5 karma · joined November 11, 2011
Also, please consider this is just for registering the vehicle, gas taxes actually pay for road use.
That is the most interesting thing that could happen at least.
They aren't "required" to use that schedule, it sounds like they are the only ones using it, and Sound Transit wrote the legislation.
So I really don't understand your point. Sure we need transit, but the ends don't justify the means.
“Sometimes if you don’t think to ask the question, you make an assumption, because it’s not even on your radar screen,” said Clibborn, D-Mercer Island.
http://www.theolympian.com/news/politics-government/article1...
Your opinion may be clouding your judgment. It's not right to inflate the value because you can't pass a higher rate with legislation. This is why a lot of people don't support transit, because the people advocating it can't be honest.
This is also why Washington State voters keep passing a cap on the car tab fee. Like it or not, the voters of the state still get to decide on the rules that govern them. They agreed to a rate increase on the fair-market value of their vehicle, not for Sound Transit to charge whatever they want because they lost some grant money.
It was dishonest at best, at worst it's a fraud.
It would be near impossible to navigate Metro, SoundTransit, and surrounding transit agencies without OneBusAway or Google Maps. Idk, SoundTranist also tried a massive money grab on car tabs on inflated valuations. They are doing just as much to undermine support for transit as anyone.
Agree with your general sentiment though, it's not necessarily a platform problem, the real problem may be expertise or a meh offer.
Transportation is a huge factor in available land that is currently dedicated to parking that could be used for housing. Uber and Lyft could change some land use policies but it is going to take a change in policy overall because I believe that it is largely tied to job growth which is essentially desirability. Seattle is expensive to rent or own in and yet Tacoma and Everett seem very affordable by comparison.
That is the best reason why, it raises the floor for other core services.
It is a quality device, but the marketing just seems wrong. Too expensive, different models of the Surface are radically different products, doesn't have the developers that iOS or Android has, and just didn't take off for some reason.
I don't see a reason to not make the Surface, people I know who have them, love them, and that is something that could be built on. That used to be the space that Apple occupied in the 90s, small user base with intense adoration and love and eventually came to be a dominant player in personal computing.
Between the time and expense of commuting and the amount of time wasted at the office and in meetings it makes sense to monitor productivity and not attendance.