A large price tag obviously played a substantial role in shooting down the combined Sound Transit/RTID measure last year. One should hardly expect that wouldn't be an issue given the current mood of electoral angst.
A mid-October poll by SurveyUSA made the dynamic clear. Respondents asked about "expansion of mass transit" were much more favorably inclined than those that were asked about the measure with the nearly $18 billion price tag attached. More details:
Inclusion of the cost has the following impact:
Among men, support drops from +25 to +2, a swing of 23 points.
Among the youngest voters, support drops from +30 to -1, a swing of 31 points.
Among seniors, support drops from + 25 to -10, a swing of 35 points.
Among Republicans, support drops from 15 points against to 42 points against, a swing of 27 points.
The sample sizes of the split questions are small, but they do align to voter behavior of last year. Moreover, the ballot measure also actually lists the 0.5% increase in the local option sales tax in question, which is guaranteed to send some voters for the exits.
Lastly, the measure's position on the ballot should not be ignored. It is quite literally last on many ballots (including appearing at the bottom of the right-hand column on the back page of this blogger's ballot). An amazing number of voters in Presidential election years don't fill out their entire ballot. Those that do tend to be older, more conscientious, and more tax averse.
It all ads up to a lot of headwind to be running against in a year known for a restive electorate.
Posted by Eric Earling at November 02, 2008 05:04 PM | Email ThisBriefly, there are a lot of unknowns about this measure, but the fact that the expert review says the costs are not done for seismic refits on the I90 bridge, needed to support rail, is incredibly depressing. I would like to think voters have enough information to make a reasoned decision, but I don't think that's the case.
page B3, Seattle Times, in the Pacific Northwest section
Seattle
Panel Looks at costs of transit proposals
Sound Transit's 17.9 Billion Proposition 1 stireed both praise and a caution Friday in a pre-election letter from independent experts.
The transit agency earned kudos for a memorandum it signed during the summer with BNSF Railway, to put four more Sounder commuter trains on the Seattle-Pierce County corridor by 2015, for $185 million, if Proposition 1 passes Tuesday. The price agreement is intended to prevent a repeat of the cost overruns and delays that have occurred on voter-approved Sounder service.
The letter from the state-appointed Expert Review panel also said the cost estimate is reasonable. THe plan includeds 34 miles of light rail and increases in bus and commuter-train service.
But the panel warned of two cost risks for Proposition 1's proposed line from Seattle to Overlake Transit Center, near Microsoft. Officials have no plan yet to raise an additional $500 million in the event leaders choose a tunnel instead of a cheaper aerial route fro downtown Bellevue; and there's no dollar figure yet to lease state-owned road lanes and do seismic upgrades so trains could run on the I-90 floating bridge.
==========
Questions:
1. is this letter posted on the Sound transit web site? If not where is it?
2. how can the panel say the cost estimate is reasonable when what sounds like it could be a major cost, the seismic retrofits, and also possibly a minor one, lease of the road, is not included?
3. why wasn't this letter released earlier? The timing is very suspicious. It is like they can say 'well we released the opinion before the election" but the reality is probably have the votes at least are in already.
This sounds like a material omission. If someone sold a remodeling plan for a house, but then didn't include any seismic retrofits, I think they should be sued for errors and omissions, for leaving out a material fact.
I wish complex ballot measures had those lines you have to initial, to show you've read and understand what you're signing up for, the way they have those lines to initial on a legal document like a mortgage, car loan or medical form.
Here's the letter.
Hi, this is a very complex measure and as I follow transportation closely I wanted to share some links I think are worth reading and some perspectives on why I'm voting No.
One of the very hard parts of assessing rail is we have certain mental models, stereotypes and assumptions. Sometimes, these assumptions are right and sometimes they are wrong. Unfortunately, it seems the pro-rail campaign builds on these assumptions. I am very suspicious of many of the statements and assumptions made in support of rail, and the reality is that under this measure, there are no opportunities for a revote if it turns out we're being fed a bunch of baloney.
One of the major assertions is "the typical family would only pay $125 per year." What this ignores is that the tax does not have a specified end, and also, it excludes the reality that the measure continues current sales and MVET taxes without a specified end date as well. If you divide $17.9 Billion, which is the purported cost without any longer term borrowing costs, by the population of King Pierce Snohomish (total of about 3.3 million), you get $5,424. For a family of four, this is over $21K. Now, these dollars are year of expenditure, which means it includes dollars in 10-15 years from now, but my point is: the dollar amount is quite significant. The borrowing adds on at least another $5 Billion, but that all depends on what interest rates will be in 20 years. I am not optimistic they will be at today's levels given our federal budget deficit and unfunded federal liabilities like social security and medicare.
Another one of the assertions relates to travel times, for example, "UW to downtown in 10 minutes" or whatever. A key question though is "where at the UW." I mentioned mental models and assumptions. If we describe the station at Pacific and 25th as "UW", we get one mental model. If we describe it as "Husky Stadium" or "UW Hospital" we get a very different one. Customers (a word often missing in this discussion) care about point to point travel, not just station to station. There is no doubt rail is a great bargain for people who live next to a station and work next to a station. A question though is the value for everyone else. There are zero park and rides paid for at any of the light rail stations funded under this new tax, and zero funding for local shuttle buses to get people to the stations, for example.
I hope this is helpful and welcome back comments. You are welcome to forward this to anyone who might be interested.
======
Articles
======
Article 1: relates to the assumption that "rail is good, buses are bad" for the environment because buses use diesel and buses use electricity. The reality is quite a bit more complex.
http://daily.sightline.org/daily_score/archive/2008/10/30/transit-seats
Key quote:
I love charts like these. But unfortunately, we have to interpret them with care; it's easy to misunderstand their messages. To me, the clearest lesson in all of this is that the best way to reduce the impact of travel is to fill seats. Train, bus, vanpool, car -- as long as there aren't too many empty seats, they're all fairly comparable. If the seats are empty, they're bad news. So the bus vs. rail debate is mostly a distraction. Neither mode is inherently better; full, they're pretty close; and as long as they attract enough riders, both are much better than driving.
Article 2: from the Oct 30 PI - lots of data. It all sounds so good. So what's missing? How about amount of ongoing subsidy required per rider of the various modes, % of people who will actually be living within close proximity to the rail stations, costs of getting people to the stations and much more? Note the article cites a study by Parsons Brinkerhoff without noting PB is a huge constructino company that has made a ton of money off of major infrastructure projects and stands to make a lot more if the rail measure passes. In fact they are one of the top $ contributors to the yes campaign. This is sort of like asking a politician (who's gotten a ton of campaign money from Fannie Mae) whether a study Fannie Mae paid for about how much Fannie helps make housing affordable is accurate or not.
Note there's lots of high density construction in places like Ballard or Belltown, without light rail being planned. And note that fitting in signficant density in some areas close to some rail stations is not going to be easy to do.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/385791_railweb31.html
article 3: relates to the assumption that cities with rail automatically have higher transit usage. Not so! What's very hard to tell from all the hype about light rail is: how much will the market share of transit riders into downtown SEattle actually increase? The article says it is currently 40%.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lightrailinitiative/2008324129_busrail29m.html
key quote:
Commuters have proved they'll ride a practical bus system. King County Metro alone attracts 400,000 boardings per weekday, and about 40 percent of downtown Seattle employees arrive by transit. The Seattle-Everett-Tacoma area ranks seventh in the nation with 8 percent of all commuters using transit, ahead of metro Portland at 5.6 percent.
=======
Opinion
========
There are many more articles. I highly recommend Doug MacDonald's articles on Crosscut, cited in this letter to the editor of the Highline Times which was published this week.
Dear Editor:
One of the major ballot measures on Nov 4 is the Sound Transit Proposition 1. I am voting no.
First, we need a reality check of just how big a tax increase we're going to need to fix "the worst first": the critical infrastructure like the viaduct, 520, South Park bridge, etc.
An analogy: if we have a roof literally falling apart on our house, we should know what it is going to cost to replace it before we go ahead and sign a contract for an addition.
Second, there is significant room for growth with Metro bus service. Both more buses and park and ride spaces are needed. The ST Prop 1 additions of bus service are comparatively speaking a drop in the bucket.
The data presented in the Proposition is complex. There are a number of assumptions that are not clearly stated, for example, the rate of inflation on construction costs, or just how much sooner the I90 bridge will wear out with rail running on it and need to be replaced. If these assumptions are wrong, shouldn't voters have a chance to express their opinion? One of the lessons of the monorail debacle is: checks and balances are needed. Otherwise, there are incentives to oversell a rosy scenario in order to get the measure passed.
We are voting on two types of expenditures: Capital Construction, and ongoing operations.
88% of the capital construction in ST2 cost goes to light rail. Much of the rest is for the Sounder "commuter rail." The cost for 80 some blocks from the end of the airport to 272nd, plus some future land acquisition, is a whopping $2 Billion. Notably, the Sound Transit measure does NOT specify funds for ANY parking facilities at light rail stations. Joy Henley's poignant opinion piece last week points out a conundrum of new high-density construction: it is quite costly. Realistically, how many people are going to live within walking distance of a rail station?
Ongoing operations appear to be much more heavily subsidized by taxpayers than Metro bus service. However, since Sound Transit has not announced fares for light rail riders, the exact amount of this subsidy is hard to determine.
For further reading, I would suggest former Sound Transit Board Member Doug McDonald's articles opposing the measure are at www.crosscut.com/2008/06/22/sound-transit/15258/ . (Mr McDonald talks about population growth realities and ways of reducing CO2. Did you know fast growing areas like Marysville, Maple Valley, Snoqualmie and others are not in the Sound Transit taxing district?)
Another critique points out the increased congestion on I-90, AND that ST2 would spend at least $22.8 Billion to reduce Vehicle Miles Traveled by less than 1 percent. See www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/transportation/policynote/Sound_Transit_2008.html
There is also further information at www.NoToProp1.org
It is objectionable that this letter is not posted as of this moment on the ERP web site at http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/partners/erp/letters.html .
To me, the headline from the letter is the revealed timing of the supposedly "immediate" promised improvements in Regional Express Bus service and Sounder South commuter rail service.
Those "immediate" 100,000 one-time additional ST regional express bus hours -- that only cover ST's ridership growth in the last 12 months -- won't be fully added until some months into 2010.
The same letter also notes that "new Sounder service would be phased in 'no sooner than' between 2011 and 2015."
So much for quick action from the Prop 1 ST tax-doubling to relieve crowded buses!
The excuse for the letter coming out so close to election day is because of the lateness of the final approval of the Prop 1 plan -- July 24 and working out certain details in Board amendments took a few days longer. Last year, when the ST2 plan was known in the spring, the final ERP letter was issued in September.
Posted by: John Niles on November 2, 2008 10:11 PM