A new Elway Poll suggests that:
The more that voters learn about the $47 billion road and transit package on the November ballot, the less they like about itGo figure.
If you want to learn more about the measure, or suggest some resources to your undecided friends and family, here some places to start:
"What You Need to Know About the Roads & Transit Programs" by Jim McIsaac
The Washington Policy Center (e.g. "Cost Exceeds Benefits in Sound Transit's Light Rail Expansion" and "Light Rail and Interstate 90: Sound Transit's proposal to place light rail across I-90 will increase traffic congestion")
UPDATE: More resources, courtesy of commenters
Sierra Club's "No RTID"
John Niles' http://www.RoadsAndTransitFactual.info
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 25, 2007 01:17 PM | Email Thishttp://nortid.org
Posted by: Brian H on September 25, 2007 01:43 PMhttp://www.RoadsAndTransitFactual.info
John, along with Jim McIssac, Mark Baerwaldt and many others have been important contributors in the effort to reign in Sound Transit.
His page is full of terrific information and links to other sites.
John is longtime trainsit policy analyst and a Research Associate at the Norman Y. Mineta International Institute for Surface Transportation Policy Studies. He also co-edits the Public Interest Transportation Forum:
http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/index.htm
Curiously, I agree with Sharky about soem of this, including two of his choices about reading materials. That said, the numbers I rean in these anti RTID paen strike me as having the opposit effect, They make me want to vote for it.
Why?
Well I believe Seattle should evolve into Central city plus spokes model and avoid at all costs the LA model. The best way top do this si through trunk developments .. this includes light rail that should be Seattle centric AND boulevards that somehow are always left out of the planning.
So as I read this thing 96% of the 2/3 that is rail, will go toward extending the Seattle system.
The rest goes to assorted transit solutions that I am less convinced are good.
Any comments are welcome.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 25, 2007 02:01 PMThere's something wrong with what Niles does. Take the following excerpt from a letter he wrote to the PI editors in 2004, regarding the Sane Transit court opinion that had just come out:
###########################
"A modest suggestion for the P-I: Sound Transit has now been exposed by Sane Transit and the state Supreme Court as having the discretion to consume money and calendar time without limit. So how about starting to print information that will help citizens and the Legislature decide how many more billions and how many more years this public agency should be allowed for constructing 24 miles of railroad track?"
John Niles
Technical Director,
Coalition for Effective Transportation Alternatives
Seattle
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/163504_ltrs8.html
###########################
There is a big problem what Niles wrote there. It misstates the true extent of the taxing and spending limits the law imposes on ST, and it does so in ways that ST's backers would want.
First, the Supreme Court did not come anywhere close to ruling in that Sane Transit case opinion that ST has "discretion to consume money . . . without limit." The 1996 voter-approved law has dollar-amount limits in it regarding how much tax and bond revenue ST may spend during the construction period. The Court did not eliminate (or even comment on) those cost control provisions.
As if to reiterate the false impression likely to be conveyed by the assertion that ST has "discretion to consume money . . . without limit," Niles' letter then posits that "many more billions [might be spent legally by] this public agency . . . for constructing 24 miles of railroad track."
Again, this statement flies in the face of reality: strict cost control measures in Sound Move prevent ST from spending more than $1.98 billion of local taxes and just over $1 billion in bond sale proceeds (1995$) during the construction period. That is why the light rail line had to be scaled back in 2001 - to stay within those cost control provisions. Niles seems to pretend those spending limits don't exist.
That is not the only example of John Niles "misreading" the law. Here are two others - these come from the following webpage:
http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf/ffgapending.htm
"March 4, 2004: In the Sane Transit vs. Sound Transit case, the Supreme Court rules that the Initial Segment is being built according to a budget and schedule that are legal given the flexibility provided to Sound Transit by voters in 1996."
There were two main holdings in that opinion relating to ST's authority. The court determined that ST could continue taxing after ten years (the court cited the terms in Sound Move allowing permanent operations subsidies after the tax rates had been rolled back, for example). The court also held ST was within its rights to scale back the length of light rail line to stay within the construction-period spending limits set out in Sound Move. What is misleading about the claim that the court ruled "the Initial Segment is being built according to a budget and schedule that are legal" is that the budgeting figures ST releases to the public (specifically, the "lifetime budget" numbers for capital projects set out in the annual budgets) are different than the much smaller spending budget figures in Sound Move. The Supreme Court most certainly did not sanction that latter set of budgeting numbers as being authorized by the 1996 ordinance. Since those "lifetime budget" numbers are the only set ST shows the public, what Niles wrote is likely to mislead.
That is another example of Niles coming up with something that disregards the actual taxing limits imposed on ST, in a way that ST would want the public mislead.
Here's another one, from that same webpage:
"December 7, 2006: State Supreme Court rules 8 to 1 on the I-776 case that Sound Transit can continue to collect the full amount of authorized MVET tax through 2028." Uh, no, the court did not do that. All the court did in that opinion was say sec. 6 of I-776 could not become effective. That meant the MVET would not be repealed, effective in December of 2002.
No way did the court say ST had the right to collect as much MVET as it pledged to the bondholders, through 2028. That would mean ST would take in far more tax than the voters authorized it to. Again Niles disregards the cost control limits in Sound Move that specify how much tax revenue ST can spend during the construction period.
John Niles is invariably trotted out for the press as the face of the opposition to ST and light rail. There's a reason the entities that make the big bucks off of ST want him to frame the "opposition" position: he invariably misstates what the legal limits are with respect to key aspects of ST's taxing and spending authority.
"Ahmad Fazel, Sound Transit's light-rail director, would only say that 'we are on track to build this project on time and on budget.'"
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002181534_soundbudget16m.html
The auditors never find big problems. That proves ST is on the right track.
Seattle does no have any grand boulevards. We look more like LA than Paris or Boston. Seattle is a lot of too small streets fed into by an increasing spider web of freeways. This is not a vaible model for a city or an area.
LA style development is IMHO not sustainable. I acan imagine alternatives, some sort of hubs and spokes mdoel, but an endless web of freeways sucks.
So, it seems to me that RTID may contribute to a viable plan. Whether it does nor not the sites Sharkansky "pushes" make .. at least for me .. exactly the wrong points.
I want to know:
does Seattle get tos fair share or is it once again subsidizing the Eastside?
does the plan include long term sustainability?
what is its expected effect of real estate development and my taxes?
will developers (Vulcan) be paying their fair share?
These ARE MOT liberal issues. The lack of answers, however, is one more example why an ARS afflicted right is incapable of participating in rational government despite the cowardice of a governor unwilling to provide leadership.
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 25, 2007 03:45 PMSpending tens of billions on a system that would (at best) serve 2-3% of commuters is a complete waste of time.
Put out a plan that FINISHES 520 and the viaduct, and invests in non-rail transit and I'll vote yes.
Posted by: Palouse on September 25, 2007 04:03 PMHave you ever been for *any* transportation vote since you moved to Washington State? I know you were for cutting investment (limiting tabs), but I'm specifically asking about any vote that would invest in transportation?
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 25, 2007 04:35 PMWhat levx does not do is tear up the streets and achieve enough gentrification.
What levx does not do is generate higher property taxes,sales and sales taxes.
What levx does not do is create another grand boulevard for Seattle with State and federal tax dollars.
What levx does not do is get the greenie groups another check in the mail from Greg Smith or Martin Selig.
I support Levx.
The City of Poulsbo will be putting a levx system in from downtown to the ferry terminal.
The State had better be watching if they want any tax money from me.
Levx on the original corridors from city center to city center, helping to lead the way in getting more local traffic back onto the original corridors, and freing up the interstates for commercial traffic from Vancouver BC to Portland.
LEVX......
Sorry but I have trouble reading through all your invective.
The only thing you said that made some sense is that the Mayor thinks Rainier Ave should be a grand blvd. I do too but do not see that happening. Adding LR to it just makes it more congested and w/o a through connection to Lake City Way, it is just one more way of dumping traffic into the web.
I have also heard about the idea of replacing 99 with boulevard. I like that idea. There is very little NS commercial traffic via 99 thru Seattle so good entry into and out of the city makes sense.
The thing I worry about in re Mercer is apparently it will not connect to Elliott. This is very short sighted. The other issue is Vulcan will make $$$$$$$$$$$$$$ from this and should pony up, maybe as a LID.
Finally, I am told that Seattle has net outflow of tax dollars that is huge, RTID must not make that worse.
Tx for the conversation.
LEVX DAMN IT.
http://www.levx.com/advan/advan2.html
Is there *any* transportation proposal in recent years that has not been built on the twin pillars of massive debt spending and massive advertising? Look at the SMP, a $1.75 billion plan with about $10 billion interest. They blew $200,000 on a massive ad buy a week before they decided to abort mission.
The only justification for borrowing for an individual is for life-cycle reasons (house, education) or emergency. There is no life-cycle issue for gov't, so that leaves emergency (e.g. war, earthquake) as the only justification. And why we need to spend billions on advertising for transit is beyond me. Transit is imitating the advertise/borrow model that corporate U.S. invented and gave us 7K CC debt per household. And you, good liberal that you are, are able to support this???
My taxes and fees (car tabs) are not an "investment". If you think that the thousands you pay in taxes and fees yearly are investments, you are stupid. UW is starting up...take an econ class.
SJ,
You can't read something?? This has been brought up before and it is not a tolerance issue....proofread. Most people skip what you write. It's like you are trying to create another language. Please help us understand you. And stop plugging your own blog...no one looks.
Posted by: Chris on September 25, 2007 08:02 PMI disagree re Seattle Jew. He should be welcome to post whatever he wants, spelled however he wants. If you don't have people like SJ and Bill Anderson to challenge you, this blog will boring groupthink just like HA, which generally shouts down anyone who goes against the grain, just as you have done here to SJ.
Posted by: russell garrard on September 25, 2007 09:15 PMWADR I do not understand what you are trying to say. AND that has nothing to do with what you and I do for a living. I have no doubt you know a lot more than I do about driving from BC to Oregon.
If you mean am I concerned with NS traffic through this region? The answer is yes. Since we do need NS traffic, I believe we need to increase capacity on the Eastside. That means a bigger 405 ..while that is still possible and a 605 while that is still possible. Indeed one of my bog issues with Porp 1 is that it seems to ignore NS capacity.
To me 99 is not a good solution. First, it is an old fashioned surface street, limiting speed because of the frequent exits and cross streets. Second, Seattle is growing city on a narrow isthmus. It does not make a lot of sense to put through traffic through Seattle. Third, actual data shows that a very small part of Viaduct traffic is through traffic. Most of 99 in Seattle is into or out of the city.
What do you think?
Posted by: SeattleJew on September 25, 2007 11:43 PMFirst off my grandfather on my moms side is Jewish so when I make Jewish jokes I am taking shots at a percentage of me.
Second,99 Is a thru put for commercial traffic in the know.
If I had the choice of fighting thru I-5 bumper to bumper,or taking 99 I would take 99.
Here is why.
Coming from the South on I-5 the first slowdown is the I-90 exit that Starts just after the michigan exit.
Then you have the 520 exit slowdown that starts almost under the convention center.
When you get past 520 traffic picks up.
Taking 99 avoids the I-90,and 520 Bound traffic and resulting back ups.
I would either take the 50th street exit or the 80th street exit and get back over to I-5 depending on the traffic flow.
When you own your own truck you are more concerned about overheating your truck so you are better off keeping your speed up rather than getting in a stop and go.
That solid stretch of 99 from south seattle to past greenlake is vital to bypassing traffic back ups caused by I-90,and 520 bound traffic.
When the I-5 construction started this summer,I could sit at the shari's in renton off the 405 freeway and count the commercial traffic stuck going nowhere.
The reason I feel that levx should be used is so I can get 20-25 percent of the commuter traffic off the roads.
More importantly I feel that levx belongs on the original corridors because the original corridors lead directly to the city centers,and
Most of the cities use the original corridor as their main drag,so it makes sense to link them via the original corridors..
By getting more local traffic back onto the original corridors I will free up the interstates for commercial traffic.
Your thin corridor assesment is correct,but we can not push goods and services farther east.
That is why levx is needed to link the city centers with express 120-150 mile an hour service to get commuters out of the way.
Making things so bad that people have no choice but to move to an urban village or sit on a bus is a policy failure,and a disaster for commercial traffic.
Levx will not need social engineering.
The car can not compete with levx.
120-150 mph vs 60 mph tops.
People will take that service from the neighborhoods they live in now,as opposed to frustrating a ridership to relocate onto a 35 mph light rail service,that we know the rich people that can afford to live there will not ride.
Sound transit has always been about spuring development and gentrification.
Imagine if we allowed Sequim to take down their bypass so the developers in Sequim could cash in on a traffic count.
That is what Seattle is being allowed to do on the surface street.
Evidently all you need is enough developers and you can afford to bribe the Governor and hire greeny groups to convince the public that you are trying to save a whale salmon or frog,and not trying to get another grand boulevard for more gentrification,higher square footage rates,higher property taxes,retail sales and sales taxes.
In other words we are allowing Seattle to do what we wont allow Sequim to do which is to use our traffic counts to generate revenue.
The surface stareet will set a bad precedence and allow these smaller communities to make the same arguments that Seattle did.
This will ruin commercial traffic all over the State,forcing them to sit thru traffic count= revenue schemes..
Levx has to be promoted to get commuter traffic off the roads.
Sound transit will not be able to compete with levx.
Do the math.
A corridor from everett to tacoma being served by a 35 mph service.
That is a milk run for the millions.
It will not get enough commuters out of their cars,as opposed to seattle to federal way 10 minutes,Seattle to Everett 10 minutes.
Even before we can serve the sound transit commuters we have to slow down all the other modes,including commercial traffic, to frustrate that ridership into the Sound transit corridor first with social engineering.
This is the epitome of Draconian.
The people that advocate this are sopist using sophisms practicing the art of sophistry,AND I AM NOT BUYING IT.
Thanks SJ
Others chimed in...even claiming "investment" isn't accurate.
Hmmm....moving here from the East Coast, I was amazed at the horrible infrastructure associated with all transportation systems. Republicans and Democrats told me that it was from a lack of foresight and investment over the past 40 years.
Guess, if the folks who comment here are indicative, we'll have equally bad foresight and investment for the next 40 years (funny-they don't even call it investment). That portends a bad future for the region.
Posted by: Bill Anderson on September 26, 2007 08:12 AMSeriously, why are you hung up on this as an "investment"? What do you really think will be accomplished?
I will vote yes to your "investment" in schools. I will vote yes to your "investment" in our "infastructure". However I will only do so when guaranteed it is not some sort of Boondoogle and my money is wasted.
Speaking of the East Coast...the Big Dig leaks and while it allowed the creation of some great shopping...WTF did it do? Oh, and it was estimated to cost $2.8B in '85 and ultimately has cost thus far $14.6B in '06 dollars. Take your East Coast holier than thou crap back there.
And, I would like to point out to you, since you are not familiar with the last 40 years here...it was the same people then making those poor choices who are requesting more money....ironically to make even worse decisions.
Posted by: Chris on September 26, 2007 09:10 PM