Letters to the Editor

Cell-Phone Users Need to Hang Up and Drive

To the Editor:

A few months ago, after a near head-on collision with a distracted cell-phone driver who drifted into my lane, I posted a sign saying, "Hang up and drive!" on the front and rear of my van. I've been studiously noting the reaction in traffic to the signs, and have identified four particular categories of individuals who frequently give me a smile and "thumbs up." They are: school bus drivers, highway workers, pedestrians and "driver safety" instructors.

The real surprise, though, has been the response from SUV owners, particularly on the east side. After driving up really close behind me, presumably to better read the sign, they often pull alongside and offer a salute which tells me "You're number one!" Go figure...

David Arntuffus

Paving Companies Sponsor, Profit From I-745

Dear Editor,

Is the asphalt paving industry completely shameless?

They spent over $500,000 for paid signature collectors to put Initiative 745 on the ballot and they don't seem to understand why people are outraged.

Asphalt Paving Association vice president David Spivey told the Seattle Times, "We felt if we hadn't helped, it would have been difficult to get (I-745) on the ballot."

Like, duh, Mr. Spivey. It's supposed to be difficult. It is astonishing to me that we allow the initiative process to be corrupted by special interests like the asphalt pavers. As Spivey admits, they basically bought space on the ballot for a misleading initiative designed to put more taxpayer dollars in their pockets.

I personally witnessed the prevarications of the paid signature collectors hired by the pavers. I heard them tell potential signers that the measure would help roads and would not take funds away from public transportation. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you.

In fact, Initiative 745 mandates a minimum 50 percent cut in the share of transportation funding that goes to transportation choices like buses, rail and passenger ferries. We need better roads, but cutting public transportation in order to fund roads is like cutting off your nose to spite your face. It is certainly the wrong way to solve our traffic mess--unless you happen to own an asphalt paving company.

Thank you,

Marc Auerbach

Widening Roads Makes More Congestion, Not Less

To the Editor:

Has anyone addressed the issue of the immediate effect of the passage of I-745? The people of the Puget Sound will feel it soon after passage. Such as the buses will immediately stop carrying folks in February and more in June. Now, can they build ENOUGH roads to accommodate the people who will be on the roads?

Another example [is familiar to] anyone who lived in the South end, such as Puyallup, Bonney Lake, and Graham in the last 16 years. Do you remember that State Route 167 was a two-lane road (one lane in each direction)? They built another lane, making it a four-lane road. As soon as it was built, it was saturated to more than 100 percent of capacity. They have since built even more lanes, and it is still saturated, and this even includes an HOV lane. All this in the last 16 years. What makes any of us think for one minute that "road improvement" to handle the cars would and will help commuters? Ask any Boeing employee who works in Renton about their commute on any of the freeway systems--167, 405, or I-5. Would it not be more feasible to—yes--improve the roads in order to allow transit more access and growth to eliminate the use of our own personal vehicles?

Ms. Morgan Len Michaels

Motorists Unite! Vote Transit

To the Editor:

My wise economics professor insisted that all people choose the action that benefits them the most--always.

This November voters will be given two chances to vote for or against transit in this region. The first is a local sales tax increase in King County that restores most, but not all of the revenue transit lost because we voted to cut our license tab fees. The second is I-745, that redirects over half of all transit revenues towards laying more pavement for our driving pleasure. A no-brainer, right?

But wait! If building more roads causes most of those bus riders [to get] back in their cars, each competing with me for precious lane space, then what have I done to myself? Zip, nada.

The electric utilities learned years ago that conservation was much cheaper to accomplish than building new generating capacity. I think funding transit is cheaper than going on a road-building binge like we did in the '60s and '70s, where new capacity was sucked up before the construction zone signs came down.

Every busload of transit riders equals about 30 cars that are NOT on the road. Just look around you on an average commute day. Each time you see a bus, then pull over and wait for 30 more cars to get in front of you. I'm voting to keep those transit folks on the bus.

Michael Skehan

Animal Control Law Changes Distress Pet Owner

To the Editor:

Thank you, Seattle Press, for publishing this information. I would bet that very few pet owners were aware of these revisions to the Animal Control Law. So now a person can PROVOKE a dog, and if it defends itself, it is considered a dangerous animal? And anyone--WITHOUT NOTICE--can trap your cat with NO proof of its being guilty of damaging property, etc.? This totally gives carte blanche to any psychotic with a grudge against cats, now doesn't it?

And all these changes in the law were made without a public hearing—that's rather frightening! I'll remember Mr. Schell and Ms. Drago come the next time they are up for public office!

Pat Moore Responsible pet owner and voter

Our Pets Will Thank Us for Enacting a Better Law

To the Editor:

Thanks for your coverage on the new dangerous animals law that the City Council recently passed without holding any public hearings ("New Civility Law for Dogs", Seattle Press September 20 – October 3 issue). What is dangerous is the law itself, which was written without any attention to basic rights such as due process (which would provide for a hearing or mediation session before a citation is issued). Plus the law is so vague in its definitions that such typical dog-like actions as chasing a cat or barking at someone can earn a dog a label of "potentially dangerous." There is no appeal for this designation, and no way to even find out who lodged the complaint. And once your dog has been labeled "potentially dangerous," if a second incident happens, your dog is labeled "dangerous" and is taken away from you and killed.

Certainly, no one wants truly dangerous dogs running around loose and biting people. But, first, there is a need to better distinguish between dog actions that we may not like (such as chasing cats, barking, or growling) and actions that are truly dangerous--such as a vicious mauling. It's not fair to dogs or their owners to group all of these behaviors together under a "dangerous" heading and treat them all the same way. Second, even for those few dogs that are truly dangerous, there are solutions available other than killing the dog, ranging from training to secure enclosures. Other jurisdictions not only provide for such alternatives in their laws, but they even remove the "potentially dangerous" or "dangerous" designation after three years if there have been no further incidents. In Seattle, they'd rather just kill the dog.

As your article also points out, the new law allows cat trapping as well--so a neighbor who doesn't like your cat can use bait to lure your cat, trap it, and turn it over to Animal Control.

This is a bad law and it needs to be rescinded. Then the city needs to hold public hearings and gather input not only from governmental bodies, but also from animal owners and animal experts such as trainers and veterinarians, so it can write a law that is fair to all parties. If you agree, please call or write the city council and mayor today. Your dog or cat will thank you!

Carol Watts

Monorail Too Disruptive; Make Personal Choices to Fight Congestion

To the Editor:

Not in my backyard!

I didn't vote for a monorail and still do not want one. It sounds nice, but ultimately the costs are too high. I wish they had actually built one in 1962. I believe that our options are very limited. We have waited too long and most of the big projects associated with light rail and monorail will be too costly in terms of dollars actually spent and the noise and congestion during the construction phase. I cannot even fathom the disruption that will occur if some of these projects get off the ground. Simple math will prove that we can have the finest bus system in the world, one that is convenient and will provide many long term job opportunities. Unfortunately, there is a stigma associated with bus riding, and culturally, light rail and monorail systems are seen as more appealing. I think traffic is so bad that politicians don't know what to do and see these big projects as placebos. I would bet that most politicians do not believe that, as presented, light rail will provide any benefit, but they have to do something and to backtrack on what are some poor choices would be even more disastrous for their careers.

Many of the answers lie with people making some personal choices. My wife and I have chosen to live in Ballard and try to do as many things in our neighborhood as possible. We try to limit driving on the interstate to get around town, and we try not to drive during "rush hour." We try to select services and recreational opportunities for ourselves and our kids that are in the neighborhood. It's a quality of live choice. I ride my bicycle to work 60 percent of the time, take the bus 35 percent of the time and drive about 5 percent of the time. My employer (Seattle Fire Dept.) and the city unwittingly do a great job of discouraging me to drive my personal vehicle.

By the way, if you favor the monorail, would you like it coming by your second floor bedroom window?

John Stone

Expand the Monorail

To the Editor:

I think it is a really good idea to expand the present monorail system. The monorail is a Seattle landmark along with the Space needle. The monorail is world renowned. The present system is just not enough (3 minute ride) To make the monorail work it has to go between to destinations that would guarantee riders without over extending it to much. I think it would work going between the UW and Safeco Field. Both destinations would guarantee ridership (especially Safeco Field). These two destinations would be able to use right-of-ways already owned by the city. It is time for Seattle to take its place with other world renowned cities, and do it now before the price tag gets any higher.

Dennis Shannon

Texas Education Not the Problem With Bush

To the Editor:

I am dismayed that your paper would publish a letter that makes a general degrading swipe of the education level of people from Texas. While I'm no George W. Bush supporter, I do know that tens of millions of Texans have received a fine education, including yours truly, a former columnist for this paper.

Tim Baker

Wasteful Public Schools Need Independent Audit

To the Editor:

School Commercials was the main topic of former Seattle School Board member Amy Hagopian's article "Commercials in Schools: So What?" (The Seattle Press September 20 - October 4 issue). Commercials in schools or GIVE SCHOOLS MORE MONEY?

The second paragraph begins, "Schools are chronically, critically and shamefully underfunded." The third paragraph begins, "Why are schools underfunded?"

Baloney! A school district that pays derelict principals record sums to go into hiding, is top-heavy with administrators (who gave themselves an 8.6 percent pay raise not too long ago), still hasn't come clean on the SPICE scandal (which cost over $400,000), illegally diverts levy funds and excels only at public relations (hardly cheap) is anything BUT "chronically," "critically" or "shamefully" underfunded.

Hagopian writes, "Lack of adequate school funding is the underlying cause of the problem. The good people at Seattle Public Schools don't want to sell our kids, it's just that they're desperate souls looking for a way to make ends meet."

Some of the "good people" Ms. Hagopian covers for have been convicted of illegal campaigning or caught embezzling school funds. Not ONE has campaigned for an INDEPENDENT PERFORMANCE AUDIT, the foundation of fiscal accountability.

As a recent candidate for Superintendent of Public Instruction, I'm still campaigning against I-728, the K-12 2000 Initiative (more money without accountability), I-732 (another pay raise for Seattle Schools misadministrators masquerading as a teachers pay raise), and next February's mega-levy, which seems to be designed primarily to decorate the quasi-legal, far-from-central post office the district recently bought to serve as its new headquarters.

Obviously, Ms. Hagopian remains as chronically, critically and shamefully ignorant of the realities of public education as the seven current school board members. If they wake up in time to submit to an independent performance audit BEFORE New Years, I might be persuaded to vote YES to more money.

David Blomstrom

Bus Tunnel Will be an Asset

To the Editor:

Build the Capitol Hill Subway! This project really is an outstanding achievement, with a return on the investment not unlike the Chunnell under the English Channel. Right now buses are stuck in traffic, and a high-speed connection to the region is exactly what Capitol Hill Needs. Tunneling is "virgin real estate," not requiring expensive relocation of utilities. The controversies surrounding the project remind me of Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in the 1970s, and the monorail-like Morgantown in West Virginia. Today both systems are operating reliably. BART was up and running one hour after the San Francisco earthquake, in fact, the Bay Tunnel was engineered very well to be earthquake resistant. It worked. This is not Los Angeles. Seattle is an engineering town, and a lot of problems can be solved. This project can come in sooner, and under budget. The cost of a tunnel is still the cost of a tunnel, whether there is a bicycle path, trains, or cars. New York City does it all the time. In fact, it took nearly one century to build the NYC system. Seattle reminds me of NYC during the 1900s, with many of the same controversies. Amazing how history repeats itself. There are numerous ideas, however, which are being reviewed, which will solve a lot of conflicts.

1) By not building tracks in the downtown bus tunnel, and keeping it [open to] buses during construction of the rail, it will solve a lot of problems. In effect, by building a South Rail Line and a North Rail Line, it would cut costs enough to extend to Northgate. By phasing in the construction, we can get certain links in sooner. For example, by starting the tunneling machines (moles) at 65th and heading south, it would allow for the 45th-to-Northgate rail link to come in sooner. The boring machines would continue south to Capitol Hill Station. In short, build from the outside in, not inside out. The same could be done for the South Rail Line, starting at Federal Way, and extending to the Airport. Then extend to Tukwila/Southcenter. Later the tracks would be added to the downtown bus tunnel, possibly boring a new set of tunnels underneath.

2) Elimination of the S-Curve to First Hill would save a lot of money, but leave the area unserved. However, if we extended only one tunnel to First Hill, and have the southbound tunnel bypass, it would reduce cost. It would mean a reverse transfer, but would be convenient.

3) The light rail route intersects BN/SF rail lines at three locations: Tukwila, Boeing Access, and Downtown. Sounder trains (with a bus backup) could connect from Ballard to these locations, with a transfer to the light rail. Thus, existing tracks could be used.

4) I do support building a surface light rail on MLK Way, in part because it is a lot safer than a bunch of (dummy) car drivers. But, to reduce cost the busway from downtown could be extended down MLK Way to Boeing Access. This would be a first class busway, with barriers, controlled traffic signals and express stations. It could be electrified. In fact, we could temporarily make the proposed monorail routes busways, feeding to the downtown transit tunnel. Eventually the right-of-way would be converted to a train or monorail. The nice thing about busways is they can be installed faster. It would also give more time to review a subway (or open air trenchway) on MLK Way, and perhaps locate funding.

5) Another idea is to build a small (one meter wide) utility tunnel next to the train tunnels. This would provide a new right-of-way for fiber optics and perhaps power cables. But more importantly, it would "test" the geology before the big tunneling machines arrive. That way geologic "surprises" can be spotted sooner. We build tunnels all the time for utilities. We built tunnels under Mount Baker, and there is a multimillion-dollar lid on Mercer Island (to reduce noise). Capitol Hill has all kinds of tunnels in it.

There is a very good reason why this is being built...go look at gasoline prices. They are going up even more, and no amount of drilling in wilderness areas will meet the demand. Transportation is dangerously dependent on one energy source: oil. Do not kid it, but oil producing nations are very weary of transit systems and alternative fuels. The price of imported petroleum is going up. The goal is to develop a complete rapid transit system (rapid meaning exclusive right-of-way) that operates on another energy source, like natural gas or electricity. Energy sources made in the USA. Note: the Big Oil propaganda machine is working overtime.

Recently, the USA has been trying to reform diplomatic relations with Iran. But as part of that the US government had to formally apologize for installing Saddam, and the Shah of Iran, via covert operations. Plus, the USA had to apologize for our support in the Iran/Iraq war. All this so we can have "cheap oil"?

I have had several years experience in transportation systems, and I can honestly tell you the cost of a monorail is fairly much the same as that of elevated light rail. The vast majority of the cost is not the "trains and track" but everything else, like stations, relocation of utilities, repaving of streets, so on. There really isn't much difference between light rail and monorails...both are trains. A combination of both would do much to help the existing "buses in mix traffic" be able to be on time. In fact extension of the light rail to Northgate would easily conserve 50,000 man-hours of drivers, which could be reallocated to suburbs. It isn't just one idea, but a mixture of ideas that could build the world's best transit system. This Subway really is an investment into our future, and could easily last several centuries. It is that solid. Build the Light Rail...and Monorail.

Martin E. Nix

Reader Comments

Discuss this article in the forums!