moving to spokane

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
ups.com...
Well, I've driven in both now (Chicago extensively, over several
decades), and they both look, smell, and quack like a duck.

I'm not sure why you think that traffic is the only relevant characteristic
of a region that is worth considering. But if that's the only similarity to
Chicago you can come up with for Seattle, you're a long way from justifying
calling Seattle "Chicago West".

And they both suck.

IMHO, there are few urban areas that don't suck. That's life.

The only real exception to that comparision is the "carpool lane" that
Seattle has built, which was really nice since I was routinely driving
a mini-van stocked with four people on-board.

Sadly, it appeared to be severely under-utilized -- and that extra lane
sure would sure have helped get those other poor schmucks in the right
lanes moving. At more than three million bucks per mile, it's hard to
imagine a more expensive white elephant.

It must be nice to live such a sheltered life. However, carpool lanes are
par for the course in most urban areas (and no, Iowa City does not count as
an "urban area). They are "underutilized" in most urban areas, in that it
always looks like few cars are using them. However, the truth is that the
*volume* of passengers carried in the carpool lane compares quite favorably
to the volume carried in the other lanes, which is the whole point.

Sadly, Seattle looks just like every other really nice area -- 20 years
after everyone has discovered it. We found some really seedy areas,
suffered through way too much traffic, and witnessed endless strip
malls blighting the landscape -- which more than offset the pretty
trees and distant mountains.

Everything's so black and white to you. But then, we already knew that.
However, for the rest of us, while we might agree that there are aspects
about Seattle (or any large city) that could be improved upon, we value the
other characteristics of living near a large city that provide great
benefits. I doubt I could stand to live in a place so backwater as Iowa
City; the lack of real cultural diversity alone would have me going insane
in short order.

I think it's funny that you would criticize us for having "seedy areas" and
"strip malls". As if there aren't any of those in the Midwest.

As far as the "distant mountains" go...how long would it take you to drive
to even a 4000' mountain (which is considered a foothill around here) from
where you live? We can get to the foothills in half an hour, and serious
peaks in an hour. And it's not just the mountains. The perpetual green,
the vast waterways (two enormous fresh water lakes, hundreds of smaller
lakes, hundreds of miles of shoreline in the Puget Sound), and the San Juan
Islands an easy 45 minute flight away, just to name a few other things I
love about this place. Almost every day I look around and thank my lucky
stars that I wound up living in such a beautiful place.

I don't doubt Iowa City is a nice place to live. Heck, I have even been
known to compliment Iowa in general as a state.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1db68037d18731
But I've traveled all over the US, and have yet to find a place with the
combination of big city benefits alongside geographical, topographical,
ecological beauty that Seattle has. And that's *including* Iowa. As far as
I'm concerned, your criticism of Seattle is just plain sour grapes.

I'm sure it was once gorgeous. (But, then, so was Chicago, once upon a
time...)

It is still gorgeous. A person who doesn't recognize that simply hasn't
opened his eyes. Of course, there are a great many things to which you
haven't opened your eyes, so it doesn't surprise me you don't see the beauty
in Seattle either. On the bright side, I assume that means you won't be
considering a move here any time soon.

And, hey -- what's up with your new monorail system? The press
coverage of THAT "little" boondoggle while we were there was pretty
severe, and quite entertaining. Do you REALLY pay a couple of hundred
bucks more in ANNUAL taxes if you own a car in Seattle -- just to pay
for a TRAIN?

Don't know, don't care. I don't actually live IN Seattle, and I don't pay
the taxes that will fund that project. As near as I can tell, the voters
there were as much interested in the aesthetic of a monorail as they were in
having some sort of transportation solution. We've had plenty of
boondoggles around here...the Monorail just happens to be one of them.

And yes, the taxes are on the order of $100-300 for most vehicles. See
http://www.dol.wa.gov/vs/monorailqa.htm for more details.

Keep in mind, this is an area where sales and excise taxes are generally
high anyway, since there is no income tax. Until recently, annual
registration (based on the value of the vehicle) for a new luxury sedan
could easily run $500 or more, with a depreciation schedule that lowered the
value of the vehicle by less than 10% per year. The Monorail tax uses the
same depreciation schedule, charging 1.4% of the depreciated "value" of the
vehicle each year.

Did you rent a car while you were here? If so, the folks who go to see the
Mariners play their home games thank you. You helped pay for that stadium,
with the car rental surcharge designed to avoid people who actually live
here pay for things they use.

Another thing to consider is that, as with most other places, many of these
projects would cost a LOT less if they could simply be designed and
implemented, without all the public ruckus. Sometimes it seems as though
our government spends as much money defending lawsuits filed by
vocal-but-very-tiny minority groups as they do actually building. And of
course, delays cost money just because of the delay, along with rises in
costs of materials, labor, etc.

Anyway, not to defend the Monorail...everything I hear about it suggests
it's not going to be much of a connector, won't be more effective than
simply adding buses, and of course will cost a lot more than it should.
But, I'll bet if I wandered over to Iowa City, I'd find your tax money going
to some projects I think are pretty silly too.

Pete

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:fZwle.10071$Is4.5901@attbi_s21...
There must be enough open space to allow proper merging, and an educated
fleet of drivers who know how to use it properly.

The former exists only in places where very few people live. The latter
exists nowhere.

In my experience, it's the latter that's normally the "missing link"...
And all it takes is a relative hand-full of ignoramuses to foul up the
whole system.

There is an endless supply of ignoramuses. Everywhere. Having to suffer
the consequences of a large number of them in a small space is simply one of
the modest costs of living in or near a large city, with all of the benefits
that entails.

But, back to Seattle. I think it's safe to say that building 1/4th of
your freeway system to only serve (perhaps?) 1/10th of your users is not
the way to speed things along. The vast majority of the drivers in
Seattle were "flying solo" -- and will continue to do so, no matter how
fervently they try to force car-pooling or mass-transit on them.

Your numbers are off. Not surprising, considering that I'm sure you didn't
actually bother to count anything, relying only on your intuitive
observation (which, no doubt, has proved so very effective in the past).

For example, one report shows us that the buses alone, not even counting all
the other vehicles using the lane, carry more passengers in the HOV lane
than are carried in ALL of the other lanes of one regional highway:
http://www.pbworld.com/library/techn...evelopment.pdf
Another report shows similar data, but for more of our local highways (see
"Exhibit 33"):
http://mobility.tamu.edu/ums/report/...sportation.pdf
For all of the HOV lanes listed, the ratio of passengers carried in HOV
lanes to passengers carried in mainline lanes *exceeds* the ratio of HOV
lanes to mainline lanes, usually by a significant amount. In one stretch of
I-5, south of downtown Seattle, even though there are generally three or
four mainline lanes to the single HOV lane, the HOV lane still carries more
than a third of the total traffic on the highway. Which is the whole point.
Study after study show that HOV lanes, in Seattle and elsewhere, carry their
fair share of passengers and then some.

And of course, none of that even considers the fact that many passengers in
the carpool lane represent a car that's NOT using one of the other lanes.

But regardless, as far as the mindset of the typical driver in the US
refusing to drive in the carpool lane, the same is true of drivers
everywhere in the US. Even Iowa. For you to assert that Seattle is somehow
unique in this respect simply illustrates your ignorance about how US
citizens think, everywhere.

Pete

IMHO, there are few urban areas that don't suck. That's life.

Precisely. I certainly didn't mean to limit my observation to your beloved
Seattle -- they *all* suck.

It must be nice to live such a sheltered life. However, carpool lanes are
par for the course in most urban areas (and no, Iowa City does not count
as an "urban area). They are "underutilized" in most urban areas, in that
it always looks like few cars are using them. However, the truth is that
the *volume* of passengers carried in the carpool lane compares quite
favorably to the volume carried in the other lanes, which is the whole
point.

It's a nice idea -- as are all these types of government-sponsored things --
that flies in the face of human nature. People *like* to drive their own
cars -- that's "the American Way" -- and no special highway lanes are going
to change that fact.

Everything's so black and white to you. But then, we already knew that.
However, for the rest of us, while we might agree that there are aspects
about Seattle (or any large city) that could be improved upon, we value
the other characteristics of living near a large city that provide great
benefits. I doubt I could stand to live in a place so backwater as Iowa
City; the lack of real cultural diversity alone would have me going insane
in short order.

Which pretty much confirms my suspicions. For those of us who actually fly,
there is no "backwater" -- anywhere.

A pilot can live in a nice area, with a great lifestyle, no crime, little
traffic, and safe schools, while still being "close" (time-wise) to the big
cities. I can be in Kansas City, St. Louis or Chicago within the hour
(although I seldom feel the need, thanks to our University) -- which is
about what it takes you to drive from one side of town to the other.

Any pilot -- hell, any person -- who knowingly chooses to live in an area
with 8 lanes of slow-moving traffic between home and work -- every day of
their lives -- is a friggin' moron.

I think it's funny that you would criticize us for having "seedy areas"
and "strip malls". As if there aren't any of those in the Midwest.

Iowa City has very strict zoning laws to prevent this kind of blight.
Unfortunately, these laws have virtually killed commercial development in
Iowa City -- but they *do* result in a very nice looking community.

As far as the "distant mountains" go...how long would it take you to drive
to even a 4000' mountain (which is considered a foothill around here) from
where you live?

It rained all four days we were there, off and on -- and it was dark half
the time. I'm told Mt. Rainier (well named!) is beautiful, although I never
actually saw it.

And it's not just the mountains. The perpetual green, the vast waterways
(two enormous fresh water lakes, hundreds of smaller lakes, hundreds of
miles of shoreline in the Puget Sound), and the San Juan Islands an easy
45 minute flight away, just to name a few other things I love about this
place.

I love the mountains, and I'm sure it's a beautiful area, once you escape
the city.

As far as I'm concerned, your criticism of Seattle is just plain sour
grapes.

Hardly. It's just another big city that has ruined an otherwise beautiful
setting. Which, of course, is why the Seattle suburbs are booming,
covering virtually every empty lot of land that we saw during our visit.

It's nothing specific against Seattle, Pete.

Big cities are all alike -- it doesn't matter if they're on the shores of
the Great Lakes, or on the shores of Puget Sound. If you like McDonalds and
Starbucks, you'll LOVE them. If you enjoy home-made pie, non-chain hotels,
restaurants that are owned by your neighbors, and leaving the top down on
your convertible when you're eating dinner, you'll escape them.

Did you rent a car while you were here? If so, the folks who go to see
the Mariners play their home games thank you. You helped pay for that
stadium, with the car rental surcharge designed to avoid people who
actually live here pay for things they use.

Yeah -- I paid a THIRTY PERCENT tax on that rental van. 30%!

And I thought we were in hell, having to charge 12% tax on our hotel rooms.
Seattle makes Iowa City look like tax heaven.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

There must be enough open space to allow proper merging, and an educated
fleet of drivers who know how to use it properly.

There must also be enough space w/r/t the traffic so that an accident
doesn't clog things up. If you look at the "design capacity" of
freeways, you'll see that when they are actually functioning at that
capacity, they are mostly empty and an accident is usually no big deal
traffic wise. Some freeways are now functioning at something like five
times their capacity. A sneeze clogs things up.

I think it's safe to say that building 1/4th of your
freeway system to only serve (perhaps?) 1/10th of your users is not the way
to speed things along. The vast majority of the drivers in Seattle were
"flying solo" -- and will continue to do so, no matter how fervently they
try to force car-pooling or mass-transit on them.

Those that make the sacrifice (of carpooling) should get the reward (of
a fast trip). It's like another proposal (that I'd expect you's
support) of having toll booths have different tolls for each lane - the
further right you go, the more expensive it is. Those (few) that are in
enough of a hurry can pay $15 to go through, those (most) that are cheap
enough can wait in line to pay ten cents.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

It's like another proposal (that I'd expect you's support) of having toll
booths have different tolls for each lane - the further right you go, the
more expensive it is. Those (few) that are in enough of a hurry can pay
$15 to go through, those (most) that are cheap enough can wait in line to
pay ten cents.

Tollways -- of *any* design -- are the ultimate stupidity.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Tollways -- of *any* design -- are the ultimate stupidity.

Depends what you are trying to accomplish, and for whom.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:nzFle.10731$PS3.8357@attbi_s22...
Precisely. I certainly didn't mean to limit my observation to your
beloved Seattle -- they *all* suck.

Fortunately, most people disagree.

It's a nice idea -- as are all these types of government-sponsored
things -- that flies in the face of human nature. People *like* to drive
their own cars -- that's "the American Way" -- and no special highway
lanes are going to change that fact.

The facts show otherwise. Carpool lanes DO get drivers to change their
habits.

Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, the more congestion, the better. It's a
waste to have one person in each car, and to have everyone in cars in the
first place. The more painful it is to drive alone, or to drive at all, the
more people will use more efficient transportation.

Your assertion that carpool lanes are useless is ignorant, failing to take
into account the numerous demonstrations that they do exactly what they are
intended to do. I even provided some documentation of that for you, but
apparently you have no interest in actually learning new information,
especially when it conflicts with your own uninformed opinion.

Which pretty much confirms my suspicions. For those of us who actually
fly, there is no "backwater" -- anywhere.

Baloney. You live in one. It's right there, and you are in it. Flying is
great, but it's no panacea.

A pilot can live in a nice area, with a great lifestyle, no crime, little
traffic, and safe schools, while still being "close" (time-wise) to the
big cities. I can be in Kansas City, St. Louis or Chicago within the
hour (although I seldom feel the need, thanks to our University) -- which
is about what it takes you to drive from one side of town to the other.

I can drive into Seattle in 15 minutes. 20 during rush hour (because of the
carpool lanes). And that's total travel time. You fly an hour to a "large
city", and you still need to arrange for transportation there, dealing with
all of the same issues you criticize large cities for.

Because of the urban nature of the area, most of the time I don't even have
to go into Seattle. A wide range of services -- cultural, dining,
recreation, etc. -- are just minutes away from me.

I love flying, and it DOES get me a lot closer to other areas of the world.
But to claim that because you fly, even when you practically live at the
airport, you have the same access to urban benefits as someone who actually
lives in or near a large city, well...that's just idiotic.

Any pilot -- hell, any person -- who knowingly chooses to live in an area
with 8 lanes of slow-moving traffic between home and work -- every day of
their lives -- is a friggin' moron.

Well, I think you're a ****ing moron too. As do the thousands of pilots who
also live around here, I'm sure.

The fact that you think your plane provides the same benefits as actually
living in an urban area simply proves your moronic status.

Iowa City has very strict zoning laws to prevent this kind of blight.
Unfortunately, these laws have virtually killed commercial development in
Iowa City -- but they *do* result in a very nice looking community.

Well, goody for you. However, in your moronic state you obviously missed
the fact that my statement wasn't limited to Iowa City.

It rained all four days we were there, off and on -- and it was dark half
the time. I'm told Mt. Rainier (well named!) is beautiful, although I
never actually saw it.

Ahh, back to the weather again. Well, you've had it explained to you plenty
of times already. I'm not wasting time doing it again.

By the way, the name "Rainier" has nothing to do with rain.

I love the mountains, and I'm sure it's a beautiful area, once you escape
the city.

There is beauty right here in Seattle, once you open your eyes. True, that
means you'll never see it. But it's here.

Hardly. It's just another big city that has ruined an otherwise beautiful
setting.

I didn't expect you to admit it's sour grapes for you. People calling the
grapes sour never want to admit that they aren't. That doesn't change the
fact that that's exactly what you're doing.

Which, of course, is why the Seattle suburbs are booming, covering
virtually every empty lot of land that we saw during our visit.

Population growth in the suburbs has nothing to do with whether Seattle is
"another big city that has ruined an otherwise beautiful setting".

It's nothing specific against Seattle, Pete.

The fact that you feel it needs to be "against" any city is simply proof of
your close-mindedness. Not that we needed any more proof of that anyway.

Big cities are all alike -- it doesn't matter if they're on the shores of
the Great Lakes, or on the shores of Puget Sound. If you like McDonalds
and Starbucks, you'll LOVE them. If you enjoy home-made pie, non-chain
hotels, restaurants that are owned by your neighbors, and leaving the top
down on your convertible when you're eating dinner, you'll escape them.

Everything in that last sentence exists right here, in ample quantity. The
fact that you didn't see it further provides proof of your close-mindedness.

On the bright side, at least someone wrote a song about you and your ilk.
"Iowa Stubborn", from "The Music Man", fits you to a tee.

Pete

Peter Duniho wrote:
I don't doubt Iowa City is a nice place to live. Heck, I have even been
known to compliment Iowa in general as a state.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/...1db68037d18731
But I've traveled all over the US, and have yet to find a place with the
combination of big city benefits alongside geographical, topographical,
ecological beauty that Seattle has.

And don't forget the extra points it gets for not having Jay around...

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
...
And don't forget the extra points it gets for not having Jay around...

Certainly. I think I even mentioned that benefit earlier in this
thread.

Peter Duniho wrote:

But, I'll bet if I wandered over to Iowa City, I'd find your tax money going
to some projects I think are pretty silly too.

If not, you wouldn't have to go far. Can you say "rain forest"?

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.