Cars from the Past

With the pending demise of Chrysler and GM, a little nostalgia is in order. Enjoy these photos of American land yachts and dinghies from the heyday of chrome and fins.

Click on: CARS

Airlines Deal with the Oil Crisis

Fuel costs really have the airlines in a bind. To cut costs, they have proposed numerous changes. Flying slower, reducing fuel loads, carrying less water and installing lighter seats are measures already implemented. None of these changes directly affect airline customers but there are others that do. Routes and number of flights have been cut. Use frequent flyer points, cancel or change an itinerary, check an overweight bag, order a Coke and expect to pay. For the most part, these are minor annoyances. People deal with rising gas prices every day and they know the airlines are affected too. But a recent fee imposed by United and American has pushed folks over the edge. These airlines, no doubt soon to be followed by others, are going to charge $15 for the first checked bag. On a round trip, that is equivalent to a $30 fair increase. Worse, to avoid the fee, people will carry on more suitcases, cramming the overhead bins with the excess going under seats. And you thought legroom was a problem now. Class envy will increase because business and first class passengers are exempt. Add this to the security hassles and people will not fly. Conduct business meetings, see the new grandchild, they can be done on the Internet. Vacations can be closer to home. Amtrak, the Grey Dog or even driving starts to look attractive. Why don’t the airlines simply impose a fuel surcharge? They can make a reasonable case for the need and people will see it as necessary. A surcharge is simple, transparent and less likely to tic off customers. Of course, if fuel costs go down so will the fuel surcharge. Those other fees, however, would probably remain. Clever little devils, those airlines, aren’t they.

Is Light Rail Too Heavy?

Before taxpayers opt for more light rail, before we compromise the I-90 floating bridge by adding trains, before we abandon the bus option, we all need to take a pause and read the Washington Policy Center’s study of the six existing light rail systems on the West coast. This is the summary but the full report is also on line in pdf. With a $15 billion transportation infrastructure bill (and that’s just Dino Rossi’s plan) coming down the road, we all need to think very carefully before we commit to more light rail than we are already saddled with. And what if the Gregoire/Sims/Nichols Axis has their way? Fifteen billion would be chump change. Guess who would be the chumps?

Prop 1 – Roads and Transit – A Loser. What to do next?

Do It Again in 2008

With the likely defeat of Proposition 1 –Roads and Transit (even the Sierra Club and King County Executive Ron “Better Late Than Never” Sims oppose it), it is time to immediately prepare a revised submittal for the 2008 ballot. This time, instead of trying to force voters to accept an all or nothing approach, break the proposal into several separate ballot propositions. In the ballot titles, include best estimates of cost and funding sources. For example, a ballot title for a new 520 bridge might be worded as follows:

Shall the 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge be replaced with a new six lane bridge with improved connection to I-5? The estimated cost is $5 billion. Funding will be $2 billion from existing Federal and State highway taxes, $1.2 billion from a .007 cent increase in the sales tax (up from 8.8% to 9.5%), $0.8 billion increase in car taxes and $1 billion in tolls.

Separate propositions for roads, major bridges, light rail to Northgate, light rail to the Eastside etc. will give voters clear choices. Supporters would be able to make their case for each project unencumbered by baggage from other projects.

wep

Prop 1 Roads & Transit

Prop 1 comes to us courtesy of the Washington State Legislature (RCW) which required both roads and transit proposals to be combined in one referendum, specified activities and funding sources allowed and required a report (Roads & Transit Pamphlet) to voters prior to the election. Therein lie the seeds of defeat, for in order to support transit, one has to swallow roads and vice versa. Additionally, since Prop 1 covers the major population centers from south of Tacoma to north of Everett, in order to garner support, every area covered by Sound Transit (ST) and the Regional Transportation Investment District (RTID) has to get something desired locally. The result is too many projects for the funds available. One example from the Roads & Transit Pamphlet is under the RTID Blueprint for Progress section, item number 11 on the SR 520 Evergreen Point Floating Bridge. It states, “Provide funds to replace earthquake- and windstorm-vulnerable bridge …” The truth is, however, Prop 1 only gets the project pregnant. More money would have to be found, such as tolls (Bridge Funding Sources) to actually complete the bridge replacement.

There is extensive reporting on Prop 1 in the Sunday, October 14th Seattle Times including an editorial opposing Prop 1.

If not Prop 1, then what? My thoughts on this later this week.

 wep