1. What? Did The Seattle Times editorial leave everyone speechless? They can be right some of the time.

Posted by: Micajah on October 14, 2007 06:57 PM

2. I don't think anyone should be speechless that an editorial page that has long been against Sound Transit and light rail was consistent in their position this time around. In fact, it's one of the oddities of this election that with the massive exception of Ron Sims, no individual or organization has said anything particularly unexpected. It's been a largely uneventful campaign.

Posted by: Eric Earling on October 14, 2007 09:35 PM

3. From a geograhic standpoint, the viewpoints are extremely strange.

Seattle gets the goodies in this proposition- easier transportation within its borders, while Snohomish County gets a station sometime in the next millenium and that is at 164th St which is 15 miles from Everett (Herald) and there citizens pay out the nose. Tacoma fares much better but shouldn't they be pushing to get businesses to relocate to Tacoma so their citizens have less commutes?

Prop. 1 won't help traffic in either Tacoma or Everett, so why would they support it?

Posted by: swatter on October 15, 2007 06:59 AM

4. Swatter,
Actually the geographic relationship makes sense. Both the North and South ends are tired of Seattle getting all the money. The package proposed provides for fixing chokepoints and increasing service to both North and South regions. This is also why Sims was against it, since it spread out the improvements instead of focusing them on his bread-and-butter area (i.e., where he gets the most votes).

Posted by: tc on October 15, 2007 07:37 AM

5. "Prop. 1 won't help traffic in either Tacoma or Everett" - Actually Tacoma does not support it, it is the council that supports it with Julie Anderson leading the charge. I had a person doing construction work at my residence who simply is not interested in doing any more work in Tacoma because of the time it takes him to travel to and from the jobs. Tacoma has deliberately and systematically done everything in the City's power to degrade the transportation network - this ranges from changing a one way couplet to two way opperation to changing a major north/south arterial from two lanes in each dirrection to one lane in each dirrection and steadfastly refuses to do anything to bring the signal syncronization into the 20th century.

Tacoma has even curtailed the reflective buttons used for lane demarkation in favor of paint in order to save money. This is the most irresponsible of moves in a rainy and frequently foggy environment.

Does the Tacoma City Council have any regard for the safety of the City's citizens? I see no evidence of it, if they do.

Posted by: JDH on October 15, 2007 07:58 AM

6. Thanks for the MSM scorecard, Eric.

Here's another. P-I columnist Ted Van Dyk had a column on Prop. 1, called "Stop light rail in its gold-plated tracks" --

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/334985_vandyk11.html

He also followed up with some choice comments, in the "Soundoff" thread:

-------------------

Posted by FTVD at 10/13/07 11:13 a.m.

I usually do not participate in dialogue about my columns because it belongs to readers rather than me.

However, this is a special case. Soul Not Sold shows up whenever I or anyone else questions Sound Transit light rail. From the tenor and content of his comments, he is a Sound Transit staff member or contractor. If so, he should make that known. Typically, he impugns the motives or character of dissenters.

My age has nothing to do with my opinions. I am 73, rent in downtown Seattle (and thus do not pay property taxes), and do drive a car and pay for car tabs. Contrary to the allegations of some, I have used public transit regularly over a lifetime. Whether Prop. 1 passes or fails, it will make little difference in my own daily life. My opinion and this column are based solely on my knowledge of, and judgment, about public policy, economics, and transportation issues. Way back in the dim past---during the LBJ years---I ran a White House task force on transportation policy. I have run a couple national think tanks and have been policy director for several Democratic Presidential candidates and, in those capacities, have spent time on transportation issues.

The fact is, if you parachuted a dozen independent transportation analysts from around the U.S. into Seattle, you would be hard pressed to find a single one who would not tell you that light rail was a grossly cost-ineffective option in this region.

Light rail---as many other ventures in this area---is the product of a ballot measure and what I call the Mickey Rooney/Judy Garland School of Public Policy: That is, someone gets a bright idea or sees an opportunity for self-interest...raises money...and puts the idea on the ballot (typically, in a low-turnout, off-year election) and gets what he/she wants. (Mickey tells Judy: "Hey, I've got a great idea. Let's put on a show!" Judy responds: "Yes, that is terrific. Let's use the old barn out back! People would come from all over!" Upbeat music swells in background. Mickey, Judy and friends break into song and dance).

I am a train fan. I see nothing wrong with light rail---where it fits the local condition. That is in places such as New York and Chicago, where people live, work and travel between high-density clusters along a fixed-rail line. It does not work here. Here, bus rapid transit and ordinary buses can take more people to more destinations for far less money than light rail. That is called cost-effectiveness.

The sponsors of the notion, though, have embedded interests. Sound Transit staff and employees want to keep their jobs. Public officials have gone out on a limb for it---without really knowing its cost-benefit tradeoffs. Contractors, subcontractors, law firms, engineering firms, p.r. firms, financial institutions and many others all have a piece of the action. If the project stops, so does their money.

Phase I of light rail has been a disaster. Its initial southern leg does not go to Renton, Southcenter or Boeing, which is where people need to go, and even its late-developing Sea-Tac airport stop will force travelers to unload their baggage and catch a connection to the airport. It is a decade late in completion...billions over its promised cost...and with many of its promised stations cancelled.

Why has Sound Transit rushed forward with the Prop. 1 proposal for Phase II when it is nowhere near completing Phase I? The fact is, it is Stalingrad for Sound Transit. Without Prop. 1 money, it will not be able to extend Phase I to Husky Stadium---pending a last-minute rescue with federal money by Patty Murray.

Sound Transit has misrepresented Prop. 1's costs and benefits. It has misrepresented its prospective effects on traffic congestion (negligible of negative). Its financial projections are based on hyper-rosy scenarios. Contrary to its public campaign, Prop. 1 would not address the Evergreen Point Bridge or Alaskan Way Viaduct problems. It mainly is a means to extend a cost-ineffective transit system beyond Seattle to all three counties of the region---via regressive taxes to be borne by ordinary middle- and low-income people.
As one blogger pointed out, above, business would not be supporting the proposal if the monies were coming from the B&O tax.

This is a watershed decision for this region. If this huge program goes forward, it not only will commit us to spending a huge sum for the wrong transportation options but will steal monies from other public purposes, such as Puget Sound cleanup.

My only motive is to illuminate international, national and local issues so that readers can have information with which to form their own opinions. I am semi-retired and derive no income from any party on any side of this particular issue.

Why do so many local politicians support Prop. 1? They will have to answer that question for themselves. The principal reason, I fear, is that they got locked in a long time ago and simply do not know how to disengage without angering groups from which they receive political money and support. Ron Sims did it and is being pilloried for it. Not easy to stand up to such groups and tell them you've changed your mind about their pet project.

Both Sound Transit and RTID have vested interests in the proposal. Neither body consists of people directly elected to serve on it and, therefore, both bodies lack direct public accountability. The proposed elected commission, mentioned in my column, would have that.

That is why I suggest it be constituted---a legislative majority can be formed behind it---and make objective proposals for regional transportation uncolored by what has gone before.

Much of this repeats what already was stated in my column. But many of the comments, above, relate to nothing said in the column but instead are attempts to distract from the core issues surrounding Prop. 1.

The central question: Would the initial $47 billion cost-effectively address regional transportation needs?
Yes or No.

ted van dyk

----------------------

Posted by: orotund on October 15, 2007 08:18 AM

7. Ouch, that is telling it like it is; thanks for the post.

tc, are you saying what you said with a straight face? Your comments didn't pass the sanity test.

Posted by: swatter on October 15, 2007 08:24 AM

8. There is a slight grin. I really don't know why. Just speculating. I could rationalize both South and North supporting more than Central PS. We have been getting the "shaft" for years. It is about time we get something for our dollars, instead of Seattle getting it. What do we get? A toll bridge that was disapproved by the folks most effected by the toll, but approved by outside voters. At least the Prop 1 package, has meat in it for someone other than the Seattle Centric folks like Ron Sims. You can debate whether it is enough (it isn't) or the approach (BRT would be preferred, but any transit is better at this point).

I personally don't care how it is done. Just fix 405, Fix I-5 south of South Center (many parts, not just King County), and Fix I-5 North of Seattle. Most of all, stop delaying and get to work. The way things are going, the people here don't seem to want anything done. I am fine with the "no" voter, as long as you present a rationale plan that costs less and gets it accomplished in the next 10 to 15 years (sooner would be better, but I understand you just can't shut down roads completely while you rebuild). I have not seen any sound alternatives. All I hear is someday and some cost, but it has got to be cheaper than Light Rail. Okay, if it is, give me the actual numbers. Don't hypothesize. What are the proposals real estimates? How long would they actually take to get done? The problem is everyone wants to talk, talk, talk, and nobody's doing.

Posted by: tc on October 15, 2007 10:39 AM

9. #8 - too bad that you are succumbing to high pressure sales tactics that Sound Transit is trying to put on the public. I suggest that you chill out, vote NO on Prop. 1 and be patient - within a year ST will be back with a scaled down version of this humongous tax program. There are numerous fatal flaws in Prop. 1 - 1) they do not know if the weight of Light Rail will be able to be supported on the I-90 without sinking - there is a study scheduled for this. 2) This does not fully fund the rebuild of the 520 bridge - the most urgent project. It doesn't fully fund a number of other road projects. 3) What they tell you is that the cost is $43 billion through 2027 - what they don't tell you is that the lion's share of the costs (for paying off the light rail bonds) are from 2027-2057, that will be an addition $114 billion ( minimum).

There you have it - 3 good reasons to vote NO. Also, consider that Portland is way further in debt due their light rail ($4500/person) vs. ($2200/person)-so far in Seattle. Light rail is not justified south of Sea Tac Airport or north of Northgate because the population density is not there - nor will it be in the distant future. More roads $ and 15 instead of 50 miles of Light rail is way more reasonable. Do not only tell ST NO, but hell NO !

Posted by: KS on October 15, 2007 08:34 PM

10. KS - within a year, Sound Transit will be part of RTID, and in no position to come back with anything. And if you seriously think that after the legislature kicked ST off the ballot in 2006 to avoid bumping elbows with reps and senators, they'd allow it back in 2008...? No, the best you'll see is some light rail in a future road package. A long time in the future. And we'll be kicking ourselves just like we were after Forward Thrust.

Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on October 15, 2007 10:32 PM

11. Ben @ 10:

You make sweeping, unsupported statements. Just where do you get off prognosticating about what the legislature may or may not do? Sheesh.

Let's see if you know your stuff. In 1996 the voters approved Sound Move. Do you know what the bonding capacity amount is that the voters allowed Sound Transit?

Posted by: Conrad Templeton on October 16, 2007 11:15 AM

12. "And if you seriously think that after the legislature kicked ST off the ballot in 2006 to avoid bumping elbows with reps and senators, they'd allow it back in 2008...? No, the best you'll see is some light rail in a future road package. A long time in the future. And we'll be kicking ourselves just like we were after Forward Thrust."

Ben - you too have swallowed the bait of high pressure tactics by ST hook, line and sinker. However, I think that you are also dispensing misinformation. The legislature will allow a revamped package next year, after hearing this from a colleague who has frequent contacts with the State Legislature. Believe me, if Prop. 1 passes - we will be kicking ourselves over the cost and there won't be anything you or I can do about it, except move out of the Tri-county region in the next 10 years. ST is serving the people as an appointed board by the County Council who we elected - we as users deserve a hell of alot better than what is on the table as Prop. 1.

Posted by: KS on October 16, 2007 07:51 PM

13. King Counties Transportation problems are King Counties Transportation problem, and they should be fixed by King County. The original corridors of King County are not supporting enough local traffic. Point to any bottleneck or choke point on King County freeways, and I will show you an under performing original corridor that is responsible. Because King County transportation problems are caused by the lack of capacity and performance of the original corridors, it should be King County that fixes the problem. King County should start to invest in the original corridors now in order to address the problem of local traffic encroachment on the interstates.
I am asking for Budget cuts on King County criminal justice, from 74 percent to 65 percent to invest into the original corridor improvements. One by one our original corridors need to be improved with Levx systems, and over and under systems, to allow local traffic to better utilize the original corridors, which allow them to handle more local traffic, which in turn will free up the interstates for by pass traffic, and reduce the need for interstate investments.
The list of Original corridor investments will be for the following original corridors.
1. Over and under intersections at two locations on Benson Highway Between Renton and East Hill, 405 freeway exit to Benson hwy.
2.Over and under intersections at two locations on East Valley Highway between Renton and Kent, Kent and Auburn,405 freeway exit to East Valley hwy.
3.Over and under intersections at two locations on West Valley Highway between Renton and Kent, Kent, and Auburn.
4.Levx systems from Seattle to Federal Way ,Over and under intersections at two locations on hwy 99 South Seattle between Seattle and Federal way.
5. Levx systems from Seattle to Everett, Over and under intersections at two locations on hwy 99 ,north Seattle between Seattle and Everett.
6. Over and under intersections at two locations on 145th from I-5 to Bothell hwy Between Seattle and Bothell.
7. Over and under intersections at two locations on Coal creek parkway/Duval Avenue Between Bellevue and Renton.
8. Over and under intersections at two locations on Bel /Red road Between Bellevue and Redmond.
9. Over and under intersections at two locations on Newport way Between Bellevue and Issaquah.
10. Over and under intersections at two locations on East lake Sammamish way Between Redmond and Issaquah.
11. Over and under intersections at two locations on 202 between Redmond and Woodinville.
12 Levx systems between Renton and Bellevue on the Burlington northern route

http://www.levx.com/advantages.html

Posted by: Publicbulldog on October 17, 2007 08:38 PM

14. Conrad: The bonding *capacity* is determined by the tax rates (MVET and sales) in relation to the interest on the bonds sold - so it's variable. Perhaps you meant to ask a different question?

KS: Perhaps you missed this year's SB 5803?

Posted by: Ben Schiendelman on October 18, 2007 02:55 PM

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:

Remember info?