After months of signaling his displeasure by declining to state his position, Ron Sims is now firmly and publicly against the $157 billion "Roads-and-Transit" ballot measure. Some of his objections (based on not entirely scientific beliefs regarding global warming) are misplaced, and his preference to build more light rail elsewhere is misguided, but he's right on the big picture with the current plan:
this plan doesn't solve traffic congestion in the short term, nor does it provide enough long-term relief to justify the financial and environmental costsHe's also right that congestion pricing should be part of any major roads solution (It's the fairest and most efficient way to both finance road construction and to allocate capacity) Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at September 27, 2007 07:52 AM | Email This
...
This roads-and-transit plan just doesn't move enough people.
In this instance Ron Sims stood for principles and people instead of his political base. That is great leadership, and today people are stronger for it.
The worst aspect of the ST2 proposal on the ballot in a couple of weeks is the utter absence of any cost-control terms. Nothing in ST2 provides for any oversight to ensure quality- or cost-control. Those terms are in ST1, but they are not in the new proposal.
ST2 would give an unreasonable - and clearly dangerous - amount of spending power to a government headed by nothing but political appointees.
Whoever might be appointed to that board over the next three decades would have scores of billions of dollars of sales taxes rolling in. Those appointees would have absolutely zero accountability to taxpayers, voters, or any oversight authority regarding how they spent those fortunes. The Big Dig in Boston suffered from that flaw, and it spiraled wildly out of control.
Taxpayers deserve far greater protections than the proposed ST2 laws (or the proposed RTID laws) would afford.
If the majority of people in this region want a hugely expensive light rail system that at best serves 2-3% of commuters and does nothing to relieve traffic congestion, then that vote should stand alone on its merits.
Posted by: Palouse on September 27, 2007 08:34 AMHas the actual text of Prop 1 been published yet? Has full disclosure occurred yet on what we will actually be voting on in November?
ST is "promising" 50 miles of light rail, etc. What have they done in this package to improve on their failure for the first go around?
In SoundMove, if they started to run out of "approved" funds, they could change the service or scale the projrcts back. In Prop 1, does that wording still exist?
My guess is that they have changed the wording to allow them to collect more revenue (taxes) so that they won't run out of approved funds or have to scale back.
Without seeing the actual wording of Prop 1, are we about to be scammed again?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 27, 2007 09:21 AMWhat's also noteworthy is he's asking questions about customers and trip times, not just going along with the brainwashing of "rail is better" or "we can pave our way out of congestion with free ways that have no marginal cost to use."
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on September 27, 2007 09:22 AMDon't be fooled by Sims' words, and don't waste time over-analyzing his arguments. They are just the convenient justification for a position that was highly likely based on considerations he doesn't want made public. More likely, the highest bidders for Sims' support were the builders - again. They don't want mass transit, they want roads to open up more rural development and Sims has shown that he is very loyal to their needs.
I do love the "catastrophic climate change" statement, though. The left is working every angle to prime us for the massive tax increases they are foaming at the mouth to propose to address this mythical man-made environmental crisis. Maybe we should get back to saving that rain forest they don't talk about anymore? Oh, that was a myth too.
Oh, and Mr. Connelly, I do completely believe the Holocaust occurred.
Posted by: Get Real on September 27, 2007 09:51 AMMaybe it is the weather or the full moon.
If Ron's lack of support helps defeat this mess, then I stand to save some $$$. Would Ron really be helping to create more wealth since I can stick that tax money into something productive?
Weird...
Posted by: danno on September 27, 2007 10:19 AMI would disagree with that. We all benefit from the mobility of the region as a whole, not the specific road we happen to be on. Tolling and HOT lanes just create added levels of government beauracracy.
The most fair transportation funding mechinism in my mind is the gasoline tax.
Everyone pays for their road usage, no matter what road they are on.
There is an incentive to reduce fuel consumption and the choice is made by the individual driver.
We will likely move towards higher taxes and fees for "gas guzzlers", creating more unecessary beuaracracy, as we already have the mechinism in place. The more gas you use, the more you pay - this goes for both actual road use and feul efficiency.
I don't agree with Ronnie's reasoning, but I do agree with his outcome.
Posted by: eric on September 27, 2007 10:59 AMInterestingly enough, the measure overwhelmingly passed the King County Council, with hardly a vote in opposition. So it takes real courage for Sims to call "BS" (and I don't mean "Bachelor of Science" -- even though he DOES have one) and come out for truth and principle.
We just don't need anything that is going to take 20 years to build and 50 years to pay back -- and those are the presumably non-binding timelines that we are being promised.
Realistically, the voters will probably reject this package. We need leadership to come up with something better -- "bold solutions that offer immediate relief and a better tomorrow", as Sims puts it. I hope the County Executive, Council, and other leaders will come forth with a better plan.
Posted by: Richard Pope on September 27, 2007 11:13 AMit takes real courage for Sims to call "BS" (and I don't mean "Bachelor of Science" -- even though he DOES have one)No, Richard that is not correct. According to Sims's resume, he has a Bachelor of Arts.
You're slipping, Richard. You're usually better at getting such details right.
Posted by: Stefan Sharkansky on September 27, 2007 11:19 AMAs my daddy used to say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." (Of course that was before we had digital.)
As my daddy used to say, "Even a broken clock is right twice a day." (Of course that was before we had digital.)
Excellent point. The use of "Bachelor of Arts" versus "Bachelor of Science" terms is not consistent amongst different universities, and sometimes a university will offer both "B.A." and "B.S." options for the same major.
Ron Sims has his bachelor's degree in Psychology, which most frequently is awarded as "Bachelor of Science". And at Central Washington University, the Department of Psychology is under the College of Sciences. And a Master's degree in Psychology at Central is presently awarded as either an M.S. or M.Ed. However, Central DOES call the initial degree in Psychology "Bachelor of Arts".
As for other higher education institutions, Western Michigan University awards a "Master of Arts" degree in Economics (which is under "Social Sciences"). Their on-line information doesn't make it quite so clear what kind of an undergraduate degree is offered in Economics, as far as terminology.
Now if Ron Sims had a total "BS" degree (instead of "Bachelor of Something", we would probably be reading about it with "Sewer of Corruption (XLVI)" by now on here ...
Posted by: Richard Pope on September 27, 2007 12:04 PMI-5's trouble is that it has an artificially created bottleneck in downtown. If there were as many lanes under the convention center as lanes leading up to and past the convention center, capacity would be greatly enhanced.
The express lanes are worse.
Prop 1 does absolutely nothing to address this bottleneck. It's as if the DOT planners want to have this traffic jam every day....
Posted by: SouthernRoots on September 27, 2007 12:18 PMAnyone know Seattle's libloonies are handling this "courageous stand and forthright analysis" that they probably consider borders on fall-off-the-talking-points treason?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on September 27, 2007 12:40 PMAs far as Sims support for congestion pricing, don't be fooled. His goal it to price the use of roads high so that it drives people to the county controlled bus system. From my riding of ST and Metro buses, ST has better service. Just look at buses, Community Transit buses are a lot better maintained and cleaner than Metro. Pierce Transit's fleet has converted a higher percentage of buses to alternative fuel. Where is Metro? Metro is lagging its own counterparts in the area. No, Sims sees a way to drive up Metro ridership and thus more $$$ coming that way that he can manage. He is power-hungry and the problem with the package is it doesn't give him (Sims) enough control over most of the money. This is the real reason he is not for the package.
Posted by: tc on September 27, 2007 12:51 PMIt seems simple to explain his support for all of ST2 positions per John Ladenberg, support for ST1, yet the ongoing delays with moving the RTID to the ballot.
After the failure of Prop 1 I fully expect Ron to be standing shoulder to shoulder with Ed Murray at the beginning of next years legislative session proposing the consolidation of ST, GMA, PSRC and regional roads under the guise a metro type government, stripping the locally elected County Governments of their charter authorities.
Sims loves mega projects (Brightwater, ST1, Metro, etc...) only when he has the power associated with the money.
As a side note with no supporting facts, I wonder how much the current international credit concerns have on Ron's current position. After all his Brightwater project is in need of $1.7B in bonded financing. Which poses the question: How is King County's credit rating going forward?
Best to all,
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff Sax on September 27, 2007 01:13 PMSims as big honcho as ST is against the latest measure. People here say he sees the big picture- more lane capacity. Sims ridiculed the Kemper Freeman-McKenna extra north-south highway (thought I would nip that in the bud ASAP).
Posted by: swatter on September 27, 2007 01:28 PMIt seems that Ron Sims' objections are most heavily focused on the mass transit side of things -- which has the longest estimated completion time (20 years!) and longest payoff period (50 years!) and particular projects that Sims analyzes as being in sore need of improvement. I don't see nearly as much criticism of the roads portion -- but it is there (i.e. SR 520 bridge still needing another billion dollars or so, etc.).
Why shouldn't we reform the Sound Transit governing body? That board is set up in a way to avoid personal responsibility. The members are all appointed by the various county executives, instead of being elected to the body. The RTID board makes much better sense -- simply all of the various county council members.
If you don't like RTID projects, you can fire your county council member at election time. Since you can do that, they will listen to your concerns more readily. And everyone has a county council member representing them.
But the Sound Transit board? For example, one of Bellevue's seven city council members was appointed to it. Many other cities have no representation. Only a few of the various county council members have been appointed. Many folks have no direct representative, and very few voters will make a decision based on how one of their city council members voted durig their tenure on the ST board.
Why not consolidate both Sound Transit and RTID into the joint county councilor governing body?
On a final note -- Sims appoints 10 of the 17 voting ST board members. So it is interesting that he opposes the ST board proposal. Sims' reasoning is definitely forceful and appears (at least to me) to be sincere -- even if you and Stefan disagree with some of his reasoning.
Posted by: Richard Pope on September 27, 2007 02:07 PMMaybe Federal-level appointment, since his ability to draw votes from outside the Puget Sound Metro area has already been demonstrated?
Posted by: FT on September 27, 2007 03:36 PM
Dino Rossi should be acting now to get this particular ballot measure rejected in November. What, he doesn't get the problems?
Some big outfits that make money off real estate sales, management, development, etc. are contributing large amounts to the "pro" RTID/ST2 PAC. Don't tell me Dino's like that - a supporter!
I want to make sure Rossi is up on a critical vote for the history of our state.
I want him to explain resoundingly why RTID/ST2 needs to be relegated to the ash-heap of history. If he's a waffler, let's figure that out right now. This is an acid test that he might fail, and then he'd decide not to run and save us all a lot of time and effort. Why not test him with this key issue: RTID/ST2?
If Rossi can't explain why this measure is bad policy on several counts he might be unfit for any office.
While I agree with you that it would be nice to get a read on the measure from the future governor, I respect his tactic or non-tactic. You should, too.
Posted by: swatter on September 28, 2007 06:59 AM