Well, the Times is has the benefit now of seeing how ST has not performed well.

It isn't the idea of trains that is bad; what's bad about the new plan is ST has proven it can't bring LRT service on line comparably to how everywhere else can do it (in terms of cost and construction time).

If ST already had delivered everything it said it would be able to, at the $3.9 billion (est.) cost voters approved in 1996, a new measure might make some sense about now. But ST didn't do what it said it could.

Even worse, it is not complying with the taxpayer-protection terms set out in that 1996 measure. The voters then gave ST the right to spend up to $1.98 billion in local tax revenue in the five subareas during the system-build out period. ST is disregarding the law in that respect.

The voters imposed an accelerated bond payoff provision on ST, in the event a future capital-spending plan was rejected (as it was last November). Again, ST is disregarding the law in that respect as well.

ST's latest financial plan says it expects it will need to spend $2.7 billion just on operations costs for the Phase I system between 1996 and 2016. What.The.Fuck? That's FAR too much, it is completly out of line what other light rail system operators need to pay.

So ST has not lived up either to the terms voters imposed on it in 1996 or to the expectations of the public.

I don't care how much you like the idea of trains, the massive sales tax boost ST wants now makes no sense. There's a recession starting up, and it'll get ugly.

Given how much ST want in new revenues, the little train line and bus service increases don't do nearly enough for a big enough segment of our community (ESPECIALLY for people living in Seattle).

Not all transit taxes are equally good, more transit taxes do not equal a better plan, and nobody should have any confidence that ST would do a good job delivering train service efficiently if it gets this tax increase that puts taxpayers on the hook for all cost overruns.

A sense of scale is needed.

Metro collects 9/10s of 1 cent today in sales tax. It carries 400,000 riders a day. It's nearly broke, suffering under declining tax collections and escalating fuel prices. It's not on a financially sustainable path.

Under the new plan, ST would collect 9/10s for 25-30 years, roll back 5/10s to the current 4/10s when construction is complete. The result: the ability to sustain operation of a 55-mile, hydropowered rail system with capacity to carry over a million daily riders -- at less than half the tax load Metro collects today.

Just bussin' ain't gonna cut it. We need both, and this plan delivers it.

just sayin' @1:

It isn't the idea of trains that is bad; what's bad about the new plan is ST has proven it can't bring LRT service on line comparably to how everywhere else can do it (in terms of cost and construction time).

If ST already had delivered everything it said it would be able to, at the $3.9 billion (est.) cost voters approved in 1996, a new measure might make some sense about now. But ST didn't do what it said it could.

Uh, just sayin', this is kinda like sayin' my doctor once overcharged me so I'm going to give up on health care. The fact that Sound Transit failed to deliver on budget in the past doesn't change the reality that this region is going to keep hobbling along until it has an effective mass transit system up and running.

Of course, just sayin', I imagine you know this just as well as I do. That is, you're "just sayin'". For a bit of historical perspective, wasn't BART this over-budget, hyper-controversial boondoggle back in the 1960s? And now, people in the Bay Area couldn't imagine life without it.

"what's bad about the new plan is ST has proven it can't bring LRT service on line comparably to how everywhere else can do it (in terms of cost and construction time)."

just sayin': you come up with a new stupid reason to oppose light rail each and every time.

What, do you think cities like Portland build their system over night, without fits and starts? The latest Milwaukie line costs just as much as ST's Link on a per-mile basis. And they haven't had a successful public vote down there for over a decade (Oregon's state government funds MAX - while WA State doesn't give Puget Sound a dime for light rail, concentrating - instead - on expending all their political capital on freeway expansion)

Not to mention the fact that the same lot of rail naysayers did their best to kill PDX light rail when it was in its infancy. All the whiners and critics down there shut up pretty fast once it was up and running.

Here's the punch line, though: Seattle rail critics have spent two decades trying to delay light rail implementation through political organizing, multiple lawsuits, lobbying Republicans DC & Olympia, as well as local governments. They won a couple battles and succeeding in slowing and delaying Sound Transit every step of the way; but they lost the overall war when federal funding was finally freed up.

The latest delay tactics - fighting light rail access to the I-90 center roadway - continue to make costs higher, despite the fact I-90 was designed to accommodate light rail.

Now, these very same critics complain about how long its taken and how expensive all this stuff costs. Talk about disingenuous.

just sayin' @1:

I don't care how much you like the idea of trains, the massive sales tax boost ST wants now makes no sense. There's a recession starting up, and it'll get ugly.

Massive? It's one-half of 1 percent. That's around 1/9th the current sales tax.

As for the timing for a tax increase being inopportune with the recession we're in... Let's not kid ourselves--by the standards of the light rail foes, there is never an opportune time for such a tax increase. Back in 2002, we were debating the Seattle monorail, and the anti-rail crowd kept on going, "You can't increase taxes now. We're in a recession." Well, if we'd had the wherewithal to follow through with that monorail system, we'd actually be benefiting from it in a couple years.

Under Franklin Roosevelt's leadership, this nation made enormous investments in this nation's infrastructure in the midst of the Great Depression. Under Abraham Lincoln's leadership, this naiton made enormous investments in this nation's infrastructure in the midst of the Civil War. The only inopportune time to invest in our community's future is the time when we can't muster the public will.

The longer we go on saying we're too poor to invest in our future and our infrastructure, the poorer we're going to get--until we actually will be poor.

Oh, here's another gem from our pal "just sayin'," née "whatever," née who knows what else:

Given how much ST want in new revenues, the little train line and bus service increases don't do nearly enough for a big enough segment of our community (ESPECIALLY for people living in Seattle).

Actually, this light rail system is going to benefit Seattleites more than residents of any other municipality. Why? It's like "all roads lead to Rome." All rail lines will lead to downtown Seattle.

But you know what, if somehow Sound Transit 2 focused entirely on in-city Seattle transit service, these same people who are bitching now that ST2 doesn't do enough for Seattle would be bitching that it doesn't do enough for everywhere else.

It's like, half the arguments these people make against any real mass transit are arguments they themselves couldn't care less about.

"I don't care how much you like the idea of trains, the massive sales tax boost ST wants now makes no sense. There's a recession starting up, and it'll get ugly."

How has every other developed country - including this one - dug its way out of severe economic hardship?

By building infrastructure.

If just sayin' is really worried about somebody spending an extra nickel on some $10 piece of crap plastic (made in China) gadget they bought at Wal Mart, he may wish to check in with the failed model of an all-consumer economy.

If you want to see how obsessed just sayin' has been with light rail, check out his comments on the PI transit forum.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/forum/boards/viewboard.asp?boardID=7

You can find him conversing with himself for pages and pages, for years and years. Sometimes I wonder if mental health challenges are a pre-requisite for opposing light rail in Seattle.

To make things even more absurd, just sayin' spent a lot of time and energy defending the monorail's insane finance plans a couple years ago - probably forming the basis for his obsession with killing light rail.

Oh, this gives me an excuse to link to the usually awesome hugeasscity:

Vote YES on Proposition 1

The City of Seattle always ranks near the top of U.S. cities for educational attainment. But all those big brains can be a curse, because most smarty pantses can’t control their inclination to analyze everything to death, and then to show off their smarty pantsness by endlessly ruminating over all the uncertainty that inevitably arises from thoughtful analysis of any complex issue. And so big plans usually die for lack of firm support.

"capacity to carry over a million daily riders"

Capacity isn't king. There are not enough residents within a walking (quarter-mile) distance of the stations and there are not acres of park & ride lots. The lack of density on those two scales means all that potential capacity will be nothing but excess capacity.

Has density sprung up around the Tukwila station? No. Can density spring up around the Husky stadium station? No.

"wasn't BART this over-budget, hyper-controversial boondoggle back in the 1960s?"

No, because the local tax dollars involved were peanuts compared to ST's bloated proposal. Apples and Oranges.

"The latest Milwaukie line costs just as much as ST's Link on a per-mile basis."

Total bullshit. The only tax revenue used on the TriMet system is a per-capita payroll tax. No sales taxes are used. It doesn't cost the people and families anything like what ST charges for its short LRT system with virtually no parking and very few stations. Plus, the local tax share (the one businesses pay) is tiny compared to the tax burden ST wants to impose on this region.

"Well, if we'd had the wherewithal to follow through with that monorail system, we'd actually be benefiting from it in a couple years."

We fucked that one up royally - we listened when the supporters said it would be up and running BY 2007. We wouldn't be benefiting from it in a couple of years, it'd be up and running already. That just goes to prove the point that these promises of gee whiz transformative rail are empty slogans designed to lock in tax streams. The monorail team just ripped us off, and this ST bunch has the same idea in mind. Make promises nobody needs to keep, and haul in the taxes to pay off the political base. It's a scam, and you're too dim to see it.

This one's my favorite: "Actually, this light rail system is going to benefit Seattleites more than residents of any other municipality. Why? It's like "all roads lead to Rome." All rail lines will lead to downtown Seattle."

99% of Seattle residents won't benefit at all from the taxes they'd be paying. So there's massive capacity for residents of Lake Stevens and Lynnwood to pour into the center of Seattle, on highly subsidized 35 mile commutes. And why would they come? To look at the WAMU tower with few jobs in it? There aren't going to be the jobs downtown that these visionaries backing ST "see" in our future. Worksites will be dispersed, and decentralized. We don't need to give highly subsidized capacity to a couple of points in a couple of suburbs: there aren't that many people there to begin with, and we won't need them in downtown Seattle (or Bellevue).

"How has every other developed country - including this one - dug its way out of severe economic hardship?

By building infrastructure."

Not with sales taxes they haven't! Never happened, anywhere.

"I wonder if mental health challenges are a pre-requisite for opposing light rail in Seattle."

I wonder if inept transportation planning is a prerequisite to holding office in Seattle. Monorail, ST1, viaduct, SR 520, the need for Bridging the Gap, a 40-40-20 METRO spending split shorting this city - this is a gaggle of Keystone Kops putting forward one lousy effort after another. Deep six this latest effort!

Now, let's see if we can get the A-Team on here, and hear a couple of good reasons for this particular plan. None have been presented yet . . ..

ronko @9:

"How has every other developed country - including this one - dug its way out of severe economic hardship?
By building infrastructure."

Not with sales taxes they haven't! Never happened, anywhere.

I gotta say, that's some impressive mastery of the non sequitur. It's like saying, "No nation has ever put a man on the moon that didn't have a thriving youth baseball culture."

ronko:

99% of Seattle residents won't benefit at all from the taxes they'd be paying.

Let me get this straight. So you're saying that only 1% of Seattleites are going to be riding light rail? Where did you get that figure, from the same folks who claim that ST2 is going to cost $107 billion?

BTW, what's remarkable to me about the anti-rail contingent is this willful lack of perspective. There's this assumption that the only way you can benefit from a transportation system is if you yourself use it. There's no recognition that it's possible to benefit indirectly from an investment in infrastructure. With this kind of depth and foresight, human society would have collapsed even in hunter-gatherer times.

Some more brilliant math from ronko: So there's massive capacity for residents of Lake Stevens and Lynnwood to pour into the center of Seattle, on highly subsidized 35 mile commutes.

Where exactly are these 35-mile commutes of which you speak? Even if someone rode all the way from the north terminus in Lynnwood to the south terminus short of Federal Way, you hardly get to 35 miles.

More ronko:

"wasn't BART this over-budget, hyper-controversial boondoggle back in the 1960s?"

No, because the local tax dollars involved were peanuts compared to ST's bloated proposal. Apples and Oranges.

Ronko, do yourself some good and read a little about the history of BART.

@9, Doh!

"Not with sales taxes they haven't! Never happened, anywhere."

Nearly every transit authority in the USA relies on sales tax, ya dork. Look it up.

"99% of Seattle residents won't benefit at all..."

Under the MTN plan, half - half! - of all trips in and out of the city will be on transit. Hmmm... half of all commuters on transit... I cannot IMAGINE what effect that might have on city streets and highways. And with 16 stations within the city limits, I wonder how many riders will be city residents, hmmm?

This is my favorite: "Capacity isn't king."

Such low hanging, um, fruit... Let's see: 1 highway lane = 1800 cars per hour. One LRT line = 12,000 riders per hour, per direction. Which is more efficient at moving people? And which will fill up sooner? And which will wear out faster? And which is better poised to handle the 1.7 MILLION additional peopole who will be here in 2040?

Discuss.

"There are not enough residents within a walking (quarter-mile) distance of the stations and there are not acres of park & ride lots. The lack of density on those two scales means all that potential capacity will be nothing but excess capacity."

So, access to 70% of the region's residents, and 85% of jobs won't render enough riders, ronko?

http://future.soundtransit.org/documents/ST2_Plan_web.pdf (pg 25)

-"The latest Milwaukie line costs just as much as ST's Link on a per-mile basis."-

Total bullshit. The only tax revenue used on the TriMet system is a per-capita payroll tax. No sales taxes are used. It doesn't cost the people and families anything like what ST charges for its short LRT system with virtually no parking and very few stations

Wow. Notice ronko's "money growing on trees" explanation for how other cities build light rail. Ronko posts this ignorant bs all over the internet under all kinds of screen names. Even when corrected, he goes back to the same old bad information - which means he knows he's lying.

Very mature.

Ronko got one thing right: local sales tax was not used for light rail extensions in Portland. Oregon does not have a sales tax, making it kinda hard to leverage sales tax revenues.

The money for MAX extensions came from lottery revenues. I have challenged ronko on several occassions to defend the use of highly regressive lottery funds paid for by a guy living in Pendelton - for a light rail line in Portland.

Each time ronko comes up with "the better model" he always chokes. Best example was ronko's explanation that the elected Port Commission board was an excellent model of accountability as compared to Sound Transit's appointed board. The guy is just all over the logic map.

Has density sprung up around the Tukwila station?

Yes, clearly ST is a total failure, as can be clearly seen by the lack of development around a station THAT ISN'T EVEN OPEN YET.
It's true that the Tukwila station is unlikely to show lots of positive development for a long, long time, because of the asinine way the streets and sidewalks are laid out, and Tukwila's mysterious belief that banners and gargantuan faux-Victorian streetlights constitute urban design, but these things take time. Cressona is absolutely right.
And yes, BART was considered to be a boondoggle for decades, and cost an absolutely insane amount of money (do remember to adjust for those 1970s dollars, Ronnie, babe). Yes, BART had some serious, near-fatal design flubs (no SFO link), some of which are still there (no service to the largest city in the region), but BART is on balance a success today.
WE NEED THIS. Opponents are unrealistic dreamers who think a few more freeway lanes will solve all of our problems. Nothing could be more untrue. Seattle has already turned into mini-LA; adding to a starter system like ST is essential if we want to avoid becoming Houston or Atlanta.