Have we reached that real money point here in the Seattle area?
Sound Transit expects to spend $2.1 billion for its mostly-tunneled light-rail line from Husky Stadium to Northgate, based on figures its capital committee endorsed Thursday. The full transit board is to vote June 28 on a budget for the 4.3-mile project, to be finished in 2021.
That $2.1 billion can't be real money, at least to the board. Or to Seattle Times transportation reporter Mike Lindblom, who treats this as an absolutely routine story.
Cross posted at Jim Miller on Politics.
(Some background for those not familiar with the Seattle area's transportation problems. Much of our terrain is hilly, so building light rail here often requires tunnels for the trains. This link will replace, at a guess, four buses — which we already have — and will not provide any improvement in times for transit trips for most riders. The area it goes through is not, by the standards of large European or northeastern cities, densely populated.
Most of you will have guessed that I borrowed that title from Everett Dirksen.
Posted by Jim Miller at June 16, 2012 09:02 AM | Email ThisWhat would constitute treating it as not a routine story? Setting it in red type? Running more than the 532 stories they've already run that include both "light rail" and "northgate"?
Of course this is a huge project. One that voters approved in 2008. You can keep questioning a 4-year-old vote to your heart's content, but do you really expect the Seattle Times or anyone else to waste their time doing so? Do you have anything new to say?
Posted by: Bruce on June 16, 2012 09:36 AMYep, more wasted money for a useless system.
Maybe (but I doubt it) The people of this state like Calif is coming to the grips, that this type of transporation is a huge waste.
$57 EACH. Yep, that is some good public policy right there...and *crickets* from the press whose role it is to point this stuff out.
Posted by: Cire on June 16, 2012 12:19 PMAbsolutely! If by "a blank check" you mean an overwhelming majority voting for a detailed list of projects with price tags and specific revenue sources!
Sound Transit's own estimate (only pre-vote one I could find on their website in a half hour of searching) for this segment are:
"The comparative capital costs for Segment A from Northgate to the University District range from a low of $420 to $440 million for A2.1c, the 8th Avenue NE East Portal alternative, to a high of $455 to $480 million for A1.1, the Preferred Alternative (12th Avenue NE tunnel) in 2002 dollars (2002$)." - March 2006
Quite a bit of cost ballooning there, don't ya think?
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on June 16, 2012 02:01 PMAnyway, of course budgets change somewhat during years of design, engineering, and construction. That's hardly the same as a "blank check".
Posted by: Bruce on June 16, 2012 02:24 PMIt's not the one they 'approved' in 1996, with its oh-so-subtle clauses in a separate unheralded document saying that the Board could ignore cost estimates and commit any sum necessary to build their precious light rail.
Without the 1996 fraud, that stupid 2008 ballot could never have happened. By that time, everyone knew that (a) cost estimates mean nothing to Sound Transit, and (b) the public will never get another voting opportunity to abolish the whole squandiferous toy train project.
Light Rail is an unmitigated gravy train for lawyers, builders and administrators, and a pair of concrete shoes for the 97% of citizens who don't use it.
Posted by: Insufficiently Sensitive on June 16, 2012 03:25 PMPhasing Sound Transit 2 projects -- Implementation of Sound Transit 2 will begin the day after voters approve funding for the expanded regional transit system. Individual projects will be brought into service after they proceed through planning, environmental review, preliminary engineering, property acquisition, final design, construction, and start-up/testing programs. Sound Transit plans to open the already-funded Link light rail section from downtown Seattle to the University of Washington in 2016. Two years later, the plan anticipates opening the University of Washington to Northgate segment, as well as a number of other Sound Transit 2 projects. Light rail to downtown Bellevue, Des Moines / Kent, and several other projects are planned for 2021. All remaining Link light rail segments are planned to be complete by 2027.
And here in 2012, they are just now talking about the budget for the project - the already -funded project that they plan to complete in 2021 - five years later than they "sold" the voters in 2007.
ST2 Link Light Rail was to cost $10.2 billion and build 50 miles of LLR. Perhaps the news story should be more of an acounting of where ST is today in the plan they sold in 2007? How are they matching up with projections? When will the sad news come out that they need a new vote to fully fund the remaining 30 miles or whatever?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on June 16, 2012 03:48 PMProp 1 incorporates Resolution R2008-11 which references "Sound Transit 2, A Mass Transit Guide, The Regional Transit System Plan for Central Puget Sound" dated July 24, 2008 (part of Resolution R2008-10). Finally in Appendix A of R2008-10 one finds some details.
Speaking of "blank checks", I never said anything about them. But reading through all this stuff, I didn't see any upper limits on costs. Just pledges to try to:
* "minimize cost increases";
* "that after the voter-approved plan is completed, subsequent phase capital programs that continue local taxes at rates above those necessary to build, operate and maintain the system and retire outstanding debt, will require approval by a vote of the citizens within the Sound Transit District";
(if the voter-approved plan is completed, why would it be "necessary to build" anything?)
* "upon completion of the capital projects in ST2 and Sound Move, the Board will initiate steps to roll back the rate of sales tax collected by Sound Transit";
(initiate is not the same as complete!)
* "The agency will seek legislative authority to replace or substantially reduce its reliance on the sales and use tax as the primary funding source for regional transit improvements, consistent with all contractual commitments. In order to replace the revenue that would be lost by reducing or eliminating the sales and use tax, the agency will seek legislative authority to raise an equal amount of revenue from other sources more directly related to regional transportation such as tolls, user-based fees, vehicle or other transportation related taxes."
(bait and switch!)
So I guess you could say they do have a blank check! If you don't agree Bruce, please feel free to provide quotes that show any spending limitations.
So it will only be 3 years behind schedule? Much better than 5 years.
Oh, and I noticed you didn't mention anything to disprove the "blank check" claim.
And the increase doesn't suggest any "cost ballooning"? The Bureau of Labor Statistics says $480 million in 2002 is worth $613.18 million in 2012. So $2.1 billion (2012 dollars assumed as the original Seattle Times article Jim linked doesn't say otherwise) is only a little more than 3 times the rate of inflation for the most expensive option in 2006 (which included "contingencies that address the varying levels of uncertainty and construction risk that have been identified for alternatives").
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on June 16, 2012 07:03 PMFigures. Why did I expect otherwise when someone takes the time to question your talking points?
(As if you'd really done any research to begin with given your link that didn't provide the info you thought it did and your inability to find Prop 1.)
So still no comments on your ridiculous definition of "blank checks"?
Posted by: It Takes a Village to Convene a Grand Jury on June 16, 2012 07:51 PMI know a lot of Leftists who rode the light rail once, on the day it opened, and have driven since.
Posted by: Jeff B. on June 18, 2012 07:40 AMI bet he see's something totally different in his home and his expenese. (-:
As I said, even some in Calif are waking up to the huge taxpayers give away!
Posted by: Medic/Vet on June 18, 2012 12:09 PMHowever, when the people vote for a well ballot measure that survives court scrutiny, we are told it must be done away with because a) the people are stupid and b) Socialism.
Maybe we can simply streamline things here a bit. We will take it as read that the supporters of this site find anything that is helpful to the common good of our community bad, while are in favor of anything that cuts public services. With that guiding principal in place, we should be able to drop the repetitive posting on this site by the amen chorus to almost nothing, unless some original thought suddenly surfaces.
Posted by: Lionel Hutz Esq. on June 18, 2012 12:25 PMWould it were that unSound Transit have to face the voters every 2 years...
Posted by: zorch on June 18, 2012 12:36 PMPRIVATIZE & TOLL - then we can experience real markets.
Posted by: Jared on June 18, 2012 01:28 PMSource for your claim about car subsidies? Last studies I've seen from the Federal DOT showed that cars are a net tax source to the Government. Trains, planes, and buses are consumers of tax dollars.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on June 18, 2012 02:10 PMFalse. Prove it.
State highways are almost completely self sufficient through gas taxes, vehicle weight fees, licenses, and tolls. If there are subsidies, they are minimal. You can see the breakdown here.
Especially compared to rail, which recovers nearly nothing in comparison from the farebox compared to the actual cost of construction.
Posted by: Palouse on June 18, 2012 02:20 PM
None of the cigarette taxes goes to fund lung cancer treatment either.
Posted by: dorky dorkman on June 21, 2012 05:38 PM