Comments on Local Sierra Club Strikes Again

I have given up all hope of any postive changes happening to develop mass/rapid transit in Seattle. And Global Warming? Hell, at this point we should just batten down the hatches and get ready for all hell to break loose with climate change. Half the country is under water and the other half is on fire. Thank you all you Republicans and denying for decades the threat of global warming, thank you to the spineless Democrats who did not stand up soon enough and thank you to all those SUV drivers and people who refuse to use public transit even when they can.

Face it folks we are fucked fucked fucked.... Earth will survive, no problem, we just won't be able to live on it very comfortably.

Oh, Andrew, you just don't get it. Sierra Club is pointing out that more tax subsidies for single-passenger cars and trucks are the WRONG solution. RTID will die - and Seattle will kill it - because the car-obsessed Eastsiders in government just don't grok that the World has CHANGED and Global Warming is NOW - not tomorrow, not years from now, but NOW.

Good Riddance, RTID. Many of us will vote for the Sound Transit package and vote down the RTID plan just to send the signal to the electeds that road subsidies just AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN ANYMORE.

Deal with it.

Do people really think that they will be able to build fifty miles of light rail and do the other work for $10.9 billion? In 2006 dollars the first 14 miles is costing over $200 million per mile and that doesn't count finance charges. The roads part will keep the big companies supporting the package for freight and others will support it because even though they don't really trust ST they will perceive that at least they will get some roads on which they can drive their electric cars.

www.teslamotors.com

http://www.soundtransit.org/x5513.xml

The package would be financed through a regional sales tax increase of 0.5 percent, or 5 cents on a $10 purchase. In addition to the light rail expansions, the Sound Transit 2 plan’s approximately $10.9 billion (2006$) package of capital investments also:

Increases access to the regional transit system by adding parking and other enhancements at Sounder commuter rail and ST Express bus facilities. The plan includes improvements to the bus rapid transit system on I-405 as well as funding for a planning study on further I-405 bus rapid transit improvements as part of a future phase.

Builds a new streetcar in Downtown Seattle connecting the International District, First Hill and Capitol Hill areas.

Prioritizes extending light rail all the way into downtown Redmond, subject to securing additional funding or cost savings. The package provides up-front funding for planning, engineering and strategic property acquisition for this extension.

Prepares for potential high-capacity transit extensions in future phases by providing funds for planning studies, including: 164th Street/Ash Way to Everett; Bellevue to Issaquah; University of Washington to Redmond across SR 520; University of Washington/Ballard/Downtown Seattle; Downtown Seattle/West Seattle/Burien; Burien to Renton; and the BNSF corridor in East King County.

Authorizes a potential extension of Sounder commuter rail service to Thurston County if funding is provided by partners outside the Sound Transit District and/or a future annexation expanding the district.

So where do we go from here, Josh? Is there still any chance of separating them and still getting a vote in 2007?

If we kill the RTID this year, and we lose a year or two, with construction costs rising at 3-4x the rate of inflation, these projects are just going to get more and more expensive.

The aggregate cost is going up by nearly $1B/yr. So even if there's $1B in wasteful spending in the RTID, then it's better to approve it now.

Otherwise we wait a year, the whole price goes up, and we have even less room to negotiate. It's hard to see how transit benefits in that scenario, since transit is the biggest chunk of the combined package.

Right?

Will,

Assuming the governor signs SHB 1396 tomorrow, (and I can't see why she wouldn't), how do you plan to split your vote?

SHB 1396, Sec 1:

It is therefore the policy and intent of the state of Washington that transportation plans required to be submitted for voter approval at the 2007 general election by a regional transportation investment district and a regional transit authority must be submitted to voters in a single ballot question seeking approval of both plans.

I assume you must be counting on the Supremes to strike this down on single subject grounds, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one...DEAL WITH IT?

Using your numbers, "whatever," at $200 million per mile, 50 miles is 10 billion. That leaves $900 million for the additional investments. (I haven't rechecked the actual numbers to see how they compare, but from memory these quick figures don't seem far off.) Figuring total financing costs for a project makes no fucking sense and is intellectually dishonest, as inflation-adjusted future dollars are worth less than current dollars.

So, yeah, it does actually seem like a valid estimate, particularly when the most expensive miles in the system are those already under construction as part of Sound Transit I.

The Sierra Club's got the right set of priorities here. We just have to find a way to cleanly separate Sound Transit from RTID so that RTID can fail on its own terms.

SJ - exactly. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. There are always tradeoffs in these packages. Sure I disagree with some parts of the package, and some people might not like the things that I like. But that's politics -- compromise.

Waiting a year or two to try and get a more transit-friendly deal -- a magical pony plan -- than the one currently being proposed seems like cutting off our nose to spite our face.

In 2006 dollars the first 14 miles is costing over $200 million per mile and that doesn't count finance charges

Those are some of the most expensive parts: Beacon Hill, Pike/Pine stub tunnel, the airport.

Also, it's always cheaper once you know how to do it. Building your first house is more expensive and takes longer than your second.

I was sooo excited when I went to a Sound Transit meeting and someone on their team mentioned a cut-and-cover subway under Wallingford from the already-planned 43rd & Brooklyn station to Ballard. I grew up their and getting around was always a pain in the ass on the old 43 then the 44.

#4, if it was just a matter of spending money to do nothing, then you'd have a point about voting pro-RTID now and just accepting the highway spending instead of a billion dollars in additional costs per year.

The problem is that a lot of these highway projects will make things worse. A cross-base highway, for example, will encourage sprawl and make future transit improvements more difficult.

Also, since much of the rising costs are in real estate values of land that has to be acquired, one potential upside in the near future is that we're near the peak of a housing boom, and those costs should stop increasing so rapidly. Hopefully they slow down without taking a dive, triggering a recession, and taking away the revenue that's needed for transit improvements.

@3: Nice list of projects there. Too bad a bunch of them will be dropped in ten years, but the taxes will live on. That's ST's MO.

Frank Bruno: Two points. First, this package is not pay as you go. It is overly dependant on long term bond sales. If one project like SR 520 is done first, with the right kinds of revenue sources, the overall cost would be much lower because of lower financing and inflation costs.

Second, there are far better ways to raise the needed revenue than sales taxes and MVETS. Per capita taxes on employers, increased gas taxes, congestion-priced tolls on many roads using RFID transponders - those are examples.

Any project cost increases would be more than offset by lower financing charges and the avoidance of the huge inflation multiplier the current plan relies on.

In addition, if the projects are staggered (SR 520 done now, then the rest of the RTID road projects later), the congestion priced tolls would reduce the throughput demand on 405 and 5. We could reduce congestion in that way during the interim.

The ST upgrades wouldn't come on line for over a decade anyway, so the opportunity cost of holding off on those (to see if we like the damn thing before committing to untold billions more of it) would be minimal.

The big problems with RTID/ST2 is it tries to do too much, on too many different fronts, all at once. There are no firm price tags attached, and the taxes it would demand literally are limitless. ST has a terrible record in undertaking this kind of project. Plus, RTID/ST2 relies too much on long term bond sales (no surprise there - Foster Pepper and KL Gates drafted it up and they'd make fortunes over the next couple of years as bond counsel).

Frank,

Well said. The transit component of the joint ballot is excellent, giving the region a true metro system promised by Forward Thrust at last, as well as jumpstarting a real streetcar network in the city again.

I don't find the roads component particularly objectionable either. Finishing 509 closes an important gap in the regional freeway system and takes load off of I-5. Plenty of room for HOV/HOT lanes from downtown to the new I-5 merge.

The 405 widening is going to end up as an HOT roadway assuming the pilot on 167 succeeds. 520 needs to be done, period, and new HOV lanes and bike trail are a net win for transit options.

The Cross-Base is the least defensible, but the Pacific Ave corridor is going to grow with or without it. This is only $400 million out of the whole package, no reason to sink a $10 billion investment in rapid transit.

@9, I appreciate your argument, but again, it's all about compromise here. We can dig in our heels and fight forever, or we can start pouring concrete. I'd rather start pouring concrete before things get more expensive.

Also, I doubt property values will decrease enough to make it worth putting the whole thing off a few years. Property acquisition won't start for a while anyway, so it's hard to predict where the market will be then.

@10 - Again, I'm sympathetic. But look, for better or for worse, MVET is the financing scheme we've chosen. It's not pretty, but at least it's well-established. Are the alternative plans that you propose anywhere near ready to roll? Or would they just send us back to the drawing boards for years?

You are missing the point. Even if this thing is approved in November nothing is going to happen right away. Murphy said the bonds couldn't be issued without additional taxing. What additional taxes do you suggest be imposed to make up for the SR 520 funding shortfall? And it isn't just MVET, it is a crushing sales tax increase - the last thing this region needs. And voting no does not send anything back to the drawing boards, because the drawing boards now are blank. Read the draft ST2 plan. What would happen if the measure passes all that will happen for the first couple of years is more planning. The first detailed plans of what gets started when is not scheduled to be presented to the ST board until a year after the vote. All that has been done at this point is some general concepts have been developed, and those can be dropped by the boards later. It is half-baked now. You won't know what you would get by voting yes, and you certainly would not know what the tax cost to the region likely would be.

The only people that like this kind of open-ended tax grab are the ones who would be selling piles of bonds over the next six years. They'd get multi-million dollar bonuses every year, as they would split cash off the top of each bond sale. This is a crappy way to do transit projects - just look at how monorail played out. It was set up in a virtually identical fashion.

Given our leaders' piss-poor history of working on transportation projects, the ONLY way to proceed in a prudent way is to start the SR 520 project first, using a lot of tolls and shooting for as close to pay-as-you-go as possible. When it is well underway, and we know what the cost will be and have digested the taxes, then scope out the next most important thing.

You are advocating for the most expensive option, with the least degree of accountability. Lunch at the WAC much? Actually, Frank, your "finance it all with piles of bonds and let the grandkids pay off the mess" is exactly like how the Bush administration is financing the war in Iraq. Do you admire Cheney for his financing acumen?

How about pay as you go as an operative ideal. You know, live within our means, try to MINIMIZE the debt we generate now. Try NOT to burden the next generation with $35 billion in long term bonds for transportation projects that they might neither want nor need.

Trying to do too much all at once is a guaranteed way to do nothing well.

Whoa! Compare me to Dick Cheney, that's cold, man! :) Low blow. But I've never been to the WAC, sorry. What's it like?

Trust me, the coming hyper-inflation will wash away the value of most of that debt, so you don't need to worry about it.

Nice try andrew - the debt ST and RTID would be issuing if the measure passes in November will be sold in 2010, 2015, 2020, 2025, and 2030. Because of the hyper inflation, it will be have to yield ten percent annually (or more) for the market to take it. The tax costs will be outrageous.

You've got to admit, the concept of "pay as you go" is exactly correct in an inflationary environment.

Actually, I was just joking about the inflationary thing.

There really are two competing interests in the RTID package:
1) Improve commutability which allows for more density.
2) Improve commutability which allows for more sprawl.

Transit allows for (1) but not (2), while roads do both. And building the roads now is going to fuck up progress in a few decades anyway, because people, once given the luxury of two cars and a huge yards, don't want them taken from them. Look at how much trouble the city has had with low-density neighborhood movements.

I don't really car what happens to the Eastside and South King County, but I just wish the city would rezone for more duplex/townhome/non-detached single family housing so that I can live in a house with my family in the city. Now it seems like it is either expensive condos or insanely-priced houses and nothing in between.

If Seattle could create more of that sort of zoning, you'd see transit become a lot more popular. Not every neighborhood needs to look like east capitol hill for the city to improve transit.

In a coming inflationary period bond everything you can - go in debt - don't lend - when the inflation hits, pay back the loans with lower valued dollars. If building inflation will outpace CPI, then pay as you go would be the wrong approach. If roads or transit or any infrastructure designed to last 50 or a 100 years why not stretch the payments over most of those years? Now debt for a pointless war...

whatever, you don't get it. If ST2 passes, ST will sell the bonds at regular intervals no matter what the interest rate. If rates spike, ST will sell the debt. It won't care - the taxpayers will be on the hook for the full amount for the following 30 years. That is one of the really bad things about this upcoming ballot measure. It gives a blank check to ST and RTID, for generations. You have no idea what the cost would be to this region. Try guessing - how much tax would RTID and ST collect from you and your neighbors, and your children and their neighbors, and your grandchildren and their neighbors?

Go ahead, all you big railroad backers - give us your best guesses. If you can't give reasonable estimates of region-wide costs over time, then your support is closer to a faith-based belief than it is to a reasoned determination that this particular transportation package would be a good deal.

Building cost inflation will very likely continue outpace the CPI by a pretty significant margin, not least of all because the CMWPI (construction materials wholesale price index) is more closely tied to the falling value of the dollar on international currency markets than a lot of other goods on the CPI. American companies that manufacture abroad can and do cut corners to hide the reduced value of the dollar behind a reduction in product quality (think thinner cloth, less metal, more plastic, etc). But a bag of cement is pretty much always a bag of cement, a copper pipe is always a copper pipe, etc. The CPI multiplier describing the increase in the cost of construction materials relative to inflation matches the decrease in the value of the dollar relative to other currency reasonably well.

And it seems unlikely that the dollar will recover value anytime soon.

I love how a discussion of what projects RTID has in their package turns into speculation about the viability of the dollar. Way to avoid dealing with the issues at hand!

Debtor, just addressing your theory of pay as we go is better than building all we can now and borrowing to pay. If we were able to build out 50 miles in ten years borrowing the money and bonding at low rates and then the inflation hits we will have saved all kinds of money by having a lower cost (building sooner) and lower interest rates by bonding sooner.

Without saying I support the vote it is still the case that the tax will be .5% of all you buy regardless of what those dollars are worth and .8% of the value of your car - just like some part of the sales tax goes to buses which has absolutely no end on it.

BTW what's difference between funding roads and rail - why are you only mad at rail?

Ben how does a quick train to Redmond help stop sprawl? This one part of regional rail that has never made sense to me. If it is easier to get to Redmond than places inside the city, wouldn't that promote sprawl?

I would like to see our treasure going into intra-city transit making it so nice to live and work in the same city that people would actually do it more.

it is easier to get to Redmond than places inside the city, wouldn't that promote sprawl?

In a way, but that corridor to Redmond is already built. Redmond is no longer the edge of sprawl, Sammamish, Duvall and Snohomish are. The idea is that a quick trip to Redmond will encourage those that are deciding whether to live in Bellevue, Beacon Hill, Mercer Island or Snohomish to choose one of the three already developed places rather than the developing or still natural places.

Iwould like to see our treasure going into intra-city transit making it so nice to live and work in the same city that people would actually do it more.

Almost all Sound Transit plans (including most of ST2) where planned around the monorail, that's why none of it serves West Seattle, Delridge, Belltown, Ballard or Queen Anne. And unfortunately for anyone in the city, the mayor and the county executive killed our intra-city transit system.

What we learned from the monorail is career politicians hate citizen-runned initiatives. If we want mass transit in the city, we either need to work within our politician's, or get new ones.

AA - sorry but this ST2 was planned around the monorail is just bs - the green line was killed 1 1/2 years ago and ST2 was just finished and the RTA was planning a system since around 1988 - ST doesn't care about intra-city transit, period. The sprawl I was talking about is getting to Redmond by train and then driving even further - note that ST in the ST2 plans talk about more PnRs what do you think that does for sprawl?

Well, I like the redmond thing because that's where I work. But who fucking knows when it'll be built and if I'll even work there still. Sound Transit is not going to solve our intracity transit problems, and seattlites need to step up and elect officials who will.

sorry but this ST2 was planned around the monorail is just bs

It's not BS! They worked on it for years, and it was done in conjunction with Seattle's Transit Plan, which still shows the monorail. Go look at the website: http://www.seattle.gov/transportation/transitnetwork.htm . And that was published only 2 weeks ago! 1.5 years seems like a long time to people living normal lives, but in Western Washington government terms, where nothing ever happens, that is a blink of the eye.

Andrew,

I've been following ST planning for years, and you're simply wrong - they have NEVER had any intent of providing additonal rail service in Seattle along any other corridor than the I-5 corridor and either the I-90 or SR 520 corridors (ie - no additional north/south rail service was ever contemplated by ST - then or now).

ST-2 as it is now being proposed is essentially the half of the light rail plan that was deferred to a future vote when the Rapid Transit Authority (as it was then called) was first defeated by the voters in 1995 because they choked on the price tag (as if!) of $6.7 billion or so - they then cut the kid in half and passed a $3.9 billion proposal in 1996 (of course, it's gotten a lot more expensive since then, but that's a topic for a different post).

I think you're confusing the City's half-assed Intermediate Transit Corridor study with the work Sound Transit is doing. As a matter of history, part of the reason the Monorail route wound up being along the SR99/NW 15th corridor was because they wanted to stay out of the Link service area, and ruffle fewer establishment/government feathers at a time when pretty much every local elected save Nick Licata was still working double overtime to kill the monorail - in no small part because they thought it would compete with ST for State, Federal, and local funds. In other words - monorail was planned around ST, rather than the other way around.

You're probably right about City taxpayers having to pony up for dedicated rail/monorail/whatever for the westside of Seattle - but that isn't going to occur for decades at the earliest, and just as likely never.

...and just because the City of Seattle spends millions studying something doesn't mean it will happen. At least $20 million was flushed down the toilet keeping Viaduct tunnel studies going, and look how that turned out (and the $8 million that will now be spent to study the so-called "Surface/Transit" scheme will almost certainly just be another example of throwing good money after bad).

Mr. X:

Actually, if you look at the Sound Move long range plan from 1996, Queen Anne/Ballard/Wallingford is identified as a potential light rail line.

I think it is undeniable this line was given low priority in the ST2 planning process because the Green Line was in development at the time.

Touche', except for a couple of things - the first Monorail vote wasn't until 1997 (and I wouldn't call Dick and Grant writing the original x-plan on the back of a napkin a planning process that had much influence on ST!). Also - the current ST2 still is pretty much the deferred half of ST1 as originally proposed in 1995.

SJ that pdf was created in July of 2005 - funny they put those light rail potential routes on it at a time that you claim the monorail affected the planning - since it's obvious they updated the map over the years why would a July 28, 2005 update have the Ballard routes on it - maybe to help bury the monorail?
Anyway if you give any creedence to the 1996 map you tout then you should see that they should have been able to dust off those old plans for ST2 - like X said don't hold your breath.

It isn't even sound transit's mission to built rail in the city. It's a regional transit authority whose goal is to move people between park and rides and employment centers. It'll never be something that you get on to go to a friend's house, because that's not it's intention.

If Seattlites want a transit service for the west side, let's make it happen. I know the monorail's death makes it all seem hopeless, but we should keep trying until it happens.

"I assume you must be counting on the Supremes to strike this down on single subject grounds, but I wouldn't hold my breath on that one..."

It's gonna happen that way, in August! The Supreme Court has said as much.

"first defeated by the voters in 1995 because they choked on the price tag (as if!) of $6.7 billion or so - they then cut the kid in half and passed a $3.9 billion proposal in 1996 (of course, it's gotten a lot more expensive since then, but that's a topic for a different post)."

The only reason it "has gotten more expensive" is inflation (that $3.9B was in 1995 dollars). What happened though was that to stay within that budget ST had to drop numerous light rail stations, and shorten the light rail line. We were just going to get Westlake-Tukwila. ST barely can afford the extension off of that (from Tukwila to the airport). That's why the overrun on the SeaTac LR station is such an issue.

Hey Tweedy - the light rail was to cost $1.67 billion for 21 maybe 24 miles in 1996 dollars by 2000 just after the November vote the agency admitted that they were over $1 billion over budget mainly from the cost of the Cap Hill tunnel which had little to do with inflation. They didn't stay within budget in any sense of the meaning of budget. First of all they are saying that the initial segment is costing over $2.5 billion that's more than $1.67 billion and they are not delivering what they promised and not in the time period.

Now we can argue as to whether or not when a measure goes to the ballot what dollars to use. I don't have a problem with using the cost figures for the year the vote becomes effective. The problem with ST is that they couldn't complete what they promised from the revenues, eventhough those revenues were much higher than forecast because of the national and local economic booms, which should have shielded them from much of the inflation. They lied about the costs to get the vote passed and it looks like they are again.

I don't think we are arguing about anything.

In early 2001 the plans for the light rail line showed that ST could not complete the full 21 miles and stay within budget. So the line was reduced to 14 miles (Westlake Center to Tukwila). About three years ago that was extended up to the airport.

The Sane Transit vs. Sound Transit case said that Resolution 75 allowd Sound Transit to reduce the length of the light rail line from 21 to 15 miles. That was permitted - ST can scale back what it promises after the vote.

They stayed within the $3.9 billion budget (that number has gone up because of inflation). They stayed within the budget by reducing the length of the light rail line, dropping stations (including the one planned for First Hill), etc.

You don't disagree with any of this, do you? This is basic stuff . . . ..

"The problem with ST is that they couldn't complete what they promised from the revenues," That statement shows you don't understand how the plan works. What the voters were promised is that ST would do what it could afford within the budget. That is what ST is doing. It is not everything Sound Move describes, but the voters technically were not promised every project Sound Move happens to mention. No one was deceived. That is what the plan SAID.

And I don't think anybody "lied about costs" to get the vote passed in 1996. The agency was young, and detailed engineering hadn't been done yet. I certainly don't think anyone is lying about potential ST2 costs either. But maybe you have some proof of that???

Tweedy - please refer us to the campaign documents that said that we are not promising anything and that R-75 allows us to scale back any and all projects. BTW R-75 wasn't in the voters guide. You had to go to the library to read it. The planners of the RTA were hardly rookies - their consultants had been around for decades under estimating project costs. Saying that ST stayed within the budget because they only spent as much as they could is moronic. They have spent more than the voted on budget and have delivered less they "conservatively" promised. Do you really approve of public agencies telling people this is what you'll get for this much but in a hard to get document they do the equivalent of my fingers were crossed.

There is no way that for the $10B 2006 dollars we will get 50 miles of light rail much less the other promised projects. Proof is the history and the fact that ST toadies have taken the talking points that we are on time and under budget - do you think I should fund a study that would be denied by you anyway? Read ST2 they don't promise they will complete anything so of course when the costs are over budget you will be saying that hey they only spent $10 billion so what if they only built 30 miles, they are on budget and on schedule. 2007 = 1984

Perhaps you should cut back on coffee. Green tea allows MUCH calmer thinking.

"They have spent more than the voted on budget and have delivered less they "conservatively" promised."

No, the agency has NOT spent more than the voters approved. You can not link to ANYTHING on soundtransit.org that says what you seem to believe. In other words, you have an incorrect notion in your noggin.

If you think you have some evidence to back up what you just posted, well then, fine, let's see it.

You are also failing to account for the fact that nearly all of the cost overrun in ST1 is attributable to misunderestimating tunnel costs. First, they ran the people responsible out of the agency years ago. Second, only a very small portion of ST2 is tunnel. Building elevated tracks along roadway medians isn't nearly as expensive or unpredictable.

Further, you will note that they have given themselves a safety valve by not promising the Overlake-Redmond segment. I'm sure this is partially to gain leverage over NIMBYs in Bellevue who want a tunnel, but it also shows a little more forethought on budgeting.

Nowhere on the Attorney General's web site can you find an admission that he lied or that attorneys were fired for political reasons therefore he didn't lie nor were attorneys fired for political reasons. Good argument right?

Tweedy please tell us how ST could go over budget under your definition. Go review the promises made in 1996 and then tell us they kept them - maybe you could use some coffee.

#40 the same people are doing the estimating as the ones that did it in the 90's - PB consulting

"I'm sure this is partially to gain leverage over NIMBYs in Bellevue who want a tunnel, but it also shows a little more forethought on budgeting"

I thought it was the city government over there. or is all of the eastside one big ass-nimbyist state?

Methinks Little Birdie doth protest/parse too much. Query - which agency of local govt is paying their salary?

I couldn't find the "broken promises" page on the ST website either. I'm shocked, I tell ya, just shocked....

If there is one thing I've learned over the years, its that consultants tend to produce the results they think you wanted. ST wanted to come in under budget, and PB obliged. However, most of the failure lies at the feet of Bob White and the ST staff of the time. From the Citizen's Oversight Panel report of 2000:

In estimating the original program costs for Link and the other lines of business, Sound Transit did not make just one mistake but several. Five significant areas of cost were under-estimated: real estate right-of-way costs; costs associated with tunneling; the overhead costs to manage and administer the program; the costs of community mitigation; and the costs associated with very tight project timelines. Additionally, contingencies were under-budgeted at various stages of the project. Despite the release of new, much higher cost estimates, COP is not yet convinced that similar errors will be avoided in the future.

But things improved. From 2001:

In recent reports, COP expressed concern about the degree of risk in the Sound Transit long-term financial plan and about the lack of clarity in some assumptions that were made. Together with the Finance Plan Peer Review Panel, COP was pleased to note that the updated plan is much improved. The federal funding assumptions are much more realistic, the contingencies and project reserves are restored to appropriate levels, and assumptions for revenue growth, investment yields and inflation are adjusted to the most recent economic conditions.

Mr. X:

Actually, all the "broken promises" are detailed in the Sound Move Year 8 report of the Citizens Oversight Panel. Good reading to understand what went wrong, although it makes me see red that the monorail died for a fraction of the incompetence the original ST staff displayed.

SJ, I agree that BW was a poor ExDir but the list of mistakes were all on PB's plate - what BW did was to cover up the shortfall for years - the same mistake the monorail agency made but for less money and on the revenue side. BW started using up reserves and obviously knew that they weren't going to be able to build what they promised on time or on budget.

@41: "Tweedy please tell us how ST could go over budget under your definition. "

It is not my definition. It is the voters' expressed will in Sound Move.

ST easily could have gone over budget, but it has not. For example, it has bonding capacity (overall) of a little over $1 billion. That is what the voters approved.

ST so far has sold about $775M in bonds. It has not gone over budget on bonding. That is one example, there are others.

@45 - Exactly. And because the costs were underestimated prior to 1998, the board had to reduce the light rail line, drop stations, etc. to stay within budget. That is why we need ST2 to fully fund all the projects described in the 1996 (and ST2 of course also will pay for the extensions east and north)!

The war in Iraq is the sucess we knew it would be - we got rid of Sadam as promised and we have made sure that there are no WMD's. The people of Iraq are so pleased that they are happy to ask us to leave.

It's nice to see that reality prevails eventually at least some of the time - Tweedy has finally tacitly admitted @ 49 that the light rail project originally promised to voters is over budget and behind schedule.

How this can possibly be regarded as inspiring confidence in ST remains beyond me, however. I don't believe in the tooth fairy either...

Mr. X, if you have some evidence of financial wrongdong at the agency you are free to sue it. But we both know you won't. You won't sue because you know you would lose, and REALLY BADLY.

No one said anything about graft or corruption. What people have said is the numbers used to sell the 1996 program were bogus. You should join the Bush admin -

opposing the war = hating the troops

saying ST is over budget = accusing them of being crooks --

Why is Canada so awesome?
The Canada line in BC was built in less time, with less money, and will carry more riders than ST.

We just suck a little bit I think.

Could the ST flacks who are posting here on company (ie - taxpayer) time please restrict themselves to using just one anonymous name to post under?

Just sayin....

who are those flacks?

...Big Softie and Little Birdie leap to mind (I don't have time to go back to previous threads, but uncannily similar comments were made under a number of different handles in the last few days as well).

At the very least, they're apparently getting their talking points off of the same sheet of paper...

FYI: The Canada Line is being built with 120 foot platforms. Sound Transit is building for four-car trains, nearly 400 feet long. The Canada Line is single-tracked in Richmond and at YVR, and will have to run 3-minute headways on the mainline to meet demand from day 1. No room for expansion. Link is nearly subway capacity. You get what you pay for.

AT FIFTY-THREE -----

This is wrong: "No one said anything about graft or corruption."

If you are a taxpayer, you can win a lawsuit against the government heads if they were just stupid. If they do something wrong because they didn't understand the rules, they're liable. No need to prove graft, corruption, or bad intentions. Just not following the law is enough.

That's the law.

The Sierra Club is largely correct about the RTID. It proposes to spend the wrong taxes on harmful projects and not spend enough on some key ones. The RTID is still following the rules established by senators McDonald, Finkbinder, and Horn, all of whom are out of office. The RTID legislation says that 90 percent of the funds must be spent on highways of statewide significance. But there are many worthy transportation projects that do not fall into that class: sidewalks and local arterials. They would be better for growth management and global warming.

Niether the sales tax nor the MVET is proportional to the rate of use of the roadway network. They would not send a price signal to users; that is one change that is desparately needed.

The policymakers have not made strong enough steps toward systemwide dynamic tolling. That is the only efficient and equitable way to address traffic congestion and move transit better.

The Sierra Club could also criticize ST2. The south King and Pierce County subarea funds are poorly spent. the south Link LRT is too slow to be the regional transit spine that the ST Board envisions. We would be better off improving transit inside Tacoma. The East King funds only have a fair project list. It would be much better with a wider BRT network and diesel LRT on the Woodinville subdivision that King County is trying to acquire from BNSFRR.

The current risk is that two bad packages will pass in November.