Just checking here, Erica. But do any of your readers actually vote?

@1 Haw-haw.

@ECB - What's a I-405 "express lane"?

And now you will hear me say, that the ST2 package as presented - not the combined ST2/RTID vote, but the ST2 portion - is a very good first step.

Personally, I would rather it had even more transit in it, but it's a good package.

I'll still be casting my ONE vote against the combined ST2/RTID ballot measure, as will most Sierra Club supporters and most Seattleites, but we want MORE transit not LESS.

Erica,

RTID is hardly a "massive" expansion of roads for single occupancy vehicles. RTID does, however, expand HOV lanes. A commuter will be able to zip from Renton to Lynnwood along 405 in a HOV lane.

THe 520 bridge will be expanded from 4 lanes to 6. But those extra 2 lanes are-- you guessed it-- HOV lanes.

I'm pretty amazed by how many of the road warrior politicians have signed on to this package, considering how paltry the package is in the single occupancy vehicle department. What's more, RTID will pay for contruction mitigation in the form of more transit. This would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.

If progressives want to give Jim Horn and this McIsaac guy a Bronx cheer, they should vote yes this November.

"I'll still be casting my ONE vote against the combined ST2/RTID ballot measure, as will most Sierra Club supporters and most Seattleites, but we want MORE transit not LESS."

And when another decade goes by without a mass transit plan to vote on, we'll all applaud your purism.

i'm just amazed a Stranger staffer sort of, kind of, almost said something nice about the eastside... None of them have ever ventured to the other side of the lake, but being ok with mass transit moving people to where "no one works"...

ST2 will also direct a ton of jobs growth to downtown Seattle by making it the easiest place to commute to in the region, a distinction it has lost some time ago to downtown Bellevue.

So the 10% number is assuming ST2 doesn't pass.

speaking of public transit, what did the public intern do yesterday?

ECB - your more accurate link for the taxes goes to a PI article that uses the ST pr numbers - hardly proof that the numbers are more accurate. You say that he adds the taxes companies pay to the total unfairly - do you actually think that businesses pay taxes? One way or another people pay the taxes - generally they will be passed on to the consumers of the businesses or the owners will pay it through reduced income.

I think you don't care what the costs are and probably won't be here to pay them, anyway.

Take the total to be collected and divide by the number of people in the taxing district and you'll get an average per person cost - multiply by the average number of people per family and you will get the average per family. Or divide the total present value by the number of people or families and get the debt each person or family will commit to.

Erica and Josh would be right to push for an ST2-only package next year if they had any backing in Olympia. But they don't. Light rail may have popular support among the public, but it's going to take a couple years before even the most progressive politicians support rail as a solution to gridlocked freeways, and low-density sprawl.

It seems to me that progressives like Chopp and Murray view light rail as a giant tax-sucking machine - human services for Chopp, and fully-loaded 520 mitigation for Murray. Murray made the mistake of outing the the legislature's hidden agenda when he sent that letter allowing Sound Transit Phase 2 to go forward, ONLY if they nixed the I-90 light rail line (again, that dough needed to be shoveled into a 520 moneypit).

When Murray sent that letter, do you think the legislature cared Sound Transit had already completed scope studies for the I-90 rail extension (a bridge which has been slated for rail for over 40 years), and is well into route analysis and public participation? Of course not. Did the legislature care that a Seattle-Bellevue-Microsoft route would have better ridership than the south line to Tacoma? Of course they didn't: this was all about playing politics, trying to fund a mega-project which is about to sink, and trying to appease some pretty powerful people who want I-90 to be rubber-tire exclusive.

Recent history illustrates just how naive Feit and Barnett really are in taking the Sierra Club position: ST was headed for the ballot in '06 - but in the 11th hour of the legislative session, with zero public input or participation, the Gov. and the legislative leaders put the breaks on a light rail expansion vote.

Similarly, the entire debate over governance this past legislative session revolved around Dems and Republicans sucking up to an anti-rail Republican billionaire, and thinking up new, innovative ways to spend all that light rail money on other "higher priority" projects.

And now, Feit and Barnett want to hand rail-skeptics in Olympia a victory, by shooting down this November ballot - thus placing the future of rail transit expansion back in their hands?

The transit and HOV-heavy RTID is NEVER going to get any greener than it is now. (hundreds of millions are going into transit, which is unprecedented.) Transportation Choices Coaltion - which has been working on this for years - will tell you that plain and simple.

I cannot name a SINGLE light rail champion in Olympia. Can you, Feit and Barnett? Who is going be the champion of this green daydream, in a suburban-dominated political environment? Will it be Sen. Haugen, who could care less about Seattle's future? Will it be Rep. Clibborn, who has been extremely skeptical of a light rail extension across I-90 (even though public support is 80%?)

None of these puget sound politicians will ever go on the record, and proclaim they're "against light rail." Rather, they will always find a new "priority" to fund first....they can read polls, but they also know light rail doesn't have a constituency. (ie, they know darn well they won't get thrown out of office for sending light rail dollars to "higher priority" safety projects like 520 and the Viaduct).

They also know the local media here doesn't cover any of these issues, and that the public will never read or see the bills passed in Olympia, let alone read about them.

To think suburban road-happy Olympia is suddenly going to do an about-face is extremely naive, at best - and extremely destructive, if we look at the worst-case scenario.

I'm hoping Barnett and Feit will dig around a little bit to find the real story, rather than just HOPE things turn out for the better after a defeated November ballot. If they talked to a couple key people, they would also find out not only is there next-to-zero political support for light rail, but that there's also nobody to fund a transit-only campaign.

Maybe the Sierra Club will have a bake sale, and that would fund their rail-only ballot measure in 2008.

This ECB and Feit tactic reminds me of the Ralph Nader-types who told us back in 2000 we needed to give Gore the boot, because the "more perfect" Ralph Nader could save us from our imperfect selves.

That worked out real well, didn't it, guys?

"ECB - your more accurate link for the taxes goes to a PI article that uses the ST pr numbers - hardly proof that the numbers are more accurate. "

whatever, that figure and associated methodology was verified by an expert review panel

www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/mtgnotes01
-2007_corrected.pdf p. 23

The fat Kemper Development Corp hack who made up the $888 figure did so because that's what hired guns who work for self-styled Howard Hughes types do...if you want to get your information on climate change from an Oil Company scientist, be my guest....

I don't know what to say to this. Erica, you wanted the monorail. You want transit. You also are completely aware of the governance attack on Sound Transit that came this year.

If Roads and Transit fails, the state government will combine Sound Transit and RTID, and you know it. We saw bills to do it this year, and don't think they won't pass next time. Judy Clibborn will get her wish - instead of East Link, we'll get more roads, because transit money won't be protected.

It's been thirty years since the last time we got to vote on a large mass transit project. It'll be another thirty if we kill this one. It is immensely irresponsible to put your fingers in your ears about what's happening in Olympia.

Oh, good grief, I didn't read well enough. I thought you were taking the Josh Feit avenue here! Sorry, Erica.

Yeah, well posting on the wrong thread is my specialty, too, Ben.

ECB did an excellent job picking apart the junk scientists here, so I'm sorry to fill the comment thread up with a bunch of unrelated noise.

I just hope the Stranger will avoid helping out the transit anti-Christs' cause....

Think Outside Your Bubble @10, thank you for saying what you said. The sad thing is, I don't think you're telling Josh Feit and Erica Barnett anything they don't already know when you say light rail has few friends in Olympia.

You see, that's what's so intellectually dishonest about Josh and Erica's stance on this joint ballot.

If you notice anything about Josh and Erica's political writing, it's a cynicism, disdain, and contempt for our elected officials in Seattle and Olympia. It's a sense that politicians will find a way to do the wrong thing or just do nothing.

And yet, this argument that we should hold out for a better ballot in 2008 is based entirely on an idealistic, innocent faith that our elected officials in Seattle and Olympia will magically turn against type and find a way to do the right thing.

Of course, when you get right down to it, Josh and Erica's position isn't really based on a desire for our politicians to find a way to get light rail built. But then, when you get right down to it, politics is seldom so much about issues as it is about politics itself.

Of course if the state were to run these projects instead of the 3 counties, the bond ratings would be better and therefore the total cost would be lower. Maybe with a new elected governance board they could fix that, as well as implement an actually balanced project, one that fully funds the replacement of the 520 bridge.

Even so, running these heavy light rail vehicles on a floating bridge doesn't seem that smart to me.

Erica - Your commentary and some responses are "flawed" with inaccuracies.

To ThinkOutsideYourBubble -- I have spent thousands of hours since 1990 in obtaining information and evaluating the regional transit programs. None of my work has been influenced by nor paid for by Kemper Freeman or anyone else -- it has been done pro bono based upon my research of agency data for anyone interested. I have carefully used Sound Transit and RTID data in reaching my findings and conclusions, even though some critics (including Sound Transit's Citizen Oversight Panel) contend that Sound Transit is over-estimating ridership and fare revenues and underestimating the growth in O&M costs.

I have submitted several papers on my analyses and findings to those who care to listen. Any similarity in what Kemper Freeman or Senator Jim Horn may have to report is based upon my findings of data and facts -- not vice-versa. I do not agree with some of their points of view. But I respect both gentlemen for researching their facts before speaking or writing.

My estimate of up to $888 tax per household in 2008 assumes a full year of tax collection, though that would not occur until 2009. These estimates are based upon Sound Transit and RTID estimates of actual tax collections simply divided by total households in the two tax areas. The State Department of Revenue found that 60% of sales taxes come directly from households and 40% are paid by businesses. Both DOR and the Sound Transit CFO admit that most business taxes are passed through to household/consumers in the costs of goods and services, but both have ignored that fact since they have no precise estimate. Sound Transit further reduced its estimates of sales tax cost per household to only 40% of total sales tax revenues -- an extremely lowballed estimate of the tax hits on our householder/consumers.

I don't know how you conclude from my analyses that they are "assuming the costs of goods and services would skyrocket at a rate much higher than inflation." That is a totally false allegation. The tax inclusions in those costs will inflate in direct proportion to Sound Transit's estimates of tax revenue inflation.

Yes, I want to remind voters that approval of ST2 includes extension of the ST1 taxes for the uncompleted Sound Move program at least through 2057. The ST1 taxes were to be reduced to levels that would accommodate debt service and O&M costs only if ST2 is not approved.

And yes, I oppose the RTID program tax as well as that for ST2 -- for rather convoluted reasons. The RTID program of this region's most urgent road improvement needs was reduced by half to accommodate a "balanced" road and transit package. As a result it provides no financing for the Alaskan Viaduct project, insufficient funding for the SR520 Bridge Replacement project, no funding for the adopted I-405 expansion program north of Bellevue, no funding for expansion of the Valley Freeway from Renton to Auburn, and insufficient funding to complete the SR167 extension from Puyallup to the Port of Tacoma and the improvements to I-5 to accommodate the southeast extension of the SR509 freeway.

While the RTID capital program was being cut from $18 billion to $9 billion (YOE), the ST2 light rail capital program was expanded from $9 billion to $18 billion YOE. This joint package proposal totally ignores the fact that since 1995 we approved new taxes for ST1, new sales taxes for local transit to replace the MVET tax revenues that were eliminated in 2000, and a 0.1% sales tax increase in King County for "Transit Now".

Whereas Transit tax revenues have been increasing at double the rate of inflation, the recent fuel tax increases have merely indexed the fuel tax revenues against CPI inflation. The MVET revenue loss for roads has never been replaced. That was the original goal of the RTID.

This year over half of all transportation tax revenues are dedicated to transit that serves only 2.7% of the 12 million person trips per day in this region. With approval of the R&T package, that ratio will increase by 2030 to 65% for transit, 35% for roads. Unfortunately this very disproportional ratio comes at a time when our road systems are aging to a need for major refurbishment (as is occuring on I-5 in Seattle today).

You have accepted Sound Transit's claim that the greatest value of ST2 rail would be in reducing peak period traffic. According to the PSRC forecasts it would increase the transit share of "work trips" by 2%. Work trips are less than half of the travel on our freeway system during the 3-hour afternoon peak period. The change would be almost unnoticeable against the 50% increase in travel demand between 2000 and 2030.

Finally, I would like to remind you that though you claim that "more buses is the preferred transit mode of every transit hater", our cordinated tri-county bus transit system was found to be the 8th best in the nation in serving work trips according to the 2000 Census. Its work trip transit share exceeded that of every urban region that has been diverting its transportation funding to new light rail transit systems.

"Buses stuck in traffic" is a rather perverted claim by Sound Transit. It suggests that we have been wasting $billions in the development of our nationally acclaimed freeway Transit/HOV lane system. We only need to promote and adopt a transportation plan to maintain speeds on that system. That means raising the carpool bar to 3+ occupant vehicles and/or converting those lanes to HOT lanes, and protecting those lanes from illegal use. Why is Sound Transit promoting the waste of the Transit/HOV lane system that to which we have diverted most of our road tax dollars over the past 20 years?

Come-on, Erica. We need to promote more cost-effective approaches to our failing transportation systems. The 70-mile light rail program and the seriously reduced RTID will have little effect on addressing the region's number 1 issue -- reducing transportation congestion.