This Seattle Times article makes a common mistake.
Historically, urban areas of the state, with their dense populations, have subsidized road work in more rural areas with smaller tax bases.
The article backs that up with a chart (not available on line), with these numbers:
| county or counties | ratio |
| King, Pierce, and Snohomish | .98 |
| Kitsap and Thurston | 1.08 |
| Spokane | 0.74 |
| Clark (Vancouver) | 0.74 |
| Yakima | 0.74 |
| Benton and Franklin (Tri-Cities) | 0.89 |
| Whatcom (Bellingham) | 0.61 |
| rest of state | 1.52 |
The Times defines the ratio as follows: "the amount of federal and state transportation money allocated for every dollar paid in transportation-related taxes". So, for every dollar raised in transportation taxes (mostly gas taxes) in King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties, 98 cents is "allocated" (not sure if "allocated" is different from "spent") to those three counties. The data comes from the state department of transportation. (I have no idea whether they, or Aldo Chan of the Seattle Times, who prepared the chart, is responsible for grouping King, Pierce, and Snohomish together. Those not from Washington may need to know that King county includes Seattle and most of its suburbs, Pierce county, just to the south of King, is centered on Tacoma, and Snohomish county, just to the north of King, is centered on Everett. Whoever grouped them together may be trying to conceal something.)
It is that 1.52 ratio at the end of the table that causes the Seattle Times to conclude that rural areas are subsidized by urban areas, since the rest of the state is mostly rural. Can you see why their conclusion does not follow from the data?
Need some hints? Let's start with this example: Adams county, in eastern Washington, has a population of about 16,600. The county also has a section of Interstate 90, which carries more traffic and costs more than all the rest of the roads in Adams put together, I am reasonably certain. Now, suppose we were to look down on that section of I-90 to see who was using the road. Would all of them be from Adams county? Would most of them? Obviously not, considering the population there.
Need another hint? This time, let's look down at a market in Seattle where a barista, who does not drive and despises cars, has just bought some wheat flour in order to make bread. How did that flour get to her? At least part of the way, it came on trucks over roads, and she pays less because we have a relatively modern transportation network. She benefits from the roads in rural areas even though she pays no gas taxes directly and may never even drive in rural areas.
Those two examples should be enough to show you that those ratios do not show what the Seattle Times says they do. You can not determine who benefits from roads simply by looking at the allocation of transportation money by county.
Why do politicians and activists keep making this kind of argument? Because it works. In this state, it is being used to try to rally urban voters against I-912, an initiative to repeal a recently passed increase in gas taxes. (For an unintentionally hilarious example of such appeals, see this article from a Seattle alternative paper, the Stranger.)
Do those making the argument believe it? Some do, I suppose, perhaps including Andrew Garber and Aldo Chan of the Seattle Times. But others, certainly including most professionals at Washington's Department of Transportation, must know that it is false.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(People in this area will be struck by the different ratios for the central Puget Sound counties (King, Pierce, Snohomish, Thurston, and Kitsap) and the other urban counties (Spokane, Clark, Yakima, Benton, Franklin, and Whatcom). If we were to take those ratios seriously — and I don't — we would conclude that it is the urban areas outside central Puget Sound that are being cheated. I don't conclude that from the data, for the reason I explained above, but it does seem like a question worth investigating, especially for the counties that are growing rapidly, such as Clark.)
Just To Be Clear: I see from the comments here that not everyone followed my indirect argument, so let me be a little more direct. First, the numerator in the ratio does not measure benefits to a particular county because federal and state roads are not used just by those who live in that county. The denominator does not measure the transportation taxes paid by residents of a particular county for much the same reason. So the ratio is meaningless. And I am certain that some of the professionals at the state's Department of Transportation know that it is meaningless. The ratio is a propaganda tool used by those who want to pit one group of voters against another.
Second, it is simply wrong even to try to apportion road benefits by county in this way because even those who never use roads in a particular county often benefit from those roads. If this point is still not obvious, imagine how high the food prices in Seattle would be if there were no roads from Seattle to rural areas. Or how much manufactured goods would cost in rural areas under the same scenario.
Posted by Jim Miller at July 25, 2005 10:02 AM | Email This"Eastern Washington can't even pay for its own roads without sucking off the rich tit of our urban tax base."
"...benefit only the bruised egos of a minority of rural Washingtonians who have minimal political clout, wimpy economic muscles, and a grudge against big cities."
"For those in the east to now begrudge us a bit of their money to fix two of the Puget Sound area's most vital arteries is simply ridiculous."
"So give up on Eastern Washington. We don't need them in order to win an initiative battle."
"Tell people that a vote against I-912 is a vote against a bunch of economic leeches in the east who don't seem to care about helping our cities remain functional."
Oh, but it isn't arrogance, according to the Stranger, just geogrpahy.
To quote from the article again: Bull$hit.
Again I argue, why not let us have our statehood???
Posted by: Felis Concolor on July 25, 2005 10:35 AMIn 2003 the transportation budget in Thurston was 25M
Of the revenues listed only about 6M comes from the state the rest is local property tax or federal (2M). Since we pay a ton of into the gas tax locally it looks like we get almost nothing returned on it.
if anyone wants to check that math.
Posted by: Andy on July 25, 2005 10:46 AMMy guess would be that King county is considerably above a 1.0 return, since not much of Snohomish county would be considered urban, and I don't see a lot of road projects in Pierce county when I drive through on occassion. Also wonder if this takes into account the new Tacoma Narrows bridge.
One must also consider that people in the more urban areas, travel through or have products shipped through the less urban counties.
Do I win a prize?
Posted by: Don on July 25, 2005 10:55 AMI hope that their sneering article receives wide dissemination in all counties outside their urban utopia. Way to go, Stranger!
Posted by: Shaun on July 25, 2005 11:09 AMOf course, now Judge Wickham should order The Stranger to report the "in-kind" contribution.
What a crazy state this is....
Posted by: Felis Concolor on July 25, 2005 11:14 AMNote that the cover sheet states that the total cost of a project affecting more than one county is shown in each county through which that project passes -- not broken down into pro rata shares by county. I think you're correct in wondering how they "allocated" the costs in their data. This pdf document wouldn't provide a sound basis for comparison among the counties.
Posted by: Micajah on July 25, 2005 11:20 AMGreat post! And great comments from Felis, Micajah, and Andy. It's just remarkable how so many people (the Slimes, Sims, et al) are so incapable of critical thinking.
My mom worked for a school principal who had the following posted on his wall behind his desk:
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Stupid can't be fixed."
Posted by: Danny on July 25, 2005 11:44 AMThat, I think, is why it uses that odd method of allocating money. Suppose there is a project that crosses the boundary of two counties and costs 10 million dollars. This method allows politicians in both counties to claim that they have gotten 20 million dollars for their constituents. Clever, but I am not sure how honest.
And here are three numbers from the document that jumped out at me: They expect to raise 7.2 billion dollars altogether, and spend 4 billion of that in projects wholly or partly in King county, and 2 billion on the Alaskan viaduct alone.
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 25, 2005 11:49 AMBut what do I know? I have wimpy economic muscles.
What a change of tone when "Big Business" defeats all the labor or other initatives the libs like. Then Big Business has all the connections, pulls all the strings, and thwarts the will of the people.
Consistency - you've got to love it!
Posted by: fred on July 25, 2005 12:25 PMThe biggest problem with any numbers you try to put together is the choice of time periods. I have seen past versions of the report used for the article. I believe that they are a 'moving' 20 year average of the spending. Thurston County sitll ranks high because the 'third' lane work through Lacey/Oly/Tumwater began in the late 1980's. A report 18 years ago showed numbers like Whatcom and the others. The previous 2-lane freeway was built by 1958 so those BIG dollars fell off the report before 1980.
I think the same issue is 'active in Clark, Whatcom, Yakima, & Tri-Cities. I-205, I-5 and I-82 were all finished before the 1984 begining date of this 20 year list.
Maybe the King County folks can remind us when I-90 was finished? No need. Google just told me that the old bridge sank in 1990 so most all of that HUGH I-90 construction expense is in this 20 year report too. (Wonder where they put all the legal fees for all the planning delays?)
DOT should probably move to at least a 30-year or longer window to show valid comparisons. 520 is a good example. It was finished 42 years ago. I would take three twenty year time periods (60 years) to show first construction and then the new changes.
Andy,
That is only the transportation money spent by Thurston County Government. Money spent on state roads, federal highways, city roads in Thurston County are not included in the county budget.
Posted by: Gary on July 25, 2005 12:27 PM
I have another suspicion, also...what would the numbers show for King County alone, or for Seattle alone?
THAT fact, at least, is clearly false from a look at the numbers.
And your story about the flour is true, but argues for why an emphasis on roads in the Puget Sound region IS important.
Goods from around Washington state have to be able to travel into the populous areas, to the major airports, to the Ports, etc.
If I-912 pases, the only solution to solving the transportation crisis is going to be some statewide version of Sound Transit's sub-area equity split of funds. And rural counties are in for a really rude awakening if they have to start funding all of their road projects with local taxes only.
Posted by: Michael on July 25, 2005 01:16 PMYou can go no where fast in Seattle w/out going on something the rest of us pay for.
Thurston has I-5 (a large overpass) and a couple of state hiways going through cow pastures. None of which are big ticket items relative to the tax base contributing.
The widening projects I've seen here were not complex relative to the population putting into them...in fact these projects have mostly been to the benefit of Portland and Seattle bound traffic. Olympia is not exactly a destination city and until the last year or two the traffic we put on I-5 was noise compared thru traffic- and now that population more than offsets the cost of cutting through a cow pasture.
There are no jobs or population south of exit 100- so where do you think all of this traffic is going to that we need to widen the road south of there?
Our rush hour lasts for about 15 minutes at 5:15. The gas tax is a King County boondoggle-
Posted by: Andy on July 25, 2005 01:33 PMCorrection: another solution if I-912 passes is that the legislature is forced to prioritize trasnportation spending higher than its current spending on making Washington a socialist utopia, and thus fix the roads (including replacing the viaduct) with the fat "income" it already has. With this possible outcome, enacting I-912 is exactly like starving out rats to end a bubonic plague.
I grew up in Olympia and remember the major widening project on I-5 there in the late 1980s. Thanks to dollars spent then (I'm sure they weren't all generated in Thurston County) Olympia now has a fairly easy commute. It just so happens that now other parts of the state have more urgent needs now.
As for the comment about I-5 south of Olympia, I don't know where all the people come from, but that is way to busy of a highway for only 2 lanes each direction. Try driving that on a summer Friday or Sunday afternoon when everyone and their RV and boat is on the road. And don't get me started on those stupid monuments between Chehalis and Kelso. They cause traffic jams by themselves sometimes. As someone who makes multiple trips per year from Clark County to the Seattle area, I was very happy for that 5 miles or so of additional three lane freeway south of Olympia.
Posted by: Scott on July 25, 2005 01:55 PMIf that's true, I know for a fact that certain areas of King and Snohomish counties are very rural. I assume there are areas of Pierce County that are rural as well, but I don't drive down there much.
So the comparison is a non-sequiter to begin with. The only fair way would be to compare rural areas to non rural areas, not rural areas to the three biggest counties, because there is a lot of rural areas in those counties.
Posted by: Cliff Smith on July 25, 2005 02:13 PMIt doesn't add up that a COUNTY can have a surplus for the hundreds of miles of roads in the area-which carry 95% of the local traffic while the state/federal roads serve as a money pit. The tax per mile driven on county road versus state/fed road just doesn't add up.
I've already paid for the roads I drive on with my property tax and then some via the existing gas tax and now you want me to pay for the road you drive on in Seattle too?
Brendan Williams wanted money to "study" that pig pile over capital lake- not really DO anything. But go figure- 70% of his campaign money is NOT from Thurston county.
(That should make everybody involved equally mad!)
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 25, 2005 02:43 PMInteresting analysis. I would assume that the Returns for Snohomish, King and Pierce are basically the same, otherwise it makes no sense to group them together.
However, on the other hand, you are making a similar error in discounting the tax dollars collected/tax dollars return formula. Are you saying that all those cars driving through Adams county don't stop at Ritzville for gas? Or, for that matter, that the residents of Adams county never go to Spokane or Seattle?
I guess one could devise a formula based upon total lane miles per county, residents, and number of vehicle miles driven, but I would tend to guess that this number ends up similar to the base number of transportation revenue collected to transportation revenue spent.
And it makes sense that it will cost more on a per capita basis for the roads in smaller counties, especially the big ones on the East side. However, I do believe that all the residents of the state get a benefit from them, since those roads allow the wheat, hops, cherries and apples to make their way to the West side ports and on to the markets, keeping everyone happy. However, it works both ways. Adams county benefits by improvements to 520 and other "Seattle" projects that help cut shipping time just as much as a person commuting from Seattle to the East side does.
Posted by: JDB on July 25, 2005 03:44 PMMy beef about the taxes isn't about a 1:1 proportionality between the counties, but on how wisely the money is actually spent - are we getting the most bang for the buck? I don't think so.
Posted by: SouthernRoots on July 25, 2005 04:42 PMRebuttal 1) Even though not all the traffic on I-90 through Adams county is generated by the population of Adams county, the residents of Adams county still get a greater benefit PER CAPITA from I-90 than those living in Seattle. Ask one of the wheat farmers if he'd like to give up the freeway for a small cut in his gas tax.
Rebuttal 2) Your barista example was hilarious. I'm sure you see that people living in rural areas also gain a greater benefit PER CAPITA from roads leading from the urban areas where things are made and transported to the country, than do residents of the more urban areas.
Your examples disproved your rebuttals. Better luck next time!
Rocky
Posted by: Rocky on July 25, 2005 04:55 PMSo no, we don't give a rip about 520 or the Viaduct.
I like JDB's idea about per capita basis. All we would need is everyone in Whitman County to buy 24 gallons of gas (approx. 1 million gallons) to pay off our "big" share of these new projects. Can we then opt out? Seems fair, doesn't it?
Posted by: Felis Concolor on July 25, 2005 05:05 PMIf there is one thing my pappy ever taught me, it is not to get into a fight with a WSU grad over wheat. You are right, most of the grains are shipped via rail or barge. I'm sure there are some specialty crops that put a lie to that, but for 98% of the products, you are right.
But, do you really want to say that Pullman doesn't benefit by having good roads? I know when I was over last year for a glorious football game in late Novemeber, it makes that drive back much better with the extra lane out of Vanatage. And I dropped a C-note on beer alone during the pregame. That has to help your economy.
Posted by: JDB on July 25, 2005 05:19 PMI think that is why people are so angry over here about the gas tax. Olympia couldn't even be bothered to pick out a good bone to throw us. The state is spending more money to improve fish passage barriers and bike paths than on us. Just like the Stranger article, this new gas tax smacks of Seattle imperialism.
Posted by: Felis Concolor on July 25, 2005 05:32 PMIt's been a while, but I did grow up on the other side of the Cascades from Seattle and know something about the transport of farm products from direct experience.
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 25, 2005 05:38 PMBill H
Eli,
You need to get out of the Seattle echo chamber sometime. Your thoughts may very well reflect the thoughts in uber-blue Seattle, but they don't reflect the thoughts on the Eastside (and I mean the Eastside of Lake Washington, not the Eastside of the state!). You should find out how many of the I 912 signatures came from Western Washington vs from Eastern Washington. I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of those 420,000 signatures came from the Puget Sound area, not from the Eastern Washington that you rail against.
So, while your idea may work in Seattle proper, it won't work elsewhere in King County (or in Pierce or Snohomish either). Unfortunately for you, Seattle only represents about 1/3 of King County, so even if you get 80% against the initiative in Seattle, it won't be enough to defeat it with the popular support it has everywhere else outside of Seattle. The rest of Western Washington is not at all in lockstep with Seattle, and will not be on this issue. I'm sure this will just make you more angry, but get used to it--you're going to have more things to make you angry with the 2006 and 2008 elections, when a lot of the true blue politicians get tossed out of office.
Posted by: Bill H on July 25, 2005 06:35 PMJDB,
It helps our economy unless you were driving after drinking that C-note worth of beer.
Stated another way, for every 9.5 cents we pay per gallon in Spokane, just over 9.2 cents will go somewhere else. This is a good deal?
In still another way, we get back just under 3% but account for 7% of the State's population. Yep, sounds like a great deal.
So why should us folks be in favor of the 9.5 cents gas tax? Am I missing something?
Posted by: Ed on July 25, 2005 07:54 PMThese numbers mean that (1) the urban areas of Bellingham, Spokane, Vancouver, Yakima, and Tri-Cities are heavily subsidizing the rural areas and (2) King/Pierce/Snohomish County is breaking even and (3) there is a little subsidy for the Olympia area.
If you ran the numbers for how the 9.5 cent increase will be spent, it would be quite different: (a) about $2.00 return for King County, (b) maybe 70 or 75 cents for Pierce and Snohomish, if that much, and (c) some eastern and/or rural counties at least than 10 cents.
Posted by: Richard Pope on July 25, 2005 09:51 PM
http://josef-a-k.blogspot.com/
I'll Be Gone Hiking But...
Martin Ringhofer will be on KVI Tue 7/26, 7-7:30AM to talk up I-343. Probably helps w/ THIS news today from King County Councilor (for the 39 Counties) Reagan Dunn putting a hot [word poke er edited by software] in Dean Logan's a** to kick off the illegals.
You can get KVI streaming from a link HERE!
posted by Josef @ 3:21 PM 0 comments
Councilor Reagan Dunn: Get Off Your A** Dean Logan
Got this from my source M today:
July 25, 2005
Dean Logan
Director
King County Elections
500 4th Ave, Room 553
Seattle, WA 98104
Dear Mr. Logan:
Due to the recent inconsistencies in King County Elections, I request that you do your best to purge the voter lists of non-citizen voters. It has been brought to our attention that there may be non-citizens who have registered to vote in King County when applying for driver's licenses or social services. These names must be removed from the voter lists.
I know that your office is unable to investigate the citizenship status of registered voters without a formal voter registration challenge being made by another registered voter. Because of this, I would ask you to please contact Citizenship and Immigration Service (CIS) and request that they help you purge King County voter registrations.
The CIS database may be a source that would help the county identify non-citizens who are registered to vote. Thurston County has asked CIS to help them clean their voter lists and King County should do the same. We must make sure that our elections are honest and only citizens are allowed to vote. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
[SIGNATURE]
Reagan Dunn
You have to be kidding me! Jim, you can make fun of Seattle baristas all day long, but it doesn't change the fact that most eastside towns benefit disproportionately from the presence of the major highways. After all, where do you think all of that cheap Wal-Mart crap comes from? Wenatchee?
Face it, Jim: every time you purchase a new set of Yosemite Sam mudflaps for your gas-guzzling pickup truck, you benefit from the presence of the state and interstate highways that make a modern rural lifestyle possible. You could get rid of the east-west highways tomorrow, and while we'd be hurt in the sound, we'd survive -- we have the ports, the manufacturing and the bulk of the state's economic activity. Meanwhile, you east-siders would have to figure out how to make cheap clothing out of corn husks pretty damn quickly, wouldn't you?
Posted by: A Moderate on July 26, 2005 01:15 AMOh, and nice attempt at a simple-minded Us vs. Them division.
Pogo said it best: "We have met the enemy, and it is you!"
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 26, 2005 10:02 AMAnd our "cheap Wal-Mart crap" comes up from a warehouse in Hermiston, Oregon.
You could get rid of the east-west highways tomorrow and we'd be ecstatic. They don't deliver the Seattle Times east of the Columbia River anymore. Now if we could only jam the Seattle TV and radio stations, we could pretend you moonbats didn't even exist.
On the other hand, to address your ridiculous statement that "we have the ports, the manufacturing and the bulk of the state's economic activity. Meanwhile, you east-siders would have to figure out how to make cheap clothing out of corn husks pretty damn quickly, wouldn't you?"
According to the Washington OFM, Washington ranks first in the U.S. in production of Hops, Spearmint Oil, Wrinkled Seed Peas, Lentils, Peppermint Oil, Apples, Concord Grapes, Sweet Cherries, Tart Cherries, Pears, Processing Carrots, Processing Sweet Corn, and Red Raspberries, second in the U.S. in fall potatoes, dry edible peas, processing green peas, apricots, asparagus, and all grapes, and third in wheat, prunes and plums, and dry summer onions (I'm sure I have missed something).
I guess you west-siders would have to figure out how to grow you own over there (and I don't mean sensimilla), huh?
92% of our Palouse grown wheat is shipped via Columbia River ports. So much for the Port of Seattle.
Oh yeah, agriculture represented $5.6 billion of the Washington economy in 2002. Not bad for a bunch of podunks.
Posted by: Felis Concolor on July 26, 2005 10:57 AMNo. They make the Chinese use the Safeway parking lot in Umatilla....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 26, 2005 12:02 PMOkay, look you pinhead liberals out there, we don't need any new roads, and we sure as heck don't need your lousy 9 and a half cent gas tax.
John and Kirby say we can do without the viaduct and 520, and doggone, it, I believe them.
So you pointy headed liberals can just take your commie hybrid cars and your pinko bicycles and run them into Green Lake for all we care.
All us right-thinking american washingtonians are gonna rub your latte-drinking faces in it come election time.
NO NEW ROADS!!!
ROCKET
Posted by: Rocket on July 26, 2005 07:05 PMAbout every 5th vehicle Southbound was a tractor. Mostly sleeper tractors at that. Only 8 times during the 10 mile count did I count more than 10 cars passing w/out a tractor.
So much for the local economies being dependent on that interstate.
Face it- the purpose of the state and federal transportation system is not to connect small communitities to one another- it's to connect one metropolis to another one. The fact that you can't do that w/out mowing through a lot of cow pastures along the way does not obligate the cows, pigs and sheep to fund it. Let it run down and the cow and pig economy will be the last to notice.
Posted by: Andy on July 26, 2005 08:34 PMIn addition to that, note that Spokane is the only city with 100,000+ residents (unless you count the Tri-Cities as one population group) east of the Cascades and not even Spokane is urban in the same way that cities in the greater Seattle metroplex are. (For example, it's much more likely, on average, that a resident of those four counties will drive to work or home on a bad road than a resident of the metroplex.) As such, the fact that the ratio is lower for the four eastern counties mentioned specifically than it is for King, Pierce, Snohomish, Kitsap and Thurston certainly deserves mention. Grouping them all together is, in fact, a joke. The ratios in those western counties would go even higher if the much, much smaller counties weren't getting more than they paid. King, etc. might even break even.
It looks to me like the metroplex is still being supported by the questionably urban counties and if not that, then it's certainly not pulling the rest of the state up with it like it should. Add Clark and Whatcom to the eastern counties and it appears that the metroplex isn’t even pulling its own weight.
And for those who are still awake...here's more: The above arguments don't even mention the fact that, all other things being equal, a higher gas tax is a disincentive for businesses to locate within Washington state, or the fact that a gas tax is somewhat regressive since most of the jobs are in the urban areas while the most affordable living conditions are outside them. Thus, people with higher incomes, baristas probably excluded, can afford to locate within cities and avoid driving, or at least drive less, while people with lower incomes cannot. Furthermore, people who drive for a living (not high wage earners as a rule) are hurt by higher gas taxes in the form of even lower wages.
Higher taxes are bad almost without exception (I can’t think of an exception but I’m willing to allow for the possibility that there is one) but regressive taxes (including gas and cigarettes, to name two) are the worst. The higher incomes should also be concerned about higher taxes because Washington is already highly unfriendly to business (wasn't the Boeing HQ on Marginal Way not too long ago) and all jobs, like it or not, depend on business.
Yeah! What do cows, sheep and pigs need with freeways? They can't even drive!
Paved roads are for punks and commies and pinkos. I don't neeed paved roads. I got a four-by and a shotgun, and believe me, I can go just about any dang place I want. Paved roads? They're just for those Seattle yuppies like that dang Bill Gates.
Same with HOV lanes and handicapped parking. They're just commie plots to rob us of our freedom.
John and Kirby have it right! The sooner Seattle goes under, the better!
I supported No New Roads.com and dang it, I'm gonna vote for the No New Roads initiative in September!
Ok all you other God-fearing, real American Washingtonians!
No New Roads for ever!!!!
Rocket
Posted by: Rocket on July 27, 2005 07:45 AMI know all of us on SP lack the fancy book learning of them urbanites parked on the 520 to get to their cubicle at 8:00 am and then again at 5:00 to get to their half million dollar home with a 5 ft yard in the cozy little subdivision, but Seattle might not go under if it financed its own transportation infrastructure.
Why my backwoods trip to the grocery store should finance a gigantic sea wall confounds any schooling I've got.
Excepten for the possibility it might make it faster for a Seattle horse sodomite to meet his date with destiny- there ain't much in it for the red part of the state.
Posted by: Andy on July 27, 2005 08:18 AMTry advocating for a position instead of pretending something that you can't possibly pull off - it just makes you look stupid and liberal (but I repeat myself)....
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 27, 2005 08:50 AMI’m so sick and tired of these dang Seattle liberal yuppies and their fancy paved roads. They think they’re so hot with their fancy hybrid cars and full sets of teeth! Take away their fancy store-bought clothes, fancy store-bought haircuts, knock out a couple a teeth and what have you got? Good God-Fearing American Washingtonians!
My daddy married his sister and it didn’t effect me none!!!
Come on you real American Washingtonians! Stand Up Sit Down! Support No New Roads in September!!!
No New Roads forever!!!
Rocket
Posted by: Rocket on July 27, 2005 09:28 AMAs for the original comment that people say things like this because they "work" that's bunk. They say them because they are true. Maybe not true as in death & taxes certainty, but there is a large degree of truth to it. The rural parts of the state benefit hugely from the economic power of the Seattle-Metro area, it's undeniable and anyone who thinks otherwise is just dumb. The larger problem is that the big cities in thier self-centerdness haven't figured out a way to make that benefit even remotely mutual.
Posted by: Chokai on July 27, 2005 09:39 AMNow we know why it can't stay focused for more than a moment......
Posted by: alphabet soup on July 27, 2005 09:58 AMWhen I was a kid stump training heffers out in the back forty, there wasn’t a freeway within fifty miles and we got along just fine. Now these dang Seattle liberal commie pinkos want to run their fancy paved roads all over our land, violating our constitutionally guaranteed right to stump train heffers in private!
I was down in my basement this morning, behind the furnace, drinking, and it came to me how all us God Fearing American Washingtonians can fight these dang Seattle liberals with their fancy cubicles which they drive to every morning in their fancy hybrid cars.
I’m talking about a boycott! Let ‘em pass their fancy nine and half cent gas tax. We just won’t buy gas!
That’ll show ‘em!
Stand Up Sit Down, support the No New Roads initiative in September!!!!
No New Roads forever!!!!
"The rural parts of the state benefit hugely from the economic power of the Seattle-Metro area, it's undeniable and anyone who thinks otherwise is just dumb."
- no I've got an MBA with a strong background in economics. Unless you taught the course on economics- your pants are pretty much down. Since an economics professor would not likely call anyone disagreeing with them as dumb, I doubt that you are qualified to make that statement. Outside of elections Seattle and KC problems are the pain of Seattle and KC- so stop asking us to subsidize your floating city in the clouds.
The time urbanites spend sitting in traffic does not impact the rest of the state...a major disruption in Seattle traffic is an inconvenience for Seattle and urban sprawling commuters. If the converse were true- every local yokal would be tripping over themselves to back a tax to give Pugetopolis the best roads money can buy. In fact- because of the mess up there- a lot of talent moves elsewhere---so really clogging your roadways and taxing the hell out of businesses causes them to look at other venues.
When you have to do a Kevin Bacon analysis on a commodity or job in Yelm or Yakima being impacted by crappy Seattle roads, you should bring the smoke machine and a good supply of mirrors because it just doesn't hold water.
As per the rocket dribble- the first one was a bit humorous- the second annoying, and now I really hope Stephan considers and IP block.
Posted by: Andy on July 27, 2005 01:48 PMjdb sure has become sedate there hasn't he? Notice his careful grammar and spelling?
Getting his silly ass kicked by me straightened his act up a little. Won't last.
Of course I'm not making an *argueyment* here just an observation, but I notice jdb is confident
that grouping data for King, Pierce, and Snohomish counties makes sense because he,"would
assume that the Returns for Snohomish, King and Pierce are basically the same, otherwise it
makes no sense to group them together."
What assumption do you suppose jdb would make to statistically compare Snohomish County
in terms of transportation with King County? Do you suppose it ever occurred to him that
assumptions like this are only made by fools?
*biteme/jdb lingo
My personal thought on this is people tend to do this when you really rattle thier cage by pointing out something that is incompatible with what they want/believe.
I doubt Stephan would be so impolite or shortsighted, although it is obviously his perogative.
Try to make sense would you?
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 27, 2005 04:54 PMI've backed my claims up with plenty of perspectives of how the rest of washington is quite independent of Seattle's transportation mire and that local economies really aren't all that dependent on what happens in Seattle/KC.
A healthy economy in Pugetopolis is certainly not a bad thing- and there is no argument it's a big economy- it's just not the hand that feeds the rest of the state which is the assertion liberals are trying to make with these numbers-which were finely crafted to try and sell that idea.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with the internet flaming- you've been caught pants down waving an urban elitist attitude - either you KNOW what the touch points of the state economy are or your talking out your ear because the rest of aren't going to finance Sims City? Which is it?
If I'm full of crap- show me with some cogent examples of how the economy of Yelm, Yakima or Spokane topple if the KC transportation mire gets worse or isn't fixed with tolls on the big ticket items.
Posted by: Andy on July 27, 2005 05:31 PMAnd if I make a make a point that applies to both roads in Washington state and comments here, this is not a zero sum game. There are roads that can benefit all of us, regardless of where we live.
And the same, I think, is true of the comments here. If people -- even people who disgree with each other greatly -- try to be reasonably civil in their comments, we will all come out ahead. And if you must insult each other personally, do it in private email, not comments on this site.
Posted by: Jim Miller on July 27, 2005 06:13 PMDon't ask, he might tell you.
Posted by: Amused by liberals on July 27, 2005 07:42 PMI find your assertion that W.Wa is not the hand that feeds the state interesting. Because I have never seen numbers to prove otherwise. I see some interpretation of incomplete data provided in this thread. And some assertions, such as I90 is a disproportionate amount of small E.WA counties tax share.
As for the benefit of the 'independence' of the rest of the state from Pugetopolis (I like that btw.) I assume you live in or near Thurston county based on a previous post, Thurston's DOT "revenues" were $22M. The got $7.8M from intergov (state or federal). About 35%. Major problem here though, Thurston counties budget doesn't break out thier "tax" revenue by property and sales in thier consolidated statements, simply lumping it as tax. Given that like 6.5 of the sales tax goes to the state and that neither statement says if that is included in the "intergovernmental" category or in the general tax category that makes it very hard to determine your true tax flow level to any county should they chose not to breakout thier statements in the manner we want.
King County's capital DOT budget (2001) was $108M. $29M came intergovernmental. The rest came from taxes, interest income and the ever present Misc was $5M. Just for safety sake lets add the $5M misc to the $29M in grants (intergov). In the end we get to about 32%, with the same sales tax problem as with Thurston. But in the end I'm gonna call that about equal. Of course as someone already observed both these statements exclude state expenditures on the highways. Although I do feel an initiative coming on to mandate a standard budget form for Washington counties that actually makes sense. The very small counties seem to generally lack effective online budget information of this detail.
As for how E.WA benefits from W.Wa. Start searching through you residence. If it isn't made in USA it probably came through the port of Seattle. (or perhaps LGB or LAX, they handle 40% of all US ocean freight). In a modern port operation there isn't enough room to unload more than one or two ships, especially with 8,000 container ships coming online. Can't move the goods quickly cause a bridge fell down? To bad we now can't unload the next ship. Your local store runs out of item x, and raises prices to offset the uncertainty and take advantage of the tight supply. (Microeconomics which I'm sure you studied.) Economic collapse directly, no? A slow erosion of your buying power as a consumer and a gradual decline in your quality of life. Yup. Possibly quite severely if the situation is allowed to persist. Personally I value having the highest quality of life of pretty much any country on the planet, but your desires may vary.
Since you asked for a speciflc example though I will play your game and respond to your previous"I have an MBA so I must know best tantrum". Through my career (global logistics) I know of a particular company (cannot say for obvious reasons) for whom a 2 hour delay costs them $40,000+, a sizeable amount given thier size. A fair share of what this company manufactures (parts for trucks & equipment) flows to rural America for use on farms, including E.Wa. (Now to be honest this business is in SoCal but as I am sure we all know there are similar examples of companies in W.Wa or anywhere else for that matter.) Of course this is an evil urban elite liberal example no doubt.
Posted by: chokai on July 27, 2005 08:55 PMRocket,
Forget I asked. I don't want to know.
And yeah I will admit I like that climbing lane out of Vantage. I don't end up stuck behind idiot under powerered motorhomes trying to pass trucks anymore.
Posted by: Chokai on July 27, 2005 10:12 PMWell, I've been thrown off this site. But I'd like to leave you all with this thought:
"When a genius walks the earth, he will be known by this sign: A confideracy of dunces will rise up against him."
So long suckers.
Rocket
Posted by: Rocket on July 27, 2005 10:28 PMNot to mention that every truck rolling commodities into these rural counties already pays gas tax getting the goods there in the first place, mostly over roads that are NOT on the gas tax increase list of projects. So I'm not sure what point you were attempting to make on that one.
On a macro/micro economic scale- Interesting you've expanded "Seattle-Metro" to include all of western washington.
Ports have shut down before (thanks to unions)- while inconvenient if I want to buy a wrist watch, DVD player or a Kia- costco, target, walmart, schucks, napa, Freightliner, Intel, HP and countless others aren't stupid- they know how to adapt and did so rather seemlessly the last time this happened. Suffice to say, prices did not go up on any commodity as though OPEC cut off our energy supply. In fact shut down Seattle and goods start heading to Spokane via I-84/PDX w/in a week.
Again- Seattle/KC, while a big economy, is not the hand that feeds the state. Washington's economy is pretty diverse- which is why no single touch point grinds us to a halt. This is why Boeing leaving or the impact of the estate tax is tough- but the majority of us are not going to have to work at Walmart because of it. King county grinding to a halt will impact about 1/3 of the state...which happens to be an approximation of the population of King county.
Ever notice everything is more expensive in King County/Seattle- there's your erosion of buying power and why I choose not to live there. In fact I wonder how long until Seattle starts to get the San Jose or NY effect...no way in hell I'll relocate to either place because my dollar buys nothing.
Nah- the answer is that the DOT and Olympia can get their collective acts together and stop screwing us on these boondoggles. That would be a pretty good way to see these transportation projects happen.
Posted by: Andy on July 27, 2005 11:32 PMAs for your I84/PDX idea. I like that, it's funny. You do realize that PDX handles 1/8th the freight of the Port of Seattle and Tacoma (which are nearly identical in size) and cannot dock many of the largest ships now in use on the westcoast(unless they have recently fixed, but that would require dredging the river to over 40ft deep). So you want to supply the entire region as well as fulfilling the further inland needs on 1/4 possibly as little as 1/8th of the container capacity and 1/4 of the bulk capacity and at which many ships cannot dock to boot.? Side note, who the heck is gonna ship it to Spokane, when if you can get it there you can get way more money for it in Seattle anyways. Don't get me wrong, I like Portland it's a great city, but yeah um good luck with that idea.
Amusing. When I travel to E. Wa I marvel at the price of basic goods, even with the lower sales taxes. Even the all mighty Costco is slightly more expensive. Aside from real estate, some bulk food items (not useful to a bachelor), insurance and a few other odds and ends in my experience nearly everything I care about is more expensive in rural areas as it is largely further away from where it is made and the location of the large distribution structures. This is probably due to the larger buying power of the metro areas though. But it's also the reason why members of my family come into the metro area to shop, and not just to go to a specialty store for some unusual item.
Sadly in my view the DOT now largely has it's act together, but it keeps getting the rug pulled out from underneath it by shortsightedness on the part of the voters every time it finally gets started on something.
Posted by: Chokai on July 28, 2005 12:36 AMTrue or False- the DOT runs performance audits on itself at least as regularly as a business with similar budget. Name for me even one cost efficient organization with a budget that size that doesn't regularly and aggressively audit itself?
add to your list of other crap that is more expensive in Seattle
-a dinner out
-gas
-a hair cut
-a car - and the tabs
-Every single repair on a car(we just did a comparison and there's about a 40 dollar difference on getting your windshield fixed)
-meat/produce
-water/sewer.
-insurance on everything.
-a movie
-average cost of gym membership.
What happened to all of this gain from being close to the port? Did the awning tax swallow it?
As per economies- SW Washington is largely dependent on PDX. Goods can and will be shipped through other venues when/if Seattle becomes unviable- in fact the ports and economies of Tacoma and Olympia will welcome helping to pick up the slack and we'll gladly put your giant cargo ship theory to the test when it becomes the barrier of getting goods to market.
The only ones buying Seattle being the center of the universe are the ones living in Seattle.
I'll say it again- bring a better smoke and mirror machine and lots of kool aid next time.
Posted by: Andy on July 28, 2005 09:44 AMI agree with your reference to the shortsightedness of the voters. Too many of them chose liberal Democrats to lead the state of Washington out of a mild economic squeeze into a major one. "Getting started" on ill conceived projects that pretend to "do something" about transportation instead of actually doing something productive is begging for economic disaster. Many are fooled into the idea that doing something . . . anything is better than doing nothing - bullshit. If you cannot do good, don't do harm.
We need to replace the result of destructive policies like unlimited carpool lanes and "regional hub" style social engineering without practical rationale, and uncoordinated regional transportation plans that have no potential of solving regional transportation problems. A political criteria based on enviro-wacko liberal preferences and payoffs to inner city political supporters rather than actual solutions to problems is the cause-not the cure- for the interests of the public at large.
People like Rocky "No New Roads.silly" (in his not so clever way) perpetrate a contention that the recent gas tax hike is justified even though it was instituted to fund projects that are wholly undefined. In effect it is a blank check for "road projects" uncertain. What Rocky and his ilk refuse to do is acknowledge that the proceeds of the tax hike in its literal form are not required to be used for any road project, and given it's proponents best possible good faith (right, you bet), they are not tied to any road project (Alaskan Way Viaduct) that has any potential of solving any transportation problems. Only phony and baseless justifications about safety.
Lawyers love people like Rocky, he keeps them in business.
Liberal choices made in the past led us to this point and are only being compounded by new and aggravated liberal choices using faulty criteria for the wrong reasons. Like it or not, nothing they do will succeed simply because they are wrong.
I completely forgot a couple of good ones
-the cost to park my car when I go out/or work or even go to lunch. In Seattle, my purchasing power has eroded by a couple of bucks before I even look at the menu!
-the cost to put my garbage and recyclables to the curb each week.
If you could bring something to the plate besides lacing every other comment with a snide remark about "liberals" you'd find you might actually get respect from them and they might listen to you. As a someone trending center right on most issues other than transportation/logistics (probably a reflection of my career's reliance on it to be honest) to me you are an amusement. The minute you open your mouth on this topic the only thing that comes out is a regurgitation of a bunch of stuff you heard but don't understand or refuse to acknowledge, or was just plain wrong in the first place. When I see you post again about something you actually do know I will be glad to bow to your apparently all mightly godlike knowledge.
Posted by: Chokai on July 28, 2005 11:53 AMNot too compelling- even less compelling when you consider that the smart folks at the fortune 500 companies that serve these rural markets KNOW how to overcome/work around a union strike at the docks- which is more of a bottle neck to shipping than the viaduct falling.
Next- Besides a gajillion contingency plans to port dependence or a freeway closure- most of these economies provide and sustain their own jobs- none of which depend on jack from Seattle.
Lastly- Seattle's viability as a port is pretty much dead without the interstates heading east and west. While the Rural areas can pretty much work out their own contingency plans to get the goods on shelves-afterall how many boxes of Cheerios does Omak really consume- the flipside is that if those interstates don't push traffic like water through a firehose- well you may as well have a strike down at the docks--cuz nobody's shipping to a dead end port.
So asking the rural areas to fund those interstate get's even less compelling when you consider the cost of inaction- which the voters have in fact done.
I don't think I've been less than open minded- I've said all through here that KC is a big economy- but when/if that economy dies or languishes- the damage is mostly in KC- arrogance is placing KC as the hand that feeds the state- which it isn't.
Posted by: Andy on July 28, 2005 12:43 PMThe bait here was calling opposing the perspective as "dumb." On the same side of that fence is your buddy Rocket who has since been banned.
To your credit- you did step up to the plate to present an argument worthy of 80+ comment thread when called to the task. The legislature could take some notes from this thread- and it's this level of debate that makes SP is the most worth while reading in political commentary in the first place.
I bow to your all might godlike knowledge and admit that I must be completely wrong despite the numerous examples I provided. It's the only POSSIBLE explanation.
I stopped counting at 7.
Posted by: chokai on July 28, 2005 03:43 PMIt's too bad that you are so caught up with "winning" an argument instead of having a dialogue. You still might not "win", but you would likely have more fun.
You started with a silly premise (a sort of an attractive nuisance) about one region of the state holding some sort of superior economic power independent from other regions. In order to support your premise one has to follow your "logic" like a camel through the eye of an needle, or admit to being dumb.
Jeesh! Talk about your fallacy of false choices!
You offer up anecdotal "evidence" to support your assertion, and Andy responds in kind. Although I liked Andy's evidence better (made more sense), I will admit that neither perspective ran the risk of being referred to as "scientific". But you "lose" because you resort to whining about Andy's "apparently all mightly godlike knowledge".Waaaaa!
Oh no! you aren't done!
"It's the only POSSIBLE explanation. I stopped counting at 7."
Well, at least biteme/jdb could count to 20......
kiddo
Who are you trying to fool?
You know only what you have convinced yourself after deciding to blindly defend a concept that is currently utterly failing to achieve it's own anticipated goals.
Go back and review Econ 101, and leave the farcical liberal distortions of facts to liberals . . unless as I suspect, you are one. In that case, I fully understand.
Posted by: mused by liberals on August 2, 2005 08:40 AM