Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« Another One on Suicide Watch | Slightly Famous Monsters of Fi... »

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

New Poll Numbers, One Week Out

posted by on October 30 at 13:47 PM

A new poll by University of Washington researchers finds that the roads and transit ballot measure, Prop. 1, is trailing among registered voters, with 43 percent in favor and 46 against (11 percent were undecided), but doing much better among likely voters (those who voted in the previous two November elections). Among those voters—400 of the poll’s total sample of 600—49 percent supported the measure, 38 percent opposed it, and 13 percent were undecided. Other interesting information from the poll:

• Support for Tim Eyman’s anti-tax Initiative 960 was evenly split, with 40 percent in favor and 40 percent opposed.

• Referendum 67, which would make it illegal for insurers to unreasonably deny claims, showed a large plurality of voters in support—48 percent, compared to 31 percent opposed.

• An amendment allowing school levies to pass by a simple majority, rather than the supermajority that is currently required, was winning handily, with 59 percent of voters in favor, and just 31 percent against.

• Gov. Christine Gregoire had strong approval ratings throughout the state, with the highest approval rating (67 percent) in the Puget Sound region.

One question I have outstanding is whether the statewide poll asked people outside the Puget Sound region about roads and transit, on which only Puget Sound voters will cast ballots. Not sure how that would change the outcome, although my guess is that folks east of the mountains would be against it (transit bad! not enough roads!); I’m waiting to hear back from the pollsters on the scope of their survey.

Update: Matt Barreto, an assistant professor in the UW’s political science department, says the roads and transit question was only addressed to voters in the three-county Puget Sound region.

Meanwhile, Carl Pope—executive of that wacky communist left-wing revolutionary outfit known the national Sierra Club—has an editorial on the Sierra Club’s web site supporting the Seattle chapter in its (controversial) opposition to roads and transit. An excerpt:

This is another example of the need to match rising public expectations with higher, very much not business-as-usual policy goals and approaches. And only a steadily rising bar can meet the world’s needs. The days of doing it the way we always have are over. As the New York Times recently reported, for example, even significant improvements in the amount of CO2 released in making a ton of cement will get totally overwhelmed if we keep on expanding the amount of cement we need every year for things like highways. We need a new approach. And the UN recently reported that, globally, for the first time, science can measure the fact that current human pressures on ecosystems exceed global resource availability.

It is a tricky call — how dramatically can you change expectation, how high can you raise the bar, and still clear it? Our strategy is to take risks on the high side — because that’s the only pathway that offers us real hope.

RSS icon Comments


ECB--you question the methodology of the UW poll, but report the whacked out Survey USA robo polls as gospel--what gives?

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 30, 2007 1:54 PM

Congrats to The Stranger for helping to sink Proposition 1. Good-bye, hopes of improved Seattle transit!

Good news with R-67, though. Glad that those fucktard insurance types aren't going to be able to buy the results they want...

Posted by bma | October 30, 2007 1:59 PM

I have yet to hear anyone endorsing a "No" vote on Prop 1 propose a viable alternative or offer their financial or political support to an alternative bill. People keep telling me a better plan will come down the pike. From where?

I haven't seen the Stranger address this question. If you did, I might take your endorsement more seriously.

Posted by Judah | October 30, 2007 2:25 PM

I-960 is polling at 40% each way? Clearly, 40% of voters have no idea what representative government means.

Posted by Greg | October 30, 2007 2:26 PM

I too would like to thank, on behalf of Seattle, Puget Sound, and the Earth all the many important discussions and online debates by The Stranger which will lead to the RTID/ST2 going down.

I look forward to the vote for ST2.1 which I will heartily endorse. And the fully-funded 520 bridge replacement that will come up for a county or state vote.

As we all know, none of the "changes" in the ST2 package would occur before 2012 anyway. And we're still building light rail so we have quite a few years before we need worry about impacting construction of both light rail and transit in our region.

Oh, and to Pierce County Exec Whatshisname - don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 30, 2007 2:27 PM

And Will knows nothing about the time value of money.

Posted by Greg | October 30, 2007 2:31 PM

"Our strategy is to take risks on the high side" - because the more unrealistic we make our goals, the less likely that we'll get anything passed at all!

All the No's can hold their breath for the Magic Transit Package that will supposedly appear if Prop 1 goes down. I'll be sitting in stopped traffic on the 520 bridge, on an eastside commuter bus, praying for something to actually get done about traffic around here.

Posted by Hernandez | October 30, 2007 2:35 PM

Thats the problem Hernandez. Nothing is supposed to get done in Seattle. Don't you read the Stranger? What you are supposed to do is work and live on Capital Hill and ride your bike everywhere - apparently there are plenty of barista jobs available there.

Posted by Clint | October 30, 2007 2:44 PM

Any discussion about transportation and our future that does not include the issues of peak oil and sustainability is not a discussion worth having. So while Erica and the Sierra Club think they're being intelligent because they talk about global warming, they are only talking about maybe 1/3 of the overall story.

Personally I think in this last week we should just go all out and target Eastsiders and say "sick of traffic? Vote for 1!" It doesn't really matter, because the traffic will NOT materialize, thanks to an unaffordable cost of gas by 2010. So those lanes might not get built, even if they do they'll sit empty, and be tempting targets for conversion to rail.

Meanwhile we'll have 70+ miles of light rail, powered by clean energy that is resistant to oil supply disruptions, all lined up and ready to go.

Or we could follow Erica's ignorance and torpedo our only chance to avoid the coming doom.

Posted by elsewhere in western wa | October 30, 2007 2:48 PM

Eyman's I-960 requirement that tax bills pass the Legislature by a 2/3rds vote is unconstitutional.

Article 2, Section 22 of the Constitution of the State of Washington reads -- PASSAGE OF BILLS: No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded thereon as voting in its favor.

If the Constitution says it takes only a majority to approve a bill (any bill; there's no restriction) then no initiative can alter that provision.

But then this is no real surprise when it comes to Eyman initiatives. He cares not whether his efforts are constitutional -- if they're found wanting (a frequent occurrence) then he just has another drum to pound the next time around, to get more $$$ from his patron to put into his own pocket. What a racket!

Posted by Constitution Supporter | October 30, 2007 2:50 PM

Judah @3, they don't have any alternative plan. You'd think Erica, who knows a little something about how Olympia Dems enjoy selling out progressive policy proposals, would realize that it really is this or nothing.

Ironically, what Erica does not grasp is that without this light rail, all those folks out in the 'burbs are going to start flooding back into the city center, driving housing costs even higher. Artists, hipsters, and low-income folks will be forced to live in the suburbs, where they can't afford the gas to get around and won't have light rail as an option either.

Without light rail the gentrification in the Teens is going to make the problems today look minuscule.

Posted by elsewhere in western wa | October 30, 2007 2:52 PM

The anti-1 crowd seems to adhere to the urban planning dictum that "more roads = more driving", since reduced traffic effectively lowers the personal cost of driving. But there are other factors that can ramp up the cost of driving and cancel out this effect - for example, rising gas prices, or London-style tolls. I'm currently inclined to vote "Yes" just to get the rail laid down, since nothing ever ever ever EVER FUCKING GETS DONE IN THIS CITY, and work on curbing car traffic later.

Posted by tsm | October 30, 2007 2:53 PM

Chances are we have already passed peak oil and don't even realize it. But that doesn't mean people are going to give up our cars, we just need to find a an alternative fuel source (and no I'm not talking about biodiesel) - I am talking about Hydrogen. There are vehicles out right now that run off of tap water.

Imagine putting a metal tree in every garage/driveway by 2015. Using water to power your car would mean burning Oxygen and Hydrogen. The emisions from that? Oxygen and water.

That solves the golbal warming crisis and energy crisis in one move.

The problem is that gas companies don't make a dime from water powered cars.

Posted by Clint | October 30, 2007 2:58 PM

I would like to point out, that in addition to the wise voters of our state clueing in that RTID/ST2 is bad for not just the Earth but our State, that two things are noticeable about that poll:

1. It looks like less than 60 percent of people will vote to have school bonds and levies pass with only 50 percent of the vote instead of 60 percent (cool!).

2. It looks like less than 50 percent of people think Eyman should get his greedfest way and require all funding votes to have a 2/3 requirement.

Majority. What a concept!

P.S.: Timmy, move somewhere else.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 30, 2007 3:00 PM

and Clint has a point - we already passed Peak Oil - I was talking with a geologist about that this summer, and I think he's right.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 30, 2007 3:02 PM

It's amusing that those who are counting on a better transit package in the future are deluded optimists, but it's supposedly reasonable to build all those roads and then click your heels together and wish for tolls or peak oil or some other solution to the car traffic and pollution to appear on the horizon.

Look, there's no way to for anybody to vote without gazing into their crystal ball. So don't scoff at my ball and pretend yours is better. All our balls are equally good.

Crystal balls, I mean. Equally good at prediction I mean. Or equally bad. The point is the whole ball thing is not going to prove anything. Hold up something besides your balls to make your case.

Posted by elenchos | October 30, 2007 3:05 PM

Most people in the know agree that we have and if we have passed peak oil, the market will take care of itself. But energy is all around us. People aren't going to let a little thing like no more oil stand in the way of driving. They will just find an alternate (more environmentally friendly) source of powering those vehicles.

Posted by Clint | October 30, 2007 3:08 PM

Elenchos, I have seen the future and it is not Road Warrior, it is filled with brilliant people standing on the previous work of other brilliant people to solve the worlds problems, not wait for the lowest common denomonator to figure out what the problems truly are.

Posted by Clint | October 30, 2007 3:11 PM

The "pro" R&T side is reduced to bleating out two untenable messages: "do SOMETHING, it is better than NOTHING" and "this is our last chance to get trains." Both of those messages are incorrect. What is before us now is a rough draft (not a good one at that). None of you are thinking Yiddish: they'll come back with a better deal if you say no to the first offering. It'll go on sale.

Posted by Lorance | October 30, 2007 3:17 PM

Well, next they'll probably tell is if we don't vote for RTID/ST2 that the terrorists will win.

News flash - building more roadways to the extreme that RTID does is why the terrorists are winning - and getting their funding from Saudi Arabia.

Feb 2008 - a good time for an election to pass ST2.1 - and then we can decide which critical existing bridges and roads need to be repaired and/or replaced.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 30, 2007 3:31 PM

@19: Um, no. This isn't a bazaar. Every year we delay, inflation and not-taxing-now cost several million dollars. So if this comes back later, it will either be less for the same money or more expensive for the same thing.

Posted by Greg | October 30, 2007 3:34 PM

Vote yes on 1. It's too expensive to wait for the next compromise, and we need solutions now.

Posted by Cascadian | October 30, 2007 3:36 PM

. . . and by "going on sale" I mean the flab will be removed: no lid over SR 520 for Medina, no cross-base highway, less new general purpose roadways east of the lake.

Wake up people: RTID is just to benefit the Microsofties who want to buy one million dollar condos in SLU (new Vulcan buildings) and have a fast drive over to Redmond.

Also, by "going on sale" what will happen next time is that business taxes will be raised to pay for part of it. Now it is just a sales tax plus MVET proposal. There will be more user fees and taxes on businesses with the next version, making it cheaper on people who haven't made the lifestyle choice to live far from their workplaces.

Posted by Lorance | October 30, 2007 3:37 PM


First of all, I didn't say "something is better than nothing." I asked what alternative was being offered.

Second of all, you should understand something about the history of the issue you're discussing. The transit component of this package is similar in most of the ways that matter to something called the Bogue Plan, that was proposed in 1911. Similar plans were proposed again in '58, '62, '68, and '70. Each proposal placed mass transit lines along essentially the same corridors as the current proposal, each proposal was shot down on the ground that it was too much money for too little plan and each proposal has been more expensive in inflation adjusted dollars than the last because the cost of land and construction materials is increasing -- and has always increased -- significantly faster than the CPI and other common inflation indexes.

In other words, your opinion has no basis in fact. Sorry.

I'm still hoping to hear from an oponent of Prop 1 whose opinion does have some basis in fact.

Posted by Judah | October 30, 2007 3:40 PM

Delay will NOT cost more if a different plan (less frills and less sales tax) is put forward. How much could we save by not having a downtown Bellevue transit tunnel? How much could we save by having the light rail line end a Northgate? People would vote for a plan that included a tax on corporate incomes to pay for TONS of light rail.

Posted by Lowrance | October 30, 2007 3:41 PM

@ 24: "I asked what alternative was being offered."

They aren't offering any other alternative because we haven't rejected this one yet. Duh. They aren't stupid. And they aren't going to tell us how much better for us the next version would be. That is because it would involve a corporate income tax to pay for it. The businesses want light rail, and they'll pay for it if we are smart enough to not impose a massive regressive tax on our neighbors. What is it about that you don't understand?

Posted by Lorance | October 30, 2007 3:48 PM

@ 21: "This isn't a bazaar."

Fuck YES it is.

Posted by Lorance | October 30, 2007 3:50 PM


Again, I have to disagree with you on most of your points. A Bellevue transit tunnel isn't a frill. The city of Bellevue doesn't aspire to be a suburb indefinitely and it has an incredibly active retail core that requires clear streets to allow freight to be delivered to retail outlets. Since most people in Bellevue already drive, adding dedicated transit lanes to their existing rights of way would create an untenable bottleneck in one of the only places in Bellevue where clear streets actually matter. The cut-and-cover operation in Downtown Seattle was disastrously expensive, in part because we waited so long to do it. Bellevue is planning ahead, and they're right to do so.

Likewise, running a rail line to Northgate. The increasing demand for core real estate is going to push service workers into the outer city, but they're still going to work mostly in the urban core, and they're going to need mass transit to get here. Northgate is just someplace to tie the line. The transit service corridor that will be created is going to be necessary on its own merits.

As far as your "tax the corporations," plan, I think you need to take a good long look at how the regional economy works. Washington State is essentially one big suburb in the global industrial economy. Compared to a place like California or Texas or the Southeast, we have a relatively small industrial economy compared to our overall population and our extractive economy -- lumber, mineral wealth, fishing and so on, is a shadow of its former self. We are the home of many successful corporations, and mostly what we have to offer them is a technically skilled population and our scenery. But those corporations don't need to be here, and if we start getting cute with our tax structure, they'll leave. And they'll take their money and their jobs with them. Ask Oregon.

Posted by Judah | October 30, 2007 3:58 PM

A government poll released a week before the vote. Not done by students but rather hired out. What possible purpose would there be to run this? Read the poll and tell me this is needed for a class.

The likely voter is a sample of 410 but the statewide poll only interviewed 600 so clearly those 410 couldn't have come from the Puget Sound if they came from the 600 statewide. Even if they upped the regional survey to 410 it is still a 5% error rate.

Maybe it just smells fishy.

Posted by whatever | October 30, 2007 3:59 PM

Yes Judah it all makes sense. Seattle built the tunnel in 80s but Bellevue by doing it in 2020 is ahead of Seattle, WTF? The option in Bellevue is not at grade but elevated. If they tunnel then this vote doesn't get past Bellevue, no Overlake.

But with your GW proposal P1 we can be just like LA. The weather will warm up and we can attract millions of new people and jobs here and we can be just like LA, cool.

Why don't the corporations go to Moses Lake or the Mid West where they can save far more in costs even if they had slightly higher taxes which they don't? How do CA and NY survive with state income taxes and higher costs of doing business?

Posted by whatever | October 30, 2007 4:12 PM

30: Bellevue's a much smaller city now than Seattle was in the 80s when the bus-only transit tunnel was built. Bellevue is planning for a dense urban future, and should be commended for coming out strongly in favor of efficient light rail rather than the half-baked silliness that is BRT. An at-grade system through the heart of downtown Bellevue would be slower. The tunnel there means that ST2 won't make it to downtown Redmond (but it WILL make it to Overlake), but given a choice I think that's the right priority.

As for global warming, Prop. 1 will increase emissions by .4%. The new population of drivers with or without RTID will increase emissions by a couple of orders of magnitude more. But Prop. 1 also provides a rail alternative that will conservatively get 300,000 drivers off the road each day. Portland's light rail, which is half as extensive as ST2, through less dense neighborhoods, and in a city with fewer overall transit users, attracts 300,000 riders. But opponents of Prop. 1 would rather those 300,000 people drive instead.

Posted by Cascadian | October 30, 2007 4:35 PM
Yes Judah it all makes sense. Seattle built the tunnel in 80s but Bellevue by doing it in 2020 is ahead of Seattle, WTF?

The city of Bellevue is, right now, about half the area and one fifth the population of Seattle; that is to say, it's about where Seattle was in 1910 or so. If they build off-grade infrastructure (above, below, whatever) now, they don't have to do it later when they've got a larger city and a denser downtown with a lot more traffic to disrupt.

I won't rise to the LA bait. Western Washington is already a huge sprawling mess. The only question is how we're going to manage the land we've already developed. Putting transit in will always be a good idea. The population isn't going to shrink.

As far as corporations going to the midwest, you remember Boeing? The biggest corporation in Seattle? The one that moved its corporation to Chicago? In the midwest?

I didn't say we couldn't tax people or corporations. But we don't have the same sort of leverage that California and New York do. We don't have the same resource pool, we don't have the same industrial base, we don't have the same transportation base, and so on.

Posted by Judah | October 30, 2007 4:38 PM

Oh, and as for how CA and NY survive. You'll notice that LA, San Francisco, San Diego, and New York all have multi-mode mass transit systems.

Posted by Cascadian | October 30, 2007 4:40 PM

Heck, we don't even have an income tax.

Or even a tax on capital gains and dividends in this state.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 30, 2007 4:42 PM

And isn't this structured so that the money goes to work where it was raised? Why would people in Seattle give a rat's ass what people in Bellevue want to do with the money raised in Bellevue?

Posted by Clint | October 30, 2007 4:47 PM

LOL, @35, like we're not going to be hit up to pay for repairs to the highways being built with RTID.

It's a bad plan.

And we all know it.

That's why the Sierra Club and most Seattleites are against it, even though they would like to vote for Sound Transit by itself.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 30, 2007 4:48 PM


Good point. I actually think replacing the sales tax and the B&O tax with an income tax is a much better way to address some of these issues than a misguided class warfare "tax the corporations!" approach.

Posted by Judah | October 30, 2007 4:48 PM

I disagree Will. We ALL don't think this is a bad plan.

Posted by Clint | October 30, 2007 4:58 PM

Cascasdian, Portland carries 110,000 on rail and over 200,000 on buses, but what the heck exagerating by 280% isn't that bad.

ST2 will add 74,000 transit rides or 37,000 riders by 2030 which will be dwarfed by the new drivers.

They will not get past Bellevue if they tunnel there. There is no promise in any way that they will even get to Bellevue.

Spending billions and getting no GHG improvement for 40 years if ever just doesn't make sense.

Do you have a link to Bellevues dense zoning?

ST2 info - Appendix C

Posted by whatever | October 30, 2007 5:04 PM

"That's why the Sierra Club and most Seattleites are against it, even though they would like to vote for Sound Transit by itself."

Wait! Seattle residents prefer the part of ST that will help them directly? Who would have thunk that!?!

Of course, no one has asked if Seattle would be willing to pay the entire price of ST and we haven't figured out a way to make the rest of the region vote for this, but sure, Seattle would love for the entire area to pay for our light rail.

Posted by zzyzx | October 30, 2007 5:11 PM

Seattle has paid for all the light rail within the city. The most expensive parts of the REGIONAL system will be paid by Seattle.

Holy railers please how has Portland done versus Seattle since 1986 when they started MAX? Better jobs? Better companies? Better anything? Better modal split? Better weekly papers?

Judah when I referred to Mid West it was related to lower cost locations like, you know Tulsa not expensive places like Chicago. I'd say that Boeing is a pretty manufacturer as well as MSFT.

Posted by whatever | October 30, 2007 5:24 PM

After the election, you can just "come up with" a plan to have a vote for ST2.1 in February 2008.

Of course, we all know it's the current backup plan, but I won't tell.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 30, 2007 5:31 PM

ECB - I'm pretty sure that poll also said that democrats had a higher level of support(47%) becuase of the transit portion of the package, and that republicans were soundly rejecting Prop 1 because of the transit portion. Still sure that your transit-only ballot measure is coming back for a big win next year?

Posted by ashley | October 30, 2007 6:50 PM

Anyone saying it will be "more expensive" if R._&_T. is not approved - like Skeletor did in the Times this morning - could be wrong, especially if the legislature does its job next session.

Frank Chopp will tell us how he'd want to proceed in the event the measure fails next week.

Posted by Reese | October 30, 2007 8:38 PM

Whatever--you still can't get over the fact that you and your friends fucked up the monorail so bad. So you spread lies about ST. Lie 1--Seattle is paying for light rail throughout the region. This is not how subarea equity works pinhead. Seattle pays for Seattle, and sometimes not even that in the case of East Link where the Eastside pays for everything but the Rainier station. Lie 2--a tunnel in Bellevue means rail stops there. If a tunnel is the choice in Bellevue, there is still money to get to Overlake aka Microsoft.

Just because you fucked up the monorail doesn't mean you should drag light rail down with it.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 30, 2007 10:02 PM

Yo Tiptoe-

Given ST's sorry performance so far, anyone who purports to be halfway in the know such as yourself who won't acknowledge they're gonna collect every penny of the $150+ billion they are legally authorized to is either dumb as fuck or lying themselves.

By the way, where's that First Hill ST station? Or the one between Harrison and Broadway and Husky Stadium - or do you really expect everyone on N Capitol Hill just to walk a mile and a half to take the choo choo train? Nice system, that.

Is any price per mile too high to justify light rail for you true believer types? How's your ridership gonna look if there's a Capitol Hill (or Eastlake) street car competing for the bus riders your projections rely on?

Talk about dishonest.

Posted by Vote early vote often vote NO | October 31, 2007 12:28 AM

Tiptoe - I said "Seattle has paid for all the light rail within the city. The most expensive parts of the REGIONAL system will be paid by Seattle."

The estimate for the 4 mile tunnel to the UW is $1.6 billion (just slid up $100 million)do you dispute that per mile and per station this will the most expensive segment of regional rail?

Posted by whatever | October 31, 2007 8:05 AM

whatever@39: Anyone who has been to Bellevue recently and compared it to a few years ago can tell for themselves that the downtown core is becoming denser and more urban.

But go look at the city of Bellevue Web site. It, like every other Eastside city, is planning for dense development.

For example:

Posted by Cascadian | October 31, 2007 9:45 AM

I think the key word there is dense.

And not in a good way.

Elevated is the only realistic choice.

Posted by Will in Seattle | October 31, 2007 11:10 AM

Yes, you are right the tunnel between Capitol Hill and the UW is expensive. It is also the number one new line in ridership planned in the United States, by a long shot.

Will--since you favor an elevated viaduct it is not surprising that you favor an elevated rail line through Bellevue. I think either could work. Tunnels are better urban design for dense areas. If Bellevue encourages density downtown, then perhaps a tunnel is appropriate. We are building for the next 100 years.

@46--ST will never collect $150 billion--that is a Kemper Freeman myth that no progressive should buy. Since 2002, ST has consistently been on time and budget on almost all projects despite huge spikes in construction costs nationally. This suggests they got their shit together. First Hill was killed and replaced by a streetcar in ST2 largely because the soils and site would rely on untested technology. For someone who talks costs out of one side of your mouth, you can't really make this argument out of the other. The Capitol Hill stop will serve most of the actual density on the Hill within a six-block radius.

Posted by tiptoe tommy | October 31, 2007 11:31 AM

Tiptoe you are so full of it. It isn't just expensive but the most expensive part of the regional system and will be paid for by Seattle. Whether or not it will carry the most of any new LR is beside the point that was being discussed.

The entire Porland line cost less than the tunnel will and according to Cascadian it carries 300,000 per day. The new Minneapolis line is less than $60 million per mile and includes a couple miles of tunnels.

If the tunnel comes in at $3 billion would that be too expensive? How about 6 billion?

And shouldn't we tunnel all the way out Seattle? Why was it OK to go at grade through the RV but we need to tunnel in Bellevue?

We need a regional elected agency that has no operations just funding. PSRC with teeth.

Posted by whatever | October 31, 2007 12:43 PM

Ditto on Whatever @51 - Tiptoe is a shameless flack of the most intellectually dishonest sort.

Saying that ST has been on budget since 2002 (you know, after the initial promised project DOUBLED in cost) bears a strong resemblance to Shrub's ever-evolving rationale for invading Iraq. To assert that ST will be on budget in Phase 2 is wishful thinking at best, and a stone cold cynical denial of past, present, and most likely future realities at worst.

Try again, Mr. ST staffer - that dog won't hunt.

Posted by Mr. X | October 31, 2007 12:47 PM

Oh yeah, and all of this blather from the same agency who solemnly promised not so very long ago that they wouldn't come to the voters for more money until Phase 1 was up and running.

Lies, damned lies, and transit agency promises (or, for Tiptoe, regarding cost estimates 15 years out - wish in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first)

Posted by Mr. X | October 31, 2007 12:49 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).