hands off my hard earned money.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 23, 2006 02:13 PMIt seems like you and Jeff B., agree?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on February 23, 2006 03:37 PMNot at all. I just think that liberal policies produce better areas. We fund education which creates smarter nad more skilled people. We build effective transportation systems that enbable people and cargo to move around. We help insure that a strong social net exists which helps buisness find people to hire. We support parks and cultural activities that make areas desirable which brings people to our areas. We support civil rights for al lamericans whish increase the desirablity of are areas. Gay people for one are generally more educated, mroe affluent, and more skilled then straight people making them desirable for our buisness.
The fact is that highly skilled workers want ot live in the sort of areas that liberal policies create. That means more wealth and better civil structures.
Posted by: giffy on February 23, 2006 03:46 PMKeep telling yourself all of this silly crap if it makes you happy.
Are you a SSD teacher? The reasoning/spelling does give you away.
Thanks for the humorous post.(snerk)
Posted by: Amused by people like giffy on February 23, 2006 03:59 PMsounds really pretty, do you have any ideas on how we can create the income to afford your little utopia? (besides having me pay for it)
Posted by: dan on February 23, 2006 04:15 PMI got my mode split numbers from Seattle's DOT. Where on earth did you come up with that stat, Marc? And, however you cut it up, fact is, if we followed the anti-transit line, and got rid of public transit because "it costs too much" traffic would become a standstill, and Seattle would be nearly impossible to access during peak commute hours.
"Portland's commute share using mass transit has dropped even faster since MAX has been put in."
Sorry, Marc. Those are bogus stats peddled by anti-transit activists. Get the actual facts here: http://www.publictransit.us/PublicTransitUS.php?itemid=148&catid=11
"Oh, and because a few people who are members of the GOP were initial supporters of a program (not sure if they were, but I'll assume you're not lying here) hardly means that the program had widespread GOP support."
http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/confrenc.htm Not to mention the fact that the bill which created the monorail (HB 2850) passed the House of Reps 90-6. Something tells me there were more than seven Republicans who supported it. Mercer Island Republican Jim Horn was co-sponsor of the Senate version.
"Seven members of the GOP voted for the new gas tax in the last legislative session--I don't think you could argue that was a positive issue for the right wing."
You're right, Marc. The GOP took a drubbing from the Washington Business community for not supporting critical infrastructure needs for our state.
"I have no problem with transit, but using rail as the "solution" simply throws money down a rat hole that could be better spent on other projects,"
Rail is not the only "solution," Marc. Rail is part of the multi-modal solution, which every other major metropolitian area in the United States has employed to keep the workforce mobile. Rail also just happens to attract a lot more new riders (than slow buses) who would otherwise drive, and clog your coveted roadways. There is always a gaggle of anti-rail blowhards who greet any proposed light rail system with that "rathole" analogy. Yet, with one or two exceptions, once the first light rail line is running, the public only clamors for more extensions to the system. (Which is probably why there is so much opposition at the outset)
"The city of Seattle should pay a disproportionate amount for that tunnel because it is their new seawall they are going to get and its their waterfront property that is going to appreciate because of that project. "
Palouse, given the fact we Western Washingonians subsidize you Eastern Washingtonians with our gas tax dollars (the same way we Blue State subsidize the Red States) you aren't on very solid ground when you make these kinds of complaints.
"Why then has 60+ of all trasportation money spent on Mass Transit that only less than 5% of the people use? "
David Anfinrud: way to repeat John Carlson and Kemper Freemans totally bogus claims which they tried to use - in vain - to get I-912 passed. That initiative failed, in part, because people didn't believe those junk stats. Transit provides the greatest benefit during peak hours (or daylight hours, for that matter.) Those junk stats count trips made over a 24 hour period. Sure, you can drive anywhere you want after 10 pm - but the peak congestion period is becoming longer every day, and transit plays a big part in moving a large number of people through tight rights of way. One person per car just doesn't cut it in a growing region. Many of your comments seem like throwbacks to the 1970's, when people were LEAVING the region, not moving here. No other major metropolitan in the country (sorry, not even the Red ones) have taken this approach that it all can be done with one person per car. What makes you guys think Pugetopolis should be the last place on earth with a decent transit system?
"I saw very little attempt at new roads until the nickel package went into effect. So out of all that gas money collected only a nickel of it ever improved the roads and that is in only the last couple of years. "
Mr. Anfinrud: I supported those investments along with all of my friends who support transit. I saw a complete lack of support for roads funding from the Republicans in this state, along with the bomb-throwing conservatives here. So, that wasn't such a strong argument for you.
"I see the next transportation bill sent to the voters to be between 50 and 75% mass transit and very little of the rest going to new roads only fixing current roads."
David, those statistics are so far off the mark, it's kind of embarrassing. Where on earth do you read this garbage? A link would help me understand how you could be so poorly informed. You call the 405, 520, and 99 multi-billion dollar mega projects "mass transit" projects? Man, that doesn't even come close to passing the laugh test.
"The last thought is why do all the current projects of the tunnel and 520 bridge will have less capacity than current existing structures. Why do people think less capacity will help transportation?"
Well, if I believed the same lies and distortions you apparently have, David, I would probably share your frustration.
"'Hemmoraging' usually means operating far in excess of budgets.'
Well, South County, since Sound Transit isn't legally allowed to operate in excess of their budget (Bush style) your argument doesn't hold much water.
"In this case, it's illustrated by the "bait and switch" Sound Transit pulled off. We were promised one system by a certain date; what we got was the train to nowhere, someday, hopefully."
Sound Transit is building and engineering 19 of the original 21 miles - 2 miles short (some bait and switch!) of the original plan. And since when was SeaTac International Airport and downtown Seattle considered "nowhere?" Again, if you take a look at the actual facts - rather than this ongoing anti-government knee-jerk.
I'll bet if Bush was proposing a multi-billion dollar light rail program for Baghdad in order to "spread freedom" you guys would be all for it. Maybe Sound Transit should call it's train the "Baghdad Express."
"Ask why the region is spending $2B+ on a train to nowhere, when they acknowledge it won't ease congestion?"
South County also brings another well-worn myth to the debate. Light rail doesn't "ease congestion" any more than road expansion does, thanks to latent demand. Once light rail takes cars off the road, or freeways are expanded, there is always anther car taking another trip to fill up that new space on the freeway. It's like water filling a hose: it doesn't matter how wide that hose is. And the more cars, and the more lanes, the worse that freeway performs. The only thing that actually reduces congestion is a recession, and I don't think any of us like that "solution."
"Blather boy hasn't mentioned that fixed transit such as a rail line tends to lock in Seattle's dominance in the region, which is another unspoken reason for transit. "
South County, as an apparent South King resident, you should know that SKC currently benefits more from fixed rail than any other part of the region. Sounder trains are full from Tacoma, to Puyallup, to Sumner, Auburn, Kent and Tukwila. Once light rail is up and running, and connects SeaTac, Tukwila - and eventually Federal Way - your comments will seem even more ridiculous than they do now.
"Shame on me...I couldn't let this go by. Monorail came in much closer to thier cost and service forecasts than Sound Transit has...and the Monorail gave several chances for voters to say no."
Really, South County? The monorail was originally promised to be buit for free by the private sector. By the time they were finished, it was $200 million + per mile. And, no, the final vote to scrap the project was forced by the mayor and city council you guys seem to hate so much. If the monorail board had it's way, we never would have been able to vote one last time.
"Compare that with Sound Transit...Bundy became one of the most eloquent advocates for shutting the Monorail down."
No he didn't, South County. Emory Bundy never wrote a single negative thing about monorail. Google proves it. His entire basis for supporting monorail came from the hope he held out that the monorail could be more like the pet project he was involved with: Personal Rapid Transit. He just happened to mention his opposition to monorail an his interview with Shark, long after the monorail authority had crashed and burned. People like Bundy held out hope for the monorail years after it was clear their revenue projections were 30% below what they could even begin to afford. Bundy's CETA website didn't even take their pro-monorail propaganda until weeks after the final vote killed it. So much for the SP-friendly watchdogs!
"Rob McKenna was kicked off the Sound Transit board because he had more crediblilty on transportation issues than Sims...and he was an advocate for accountability."
If "more crediblity" means he was anti-transit, pro-freeways, and drove his car to his taxpayer subsidized parking spot each day, then I would tend to agree with you.
"Plenty of other commenters made the point, but really, do your research before you spout off. Sound Transit is currently running in the red such that it costs about $60,000 per passenger per year to run the rail service between Tacoma and Seattle and aboout $155,000 per year per passenger between Everett and Seattle, and that's just operating costs, not capital costs."
Jeff B, your stats are pretty hilarious! Pray tell, where did you get them? The federally administered National Transit Database (industry standard) shows their most expensive line (Everett-Sea) is subsized - on a per rider basis - $25 a trip. That number will likely fall to $10 per trip in 5 years as more scheduled trains are added. (ridership goes way up when new trains are introduced) The more popular Tacoma-Sea run subsidy is something like half that. Of course, we wouldn't want to use any kind of industry standard whatsoever when we come up with $155k per year per rider, would we JeffB?!
Posted by: WeNeedRoadsAndTransit on February 24, 2006 09:36 AMThen I would tend to agree with you, he is a pig at the trough and has no business being anywhere near a position of responsiblity in government.
Posted by: We need less Ron Sims and more Roads on February 24, 2006 10:09 AMI'm opposed to the rail because I don't think it will do a darn thing to relieve congestion on I-5. And the money could have been better spent on express buses at a fraction of the cost. The eastside, including my area, are sorely lacking in bus service, to the point that I would need to take 2 buses that would make my commute nearly 2 hours to get to Seattle. My commute to Bellevue is no better, and the new gas taxes don't do a darn thing to add any capacity to the worst part of 405 (the S curves).
So in essence, I will be paying through my rear end for these transportation improvements and not getting one iota of congestion relief. That's not a solution.
Posted by: Palouse on February 24, 2006 10:27 AMEver heard of roads for cars?
Ever heard of roads for cars?
If they suggested donkeys that would be good too eh?
If they suggested donkeys that would be good too eh?
Who's dumb?
Who's dumb?
Posted by: Amused Amused by by liberals liberals on February 26, 2006 10:59 AMNo, I am not waiting dim-bulb; I don't have to. Many miles of roads are being built at great expense
to you and I both at this time, and more are coming, and huge tracts of land are being paved over.
Look at the Washington State DOT's website genius.
Because of morons like you there is little chance that these roads will be used for
anything that will ameliorate traffic though . . . just more of the same over-prized but under used transit.
The real problem is that people in Seattle like you will vote for any idiotic so-called alternative infrastructure
that comes down the pike (i.e., monorail, light rail, bike trail, mixed use corridors).
Then they blame those productive ones of us that pay the bills for wanting real solutions for their money.
Thanks for the answer Colonel Klink.
Posted by: Amused by pinheaded liberals on February 27, 2006 09:28 AMHey cooked, why not back your big mouth and take a friggin’ bus moron.
Liberalism is a humorous mental disorder.
Great at simple-minded name-calling, short on complicated but possible solutions. Liberalism a mental disorder? How clever for a 12 year old. Here's another: Conservatism is a case of arrested development. Bye...going to look for some grown-ups.
Posted by: cooked on March 1, 2006 07:49 AMYou say that you, "got into this thinking that there might be someone over 18 who
had something really interesting to say."
Had you "got into this" with remarks that merited a "really interesting" reply,
you would have recieved one.
A typical liberal, you run away, run away to the "grown ups." Roger rabbit I presume.
As you provoked, so you got far better than you gave.