Comments on Yay ... President Bush?

Where is this money coming from?

Did Bush propose this or did he just sign off on the legislation?

I am sure Murray just worked this in beforehand

Well, I know it didn't come from Social Security. That money's in a lockbox.

cheer spending you like, but then complain about deficits? cmon now.

Sweet. Only $5.8+ billion to go.

And what new taxes did he recommend to pay for this?

Besides, signing a bill authorizing money is NOT the same as delivering funding.

You know, if we brought the troops home, we could pay for all of these, balance the budget, and rebuild and repair all our existing roads and bridges, while building a nation-wide high speed 200+ mph passenger/freight train network ...

AND replace all imported oil from the Middle East with American-built, -maintained, and -operated energy sources like wind, solar, tidal, geothermal, and hydro.

Just sayin.

Will, can we throw in some 100 story condos with all that? because i dont want to believe in your fantasy world without them!

Will in Seattle @7:

You know, if we brought the troops home, we could pay for...

Really? All that just for the cost savings of troop withdrawal?

I'm in favor of all your cited goals, but I think your assessment of the money and effort required is, um, optimistic, to put it kindly.

(Nevermind the moral issue of abandoning Iraq and Afghanistan after all the damage we've done...)

Wow even a blind nut can find a squirrel sometimes.

@9: Don't try to reason with him. His delusions too resilient.

Way to go Murray, Cantwell, McDermott & Dicks!

With all that pork coming in, we should be living the high life for years to come.

Our state's congressional contingent is pathetic. The last one with any real clout was Speaker Tom Foley, and that jerk sued his own district for not re-electing him!

No wonder Little Dino Rossi gets so many votes: look at the competition!

@7:
its not a this-or-that situation, because the entire war is being put on a credit card, not in the federal budget. it is deficit spending our grandchildren will be paying for, and hampers any ability we might have to fund public transportation in the future.

as per GOP design.

Math major, the $100 million is 1/7 of the federal money ST is counting on for the $1.7 billion tunnel to the UW.

If the full funding is not available by the end of the year, how can they start the boring?

The initial segment is more like $2.8 billion not the $6 billion Josh uses.
Unless all of a sudden Josh is using finance numbers.

And Will if we could get $1 for every time you post blue tidal wave, 100 story low cost housing and how you are going to shut down new highways, we could pay for it without taxes or federal help.

1 ) Go to http://www.soundtransit.org/x5492.xml

2) Go to the lower-right area ("Select a video")

3) Double-click on "Link light rail testing in the DSTT"

4) Either get exited or say "meh"

You know, the feds were giving shit like this away n the 70's, but Seattle didn't want to pay it's .00000001% tax increase that would have got'n it done. Seriously, you guys almost has a fucking BART scootin' ya'll around. But no, it got screwed up, and it's just been depressing option after depressing option since.

Take the money. Build something please. And most importantly, stop voting for developers. Seattle politics just hasn't changed much in 30 years, it'd be kinda cool if it did.

P.S. As usual, I only sort of know what the hell I'm talking about.

@8, @9 - those are the economic arguments - stats from WaPo, NYT, Economist, and WSJ.

The problem is you've been misled to believe the military should consume half the US budget (including black budget), while other nations have very very small fractions wasted on military.

Wake up!

whatever @ 14--if you knew as much about ST finances as you claim on Slog, you would know that the feds appropriate the FFGA grants on an annual basis. So, this $100 million means that the feds have approved the $750 million grant for U-Link and we are in the pipeline.

I know you like to hate the top ridership line in the whole country due to your bitterness about the monorail, but you are reaching here as usual.

The Phase I numbers (from 11/07 SEC filing by Sound Transit):

---
“Sources and Uses of Funds 1997-2016”

[YOE$, all figures are millions of dollars]

Tax Revenues $6,925
Federal Grants $1,821
Bonds $2,398
Fares/Operating Revenues $431
Local Grants/Interest Earnings $567

Total: $12,143

Sounder Commuter Rail: $1,268
ST Express Bus: $785
Link Light Rail: $4,175
Transit Operations: $2,712
System-wide Activities: $533
Debt Service: $1,218
Contributions to Reserves: $1,450

Total: $12,143
----

"Transit Operations: $2,712"
"Contributions to Reserves: $1,450"

Padding the bill?

@19
I don't understand please explain a bit more?

Does that data say that the light rail is $4.175 billion? Wasn't the original price tag like $1.9 billion or something? Maybe the year of the dollars matters.

@14 says it is $2.8 billion. Why the difference?

Josh seems to say there is one segment that is $1.8 billion (downtown to UW) and another segment that is $2.48 billion. That's a total of about $3.3 billion. Is that right?

Why does @14 say Josh said $6 billion?

On that $1.8 billion link, how many stations are we getting for that?

You all are getting ripped off.

Read it and weep: http://www.metrotransit.org/rail/facts.asp

NO new local taxes, 17 stations, less than four years to construct – that’s how to do light rail.

And W.T.F. is up with the Sound Train operating costs???? Am I reading that right ($2.7 billion)? Here’s how it gets done in the heartland:

“Operating Cost: Annual budgeted operating cost is $19.85 million in 2006 dollars. This cost is offset in part by annual fare revenue estimated at $7.2 million. Hennepin County funds 50 percent of the net operating cost.”

@21: "Wasn't the original price tag like $1.9 billion or something?"

Nope. Not even close.

Cool! Well, so long as we ditch the nutso segment from Sea-Tac to Tacoma until the portions it would link have sufficient passenger loads, I'm good with that, @22.

ST2.1 - November 2008 - because if we did it in Feb 2008 we'd have to admit we messed up big time!

WIS -

STFU, asshole.

Tippy,

Drinking that cheap scotch early?

I know you like to hate the top ridership line in the whole country due to your bitterness about the monorail, but you are reaching here as usual.

It has no ridership. It hasn't opened yet.

Why you obsess on the monorail, who knows but the 1 mile system carries more people every day than the initial segment of LINK has carried in its lifetime.

So, this $100 million means that the feds have approved the $750 million grant for U-Link and we are in the pipeline.

Does that mean you can refer us to a schedule of when and how much ST will be getting from the Feds?

You'll note that Josh has changed the numbers to close to what I said they were.

Twin Cities pal:
I rode that light rail out in Minneapolis -- in January no less -- to get from dt to the airport. Not bad.
Cheaper than a cab for sure.

What you are missing is that here we don't have an old railroad right of way that goes through downtown. Well, actually we do, but it's used for freight and stuff. We do have a railroad right of way on the East Side, but we have cleverly failed to put any commuter trains on that one even though we could get the whole right of way for a few hundred million, upgrade it and run trains all day.

Instead we spent about a billion dollars for improving BNSF tracks used all day by BNSF. Kind of like a tenant buildling a new foundation for the landlord?? This lets us lease 3 train slots in the am and pm on the main BNSF freight lines that go through Seattle. Then we getto ask permission for a few more slots in the coming decades.

I think the line in MN had an old railroad right of way that went right downtown.

Meanwhile, our light rail is a tiny bit more expensive than yours because we have to dig a bug tunnel for 7 miles under a canal and a hill, then we have another tunnel under another hill, then we run the train in the middle of the street for 4 miles crossing 57 cross streets, little kids and such. This limits the trains to the length of a city, block, too. This is to serve as the main line of our future superduper rail transit system connecting major cities in the Puget Sound area.

Kinda like building the NYC subway right down the middle of Broadway!

So, we'll get all the incredible lightness of light rail lightness (trains just 2 cars long) -- but with all the expense of a huge subway (miles of tunnels).

This is light rail's flexibility -- all the cost of a major underground system, none of the benefits.

This is a typical Seattle design-by-process that results in a multiheaded hybrid that satisfies everyone a little bit, and makes no sense overall. If you moved out here you would understand. But you folks back East (you are in the East, right? maybe St. Paul is) could never understand without coming out here. After about the 3,325 community meetings we've had on tranist, it would all make sense.

Write again,

#21 the original pricetag for the first 21 miles was about $1.7 billion in 1996 dollars and was to be completed by 2006. The campaign indicated that the numbers were very conservative and they hoped to get to Northgate without any additional taxes.

@23 fact checker:

OK, thanks. so what was the original price tag?????????????

@28 intones: "the original pricetag for the first 21 miles was about $1.7 billion in 1996 dollars and was to be completed by 2006."

But ---

Included in that $1.7 bln. cost estimate was a ton of additional Phase I expenses that are not included in the new $4.175 light rail capital cost figure shown in Emerald Mole's posting.

For example, the $1.7 bln. Sound Move estimate included O&M, agency-wide administrative costs, and contributions to reserves for the entire Phase I period. Now in the new accounting, ST breaks those out as separate line items for all of ST's projects, and they are MASSIVE:

Transit Operations: $2,712
System-wide Activities: $533
Contributions to Reserves: $1,450

"Why you obsess on the monorail, who knows but the 1 mile system carries more people every day than the initial segment of LINK has carried in its lifetime."

This is the kind of high quality, highly relevant commentary we have come to expect from our friend whatever. The guy has got to be 17 years old.

Tiptoe's monorail association is relevant. Whatever personifies the axe-grinding Seattle crank whose ideology based theories have nothing to do with sane transport planning. It's all about settling grudges.

Speaking of which, I wonder how long it will take until Cleve and Chas weigh in?

Let's use all the zeroes we should be using for this:

Transit Operations: $2,712,000,000

System-wide Activities: $533,000,000

Contributions to Reserves: $1,450,000,000

There now, isn't that better.

I'm with Brandon. Whatever always bleats out meaningless garbage. She clearly has no clue. The fact that she didn't point out how the Sound Move light rail cost estimate included a huge amount of Phase I costs in addition to capital costs shows that she lacks a basic understanding of what is going on at Sound Transit. Best just to ignore whatever whatever posts.

Cobblepot - while you accuse me of underestimating the ST LINK costs Brandon accuses me of over estimating the costs. I don't think you quite get it but...

Brandon I posted at 14, 26 and 28 - please point out any errors of fact. Can you provide your doppleganger Tiptoe's answer for the schedule of Fed funding.?

I know cave dweller, axe grinder, blah blah blah but no facts.

Look, I've known cave dwellers, whatever, and they're all way more informed than u are.

Oswald - I don't know where you got those numbers, but I can guarantee you one thing: the complainer dittoheads get confused easily by them. It's a lot easier to just make the numbers up. Whis is why they do it. Constantly.

"So, we'll get all the incredible lightness of light rail lightness (trains just 2 cars long) -- but with all the expense of a huge subway (miles of tunnels)."

Sorry, unPC. Trains will be 2-4 cars in length, depending on demand. Nice job with the disinformation, though. You and whatever should have a Passive-Aggressive Grudge Match Meetup some time. Capacity of 800 for a 4-car train set isn't exactly "lightness."

"We do have a railroad right of way on the East Side, but we have cleverly failed to put any commuter trains on that one even though we could get the whole right of way for a few hundred million, upgrade it and run trains all day. "

Failed to put commuter trains on the old rickety Dinner Train route? The Port only recently acquired the right of way. A few hundred million will only begin to address the capital improvements necessary to run passenger service. In fact, a few hundred million may be the cost of the trestle alone. Where do these nutcases come up with this garbage? Eh, unPC? Did you just pull this crap out of a hat?

"This is a typical Seattle design-by-process that results in a multiheaded hybrid that satisfies everyone a little bit, and makes no sense overall."

Of course, every armchair planner crank and his brother believes his own personal, proprietary plan is the ONE plan that "makes sense." Now, if all the individual axe grinders could focus on a "plan" that does not conflict with all the other axe grinders' "plans", then, maybe...just maybe...unPC would have a leg on which to stand. Somehow, I doubt that will happen.

Until then, the many-headed hydra of the democratic process (based on the blueprint ACTUAL transportation planners create) will continue.

@34 - You were accused of misrepresenting what the Sound Move light rail cost estimate included, not "underestimating the ST LINK costs." Characterize the attack properly.

@ 36 - O.T.C. got those numbers from post number 19. They supposedly are from a November 2007 SEC filing by ST.

Can anyone confirm or disprove what Emerald Mole posted @19 about those supposed Phase I cost estimates? If those are actual ST numbers, they are FAR higher than anything else I've ever seen from ST relating just to Phase I.

"Brandon I posted at 14, 26 and 28 - please point out any errors of fact."

Facts, whatever? You're joking, right?

@ 14, you mistakenly assume ST gets one big check at one time. That's not the way the first $500 million came. In fact, I don't even think they have received their final installment yet.

"It has no ridership. It hasn't opened yet."

@26: that was childish, whatever. Really.

"the original pricetag for the first 21 miles was about $1.7 billion in 1996 dollars and was to be completed by 2006. The campaign indicated that the numbers were very conservative and they hoped to get to Northgate without any additional taxes."

@28: yeah, the board opted to go south instead of north because a single-bid tunnel contract came in at $900 million over engineers' estimates. So the federal funding went to University Link, rather than the Northgate extension.

I have no idea who ran the campaign, but the official "1996 Sound Move" plan language went like this:
---------
The Northgate to SeaTac (South 200th Street) light-rail line will be built in three segments. The first segment will be a line south between downtown Seattle and the airport serving the Rainier Valley area.

The second segment will be built between downtown Seattle and the University District via a tunnel under First Hill, Capitol Hill and the Ship Canal. The engineering work for the north line will take longer to complete than the south line so construction of the north line will likely not begin until the south line is already under construction. The third segment of the light-rail line will be between the University District and Northgate, and will be built when construction funds have been identified and guaranteed.
------------

So, ST is building 20 miles instead of 21 miles which is what a start-up agency with a shoestring budget, and no experience cost-estimating came up with. And instead of 2006, it's gonna be 2009 - and onother seven years after that to get to the UW.

At least they're building something, after 30 years of nattering nabobs (professional whiners) and pinheaded academics sat around arguing THEIR personal back-of-the-napkin idea was the better than the one the government came up with. Jim Ellis pointed out recently, that if the public had just ignored the fringers 30 years ago, we would have paid off the last bonds, and had a system up and running (with an 80% federal match) for pennies on the dollar we have to pay now.

BTW, how is your heavy rail plan penciling out, whatever?

Funny how the Bus Rapid Transit clowns have suddenly gone silent. I would love to see one of them propose a BRT line that tried to compete with the Northgate extension of light rail.

Well, there is the BRT part for SeaTac to Tacoma ...

Which, if you do the numbers, is one of the few places it makes a lot of sense.

Brandon you are so weak.

I didn't say anything about one check. I only said that $100 million was about 1/7 of what was needed. The truth. Read the post it referred to at #5. And I asked how we start without a guarantee of the rest. If there is a guarantee, fine.

Tippy said I hate the top ridership line in the country - to which I replied they haven't carried one passenger - seems a fair response.

I said the vote number was for $1.7 billion in 1996 and you go off on building stages etc. etc. Was the vote for $1.7 billion in 1996 dollars? Yes in was.

Brandon:

So, ST is building 20 miles instead of 21 miles which is what a start-up agency with a shoestring budget, and no experience cost-estimating came up with. And instead of 2006, it's gonna be 2009 - and onother seven years after that to get to the UW.

Yes, they will be 8 years late getting to the UW and 10 years late getting to 45th. Oops looks like they missed First Hill. They are still using the same consultants they used for their estimates in 1994 and that firm had been in business for long time at that time. Agencies don't do estimating they hire consultants.

Shoestring budget, right.

ST is talking much more bus in ST2.1. What do you think they will call the bridge over I-5 at NG for people to transfer to LR? I suggest the Bridge of Sighs.

The Bridge of Sighs is about maybe twenty feet long, actually.

I suggest we call it the growing-pontoon bridge.

Most people don't grok that virtually all floating bridges are in fact literally connected boats (pontoons).

Personally, I like the 6 into 8 design for the 520 bridge - somebody finally clued in to the real engineering constraints ....

BRT is a stopgap until you get higher capacity requirements. Nothing wrong with it, but nothing special about it either.

Although a green electric biodiesel bus might alter that ...

Look, I've known cave dwellers, whatever, and they're all way more informed than u are.

Posted by Will in Seattle | February 4, 2008 3:46 PM

@9: Don't try to reason with him. His delusions too resilient.

Posted by Greg | February 4, 2008 12:16 PM

Whatever's protestations ring in my ears like those of The Activist Formerly Known As Peter Sherwin. If my wild guess is correct, I can see why Tiptoe Tommy and Brandon would mention monorail and sour grapes, respectively. Whoever he is, incessantly commenting on the lateness of a particular transit project accomplishes absolutely nothing. Further, it has been my observation that the people who dwell on late projects and mistakes made years ago are the same people who have called for delay and participated in political and legal efforts to delay and stop said projects. I do not have much patience or respect for people who practise those tactics. It reminds me of the aggressive lout who trips an innocent passer-by, then mocks him for falling down.

Twin Cities @ 22, we have a rash of comments each time the subject of light rail arises, all with the common theme of 'it's cheaper and easier to build rail transit in flat, half - empty cities." Pardon my French, but no shit. Roads and buses are a he'll of a lot less expensive, too. And those states actually provide funding for their regional rail programmes. This backwater state legislature will see the light someday.

Incidentally, the often vicious critics of MPLS' starter line cited its high costs, comparing their plans to even less challenging cities, the same way Twin Cities Figured It Out did contrasting Seattle to MPLS.

I am confident metro Seattle will soon cease paying attention to the poorly informed public transport malcontents.

Unbelieveable. This is sooooooooooooooooo Seattle. Instead of getting amped up about obvious good news -- there's going to be a 55-mph subway to UW, everyone! -- this thread is like a bunch of fucking fatuous know-it-alls having a circle-jerk to prove who's got the biggest, um, idea. It seems the only thing anyone cares about is who's smartest. Shut up already and be happy.

Six minutes from UW to downtown. Three minutes from Cap Hill. Construction starting this year. This year!

For all the blather about monorail, light rail, blah blah blah blah, it boils down to this: One big transit mega project is getting done this year, and the second one is starting. When's the last time something like that happened in Seattle? I'll tell you: NEVER.

You mean like when we voted to literally double Metro Transit bus service?

That was mostly due to Seattle votes.

And it just happened ...

Wow Brandon, you seem so up on all this - do you work for a ST consultant?

You quoted from Sound Move. Do you have a link to a copy, I can't find one.

Also, I forget - what is the amount of voter approved local taxes for all Phase I construction (I know that is specified in Sound Move)?

RonK - The huge difference in capital costs is weird ($4 billion here vs. three-quarters of a billion there). But the huge difference is how much operating costs are different. What the fuck is up with $2.7 billion in transit operations (and $1.4 billion in reserves)? The subsidy for operations needed is only $10 million or so each year in MPLS.

And what does ST need $533 million in system wide activities for? That's about what the entire construction costs are for the light rail line in MPLS.

A little less forced cheerleading would be appreciated, "railfans."

"Wow Brandon, you seem so up on all this - do you work for a ST consultant?"

I get worked up when stupid people say stupid things. I am perfectly happy to engage in civilized discussions with even partially educated folks. I am also willing to entertain any decent ideas from the rabid anti-rail set. If they had any to offer. I work for the Illuminati....not an ST consultant.

"You quoted from Sound Move. Do you have a link to a copy, I can't find one."

There's this thing called Google. If you want, I can Google "Google" for you, curious jorge.