Vote No on Pop 1 again

Op-Ed - Vote No on the 'rail package'

By John V. Fox and Carolee Colter

Monday, October 27, 2008

Last year, we urged readers to oppose Proposition 1, the regional transportation package that was placed on the November '07 ballot. That $18 billion measure, including $7 billion for roads and most of the rest for light rail, was soundly defeated. But somehow the Sound Transit board interpreted that to mean they could come back again this November with another $18 billion ballot measure, only this time stripped of the roads component.

Repackaged under the banner "transit now," Proposition 1 would pay for construction of 34 additional miles of light-rail track, additional Sounder train service to the south, a First Hill streetcar, and a handful of express buses.

Even without roadway funding, it's still a global-warming, carbon-emitting lemon of a proposal and here's why:

- The measure allows Sound Transit to extend the existing sales tax of 0.04 percent and raise it by another 0.05 percent. This would bring Seattle's total sales tax burden to nearly 10 cents on the dollar - perhaps the highest rate in the nation. While the agency says the $18 billion package ($23 billion with interest) will be paid off in 2038, they've structured the tax to allow collection through 2053 and in an amount that literally would exceed $100 billion. Clearly officials lack confidence they can complete these light rail extensions within budget.

- It's a misnomer for Proposition 1 supporters to label this proposal "transit now." Light rail funded by the measure won't come on line until at least 2023. Meanwhile Seattle and the region continue to add population and commuters at an alarming rate - over 300,000 new residents since 2000. If we're going to get people out of their cars, we can't wait 15 years for a transit solution. As County Executive Ron Sims recently said, "We can't wait even 15 months." Sims, by the way, is one of the few regional leaders with the courage to speak out against Proposition 1.

- With gas prices rising, King County Metro reports a phenomenal increase in bus ridership - up 9 percent over the summer when ridership normally dips. Now with over 400,000 riders per day, area buses are crammed to the gills. At a time when we should be dramatically expanding the bus system, Sims reports that Metro lacks even the funding to maintain current levels of service. He's called for fare increases and asked Metro to tap into its reserve fund to make up the shortfall. For a fraction of the cost of Proposition 1's light rail extension, we could dramatically expand the number of buses and add dozens of new routes and truly provide "transit now."
*

But alas, Prop 1 allocates only about 2 percent of its total package for buses. To quote Sims again, "The plan provides just 60 new buses for the three-county area, half of which will not be in service until after 2015. That adds just an average of 1.3 new buses per year in each of the three counties for the next 15 years." Contrary to the claims of Prop 1 supporters, if we pour nearly all our transit dollars into a staggeringly expensive rail system, there's little left over for real solutions like buses, vans, carpooling, shuttle service, bike, and pedestrian amenities.

- Nothing exemplifies our misguided transit priorities more than our area leaders' obsession with rail - a plan that according to one study will serve only 0.4 percent of all trips in 2030. Earlier this summer area leaders including Mayor Nickels and members of our City Council had an opportunity to insist that a significant chunk of Prop 1's funding go to buses and other non-rail transit solutions. Rail is at least 40 percent more expensive to operate than buses (not counting the cost of adding several $100 million rail stations along each route). Instead, these officials asked that money's be inserted in the Prop 1 package for a costly toy of a streetcar line on Capitol Hill. Last year those same officials chose to divert monies Metro had dedicated for new bus routes in Seattle and instead use them to cover a portion of the operating costs for Paul Allen's South Lake Union Streetcar.

- Finally, and most damning of all, Prop 1 locks us for decades into an unsustainable car dependent pattern of growth. Our state's former Secretary of Transportation Doug MacDonald said it best in a recent issue of Crosscut, the local online magazine. Light rail, he says, assumes that most of the region's growth will be concentrated in or near the major urban centers including Bellevue, Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett. But despite our local government's best efforts to concentrate growth along or near planned rail routes serving these areas, it's simply not happening. Population and jobs are exploding on the margins of the region's growth boundaries in areas like Monroe, Marysville, Mount Vernon, Mill Creek, Issaquah, Sammamish, Snoqualmie, Dupont, Duvall, Bonney Lake, and a dozen other formerly rural areas. These areas cry out for creation of small transit centers with buses, vans, car pools, paths and bikeways running to and from those hubs. Lacking funding for these solutions (because most of our area transit dollars are being poured into rail) folks in these outlying areas have no choice but to continue to drive their cars.

As the rail line for Rainier Valley makes clear, light rail is not really about transportation. It's about real estate, displacement, and gentrification. Consider that most of the small businesses and residents displaced by light rail construction were low income and minorities. It's the rail lobby and real estate interests driving Prop 1, hiding under the illusion that this plan will curb use of cars and promote "sustainable" patterns of growth.

On the contrary, passage of this measure will lock us into a regional growth scenario that will keep us and our children and our children's children dependent on the automobile for decades to come.

Vote "NO" on Prop 1!

John V. Fox and Carolee Colter may be reached via wseditor@robinsonnews.com

Please share your point of view on this story. Comments posted with First and Last names will be considered for publication in the print edition. You may request that your name not be published. You may also send your comment directly to the editor at wseditor@robinsonnews.com.

Gerry wrote on Oct 27, 2008 5:43 PM:
" So, an effective, reliable, quality mass transit system is going to create car dependency, eh? Amazing these two were given an inch of column space.

As is usually the case with most rail opponents, John Fox and Carolee Colter are fighting a totally different battle: density, and re-development. In their effort to excuse and encourage suburban sprawl, these perma-activists are actually fighting the good things rail delivers: dense, affordable human-scale housing around rail centers. But, if your lot in life is to ignore middle income residents - in favor of the very poor and very rich - light rail is the big, bad boogeyman.

John Fox fought the redevelopment of Holly Park, and the quality of life enhancements which came along with it. Light rail, again, was the evil instrument of modernity in the Rainier Valley...and that so-called "gentrification?" Well, yeah. Property values go up when drug dealers and gang violence goes down. You can tell John Fox and his one-man-band The Seattle Displacement Coalition are really looking out for the little guy.

Carpools and vanpools for suburbanites - and lousy bus service for the urban poor - instead of a quality, reliable mass transit system? Give me a break. This is crusty, car-centric old Seattle in its last throes. Living in the past, rather than looking to the future, is a sure way to sink all boats. "

ST 2 does not relieve congestion; could make it worse

2008 Citizens' Guide to Sound Transit, Phase 2

by Michael Ennis
Director, Center for Transportation
September 2008

---

Introduction

This November, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties will again decide on whether to expand Sound Transit’s regional mass transportation system. The new Sound Transit proposal (ST2) would add 36 miles of light rail,
expand the Sounder commuter rail by four daily round trips between Tacoma and Seattle and expand the Express bus system by 17 percent. Sound Transit officials say that, if passed, ST2 would cost about $17.8 billion through 2023
and $22.8 billion through 2037. The proposal would impose a 0.5 percent sales tax increase within the Sound Transit district, which incorporates most of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The total sales tax rate would vary among jurisdictions, but Seattle would rise from 9 percent to 9.5 percent.

Key Findings

• ST2 would spend about $22.8 billion, yet serve only 0.4 percent of all trips in 2030.

• ST2 would shift only 0.84 percent of passenger vehicles from the road to transit by 2030.

• ST2 would spend $22.8 billion to reduce VMT by only 0.867 percent.

• The cost for ST2 to serve one additional trip would be about $368,000. Under Transit Now, the cost for King County to serve one additional trip is about $10,000.

• The ST2 proposal would be 37 times less efficient than a traditional bus system like the one in King County.

• ST2 would increase traffic congestion for passenger cars and freight trucks by about 25 percent across the I-90 bridge.

• ST2 would reduce lane capacity on I-90 by 20 percent during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

• ST2 would eliminate subarea equity protections.

• Not counting CO2 emitted during construction, ST2 would reduce regional CO2 emissions by up to only 1.11 percent. The
same reduction could be achieved through purchasing carbon offsets for only $2.3 million.

2008 Citizens’ Guide to Sound Transit, Phase 2

Page | 1

by Michael Ennis
Director, Center for Transportation
September 2008

Introduction
This November, voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties will again decide on whether to expand Sound Transit’s regional mass transportation system. The new Sound Transit proposal (ST2) would add 36 miles of light rail, expand the Sounder commuter rail by four daily round trips between Tacoma and Seattle and expand the Express bus system by 17 percent.1 Sound Transit officials say that, if passed, ST2 would cost about $17.8 billion through 2023 and $22.8 billion through 2037.2 The proposal would impose a 0.5 percent sales tax increase within the Sound Transit district, which incorporates most of King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties. The total sales tax rate would vary among jurisdictions, but Seattle would rise from 9 percent to 9.5 percent.3

The new proposal is Sound Transit’s second attempt to expand on the agency’s first phase, Sound Move (ST1), which voters approved in 1996.

Sound Move imposed a ten-year 0.4 percent sales and use tax and a 0.3 percent Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET). In 1996, Sound Transit promised voters it would build 25 miles of light rail for a cost of about $5 billion in year-of-
expenditure (YOE) dollars, to be completed by 2006.4 Today, Sound Transit officials say they can only build 17 miles of light rail for about $15 billion and will not be finished until around 2020.5

In other words, Phase 1 is smaller, $10 billion over budget and 14 years late
from what was originally promised to voters. In addition and regardless of
telling voters it was a “ten-year plan,” Sound Transit officials will collect the 0.4
percent sales tax in perpetuity, even after the first phase is complete in 2020.

Sound Transit officials first asked voters to expand its system in 2007 through a combined $47 billion roads and transit ballot proposal, also known as
Proposition 1. But voters rejected the measure and Sound Transit officials went back to the drawing board.

1 Resolution No. R2008-10, Exhibit A, Sound Transit, Adopted July 24, 2008. Available online
at: http://future.soundtransit.org/documents/Reso2008-10%20Exhibit%20A%20Plan%20Docu-
ment.pdf
2 Multibillion-dollar rail, bus plan is up to voters, Seattle Post Intelligencer, July 24, 2008. Avail-
able online at: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/372210_soundtransit25.html.
3 Based on current local and state sales tax rates calculated by the Department of Revenue.
4 Sound Move, The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan, May 1996.
5 Sound Transit, University Link Financial Plan, June 2006.




Now, Sound Transit officials have trimmed the number of projects, shortened the estimated completion schedule and shed the road building portion of the package for a second attempt at the ballot. The following discussion builds on Washington Policy Center’s original six-part series of analysis on Proposition 1 and describes Sound Transit’s latest ballot proposal.

Another ST2 proposal violates Sound Move policy

With a new proposal, the Sound Transit board is violating its own promise
to roll back Sound Move taxes. As part of ST1, which passed in 1996, Sound Transit promised voters a certain level of accountability because its taxing authority did not include an expiration date. In other words, Sound Transit officials wanted to ensure taxpayers that there was a process by which the new taxes would eventually end. So Sound Transit officials included this critical taxpayer protection clause, which voters ultimately accepted:
“Any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require voter approval within the RTA District. If voters decide not to extend
the system, the RTA will roll back the tax rate to a level sufficient to pay off the
outstanding bonds and operate and maintain the investments made as part of
Sound Move.6”
Since voters indeed rejected a “second phase capital program” with the failure of ST2 last November, and according to Sound Transit’s own policy, the agency should roll back ST1 taxes to operating and maintenance (O&M) levels. By moving forward with another ST2 tax proposal, Sound Transit is violating its own taxpayer protection clause that voters accepted in 1996.

ST2 eliminates subarea equity protections

Approved with the passage of ST1, the Sound Transit district is separated into
five subareas (Snohomish County, North King County, South King County, East King County and Pierce County) and employs the principle of subarea equity. Subarea equity is arguably the strongest accountability limitation placed upon Sound Transit. It requires taxes collected within a subarea to be spent in that subarea to ensure a proportional distribution of spending. In other words, taxes collected in Bellevue can only be used for projects in Bellevue and cannot be
used on projects in other subareas, like Federal Way.
Buried in the ST2 ballot proposal however, Sound Transit officials have reserved certain exceptions that render many accountability measures, including subarea equity, meaningless. The new ST2 measure says this:7
“In the event that a subarea’s revenues are insufficient to cover its costs, the agency’s currently approved policies provide the Sound Transit
Board with these options:
• Modify the scope of the projects;
6 Sound Move, The 10-Year Regional Transit System Plan, May 1996.
7 Resolution No. R2008-10, Exhibit A, Sound Transit, Adopted July 24, 2008. Available online
at: http://future.soundtransit.org/documents/Reso2008-10%20Exhibit%20A%20Plan%20Docu-
Page | 2 ment.pdf



• Use excess subarea financial capacity and/or inter-subarea loans;
• Extend the time to complete the system;
• Seek legislative authorization and voter approval for additional resources.”

The principle of subarea equity greatly restricts how Sound Transit spends tax
collections. The agency’s policies already create an incentive to underestimate
costs as a way for Sound Transit officials to avoid the limitations of subarea











































Page | 3

equity.

Because the Sound Transit board is unelected, ST2 would further untie the agency from the promises it makes, and would allow the board to shift money among subareas without additional voter input.

As the agency’s statement above suggests, these policies have already been
approved by the Sound Transit board and are in place. Sidestepping the subarea
equity limitation is highly controversial so Sound Transit officials appear to
be looking for insulation. By placing them as part of the ST2 proposal, Sound
Transit hopes to have them publicly ratified in effect, if the measure passes.

Compared to Traditional Bus Service, Passenger Demand Does Not Justify Costs
Sound Transit officials estimate that the new ST2 package would carry an
additional 163,000 daily trips by 2030.8 But Sound Transit also estimates that
about two thirds of those trips would come from the existing transit system.
Sound Transit officials estimate that only 62,000 daily trips would be new.9

The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) estimates that drivers and transit users will make about 15 million total trips per day in King, Pierce and Snohomish Counties by 2030.10 This means if ST2 passes, the expanded system would serve only 0.4 percent of all trips in 2030.

Comparing new daily trips (62,000) to how much taxpayers must pay ($22.8 billion) shows that the cost for Sound Transit to create one additional trip is about $368,000.

To put this new spending in perspective, King County recently passed
Transit Now, which will expand its bus system by 20 percent. King County officials estimate that Transit Now will serve up to an additional 60,000 trips per day, by 2016.11 King County also estimates the cost of Transit Now will be about $50 to $75 million per year, or about $600 million by 2016. This means the cost for King County to serve one additional trip is about $10,000.

Accounting for costs (operating and capital) and benefits (number of new trips), shows the ST2 proposal is about 37 times less efficient than a traditional bus

8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Destination 2030 Update, Technical Appendices, Puget Sound Regional Council, April, 2007. Available online at: http://www.psrc.org/projects/mtp/pubs/D2030techappendicesFinal.pdf 11 About Transit Now, King County Metro. Available online at: http://www.metrokc.gov/kcdot/ transitnow/about.stm



system like the one in King County.

ST2 Will Not Reduce Traffic Congestion

Trips do not equal riders. For example, a rider who makes a round trip commute to and from work counts as two trips. If that same rider took a bus to lunch and back, he counts as making four total trips during the day.
Because daily trips can double, triple and sometimes quadruple count the same individual, trips should be adjusted to estimate unique riders. The standard assumption is that single riders will equal 45 percent of trips.12 To look at it another way, 45 percent assumes less than half of total trips in a day will be the same person making a round trip. This does not capture all of the double counting of a single rider, but it is closer to accurately estimating how many different individuals will ride a transit system.
This estimation shows that ST2 will likely only serve the equivalent of about 27,900 new individual riders per day by 2030.

For Sound Transit to appreciably reduce traffic congestion, it must shift large
numbers of drivers from the roadways to its transit system. By 2030 there will
be about 3.33 million cars in Pierce, King and Snohomish Counties. 13 The

























Page | 4

equivalent of 27,900 riders is not insignificant. But assuming that each new rider
would equal one car, ST2 would only shift 0.84 percent of all vehicles from the road to its system by 2030.

In another measure, Sound Transit estimates that ST2 will reduce daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) from 99.4 million miles in 2030 to 98.5 million miles in 2030.14 This means Sound Transit officials want to spend $22.8 billion to reduce the daily Vehicle Miles Traveled by only 0.867 percent.

The PSRC estimates that traffic congestion will more than double by 2030.15 Based on Sound Transit’s own estimates, the ST2 measure would have no effect at reducing traffic congestion.

Less is More?
Sound Transit officials say the new ST2 package is smaller than the first version defeated by voters last November.

While the scope of projects is smaller, 36 miles of light rail instead of 50, and the project schedule is shorter, the proposed sales tax increase is the same (0.5 percent) as what Sound Transit proposed in 2007.

12 The American Public Transportation Association has used this conversion factor in the past to translate trips into individual riders.
13 2030 household projections calculated by the Puget Sound Regional Council’s Destination 2030 update. Available online at: http://www.psrc.org/projects/mtp/pubs/D2030techappendicesFinal. pdf. Assumed the regional vehicle ownership rate equals 1.81 cars per household.
14 Sound Transit 2 Planning, Sustainability Assessment of Sound Transit 2 Plan, Sound Transit, August, 2008.
15 Puget Sound Regional Council’s Destination 2030 update. Available online at: http://www.psrc. org/projects/mtp/pubs/D2030techappendicesFinal.pdf.



This means voters would get much less in public services for the same tax increase Sound Transit proposed in last year’s failed Proposition 1.

New ST2 Proposal Still Increases Congestion on Interstate 90

One of the more controversial projects in Sound Transit’s proposed second
phase (ST2) is reconfiguring the center lanes of Interstate 90 (I-90) to
accommodate up to 19 miles of light rail between Seattle and Bellevue. Known as East Link, the proposal includes replacing the two center High Occupancy
Vehicle (HOV) lanes that cross the bridge with light rail, a form of high capacity transit (HCT).
Sound Transit says the East Link Project would not reduce the number of lanes on I-90.16

This is not true.

During the morning peak commute drivers today have a total of five
westbound lanes (three general purpose and two HOV lanes). With Sound
Transit’s proposed reconfiguration, capacity would fall to only four westbound lanes. The same reduction would occur during the eastbound commute in the afternoon. This would be a 20 percent reduction in lane capacity during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.

By reconfiguring the center lanes, the WSDOT estimates Sound Transit’s plan to place light rail on Interstate 90 would reduce overall vehicle capacity on the bridge by 15 percent during the morning peak commute and 8 percent during the afternoon.17

This means light rail would increase vehicle delay on the bridge by 27 percent during the morning peak drive, and 24 percent during the afternoon peak. ST2 would cause average westbound vehicle speeds to fall 21 percent during the
morning peak commute, and eastbound drivers in the afternoon would see a 17 percent decrease in speed.18

Freight vehicles would experience a much worse result. During the morning
peak drive, the number of freight trucks able to cross into Seattle would drop 24 percent. Leaving Seattle during the afternoon peak drive, trucks would see a 19 percent reduction in capacity.19

Conclusion

There is no doubt that mass public transportation is part of the solution to
reduce traffic congestion, especially in dense population centers. But allocating

16 Assertion that light rail will reduce the number of lanes on the I-90 bridge, Sound Transit, Au-
gust, 2008. Available online at: http://future.soundtransit.org/documents/080408_I-90_Lanes.
pdf.
17 Part IV: Light Rail and Interstate 90, Michael Ennis, Washington Policy Center, 2007. Available
online at: http://www.washingtonpolicy.org/Centers/transportation/policynote/07_ennis_partiv.
html.
18 Ibid.
Page | 5 19 Ibid.



large amounts of public money to expand a transit program that will serve less than one percent of all trips taken is not efficient.
Public sector spending decisions are typically based on perceived value and
whether taxpayers believe they are receiving a proportional benefit from the service purchased. In other words, the social value of $22.8 billion should be equal to its economic costs. The difficulty is defining the social value. Is a transit system that carries less than one percent of all daily trips worth more or less than doing something else or even doing nothing at all?
If the public value of traffic congestion relief is high, then the economic costs of
ST2 do not justify the increase in spending. Sound Transit officials understand
this predicament and instead try to point to other public benefits of ST2.
One of the most convincing arguments to support ST2 is the environmental aspect of shifting drivers to public transit to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the region’s reliance on oil.
Sound Transit officials say that by 2030, ST2 would reduce annual CO2
emissions between 99,552 and 178,333 metric tons.20 That is an annual
reduction of between 0.71 percent and 1.11 percent of total regional CO2 emissions.21

To look at it another way, consider that CO2 emissions have monetary value
and thus can be measured to show whether spending $22.8 billion is justified for such a small reduction.

Terrapass, a nationally known firm that sells carbon offsets, charges $5.95 per 1,000 lbs of carbon reductions.22 Converting metric tons to pounds, shows the same CO2 reduction claimed by ST2 could be achieved by purchasing carbon offsets for between $1.3 million and $2.3 million.23 Far less, than the $22.8 billion Sound Transit officials are proposing.
This means Sound Transit’s relationship with any environmental rewards is so
slight that its ability to justify spending $22.8 billion is greatly diminished.

It should also be noted that the same environmental concerns and the rise in fuel prices is also driving technology.
The shift to zero emissions and super fuel-efficient vehicles is under way. Any
environmental benefits from ST2 over ordinary passenger vehicles will simply
disappear, by some estimates, within ten years, once alternative energy/fuel

.





Page | 6

sources are deployed. In fact, both presidential candidates, in different ways,
have plans to fast track this shift in technology.

In the end, voters will have to decide for themselves what is important and
whether the new ST2 proposal is worth the costs and increased long-term tax
burden.

20 Sound Transit 2 Planning, Sustainability Assessment of Sound Transit 2 Plan, Sound Transit, August, 2008.
21 Ibid.
22 Based on pricing information found on its website: www.terrapass.com.
23 Using a conversion calculator, convert metric tons to lbs, divide by 1000, and then multiply by
5.95.

Why Sound Transit shouldn't be moving forward towards a fall ballot

Sound Transit did not hear us

Prop. 1 was soundly defeated, but the leadership of Sound Transit plans to deliver Son of Prop. 1 to the voters this fall. The agency better get used to rejection.

By Ted Van Dyk

"I'm leaning 'no' (on a Sound Transit ballot measure this fall)...Why would you go back to a vote when you don't have the answers (regarding unresolved engineering and cost issues)?" — State Transportation Secretary Paula Hammond, Sound Transit board member.

Undeterred by the one-sided defeat last fall of Proposition 1, which called for the largest local-level tax increase in American history, mainly to fund the extension of Seattle's unfinished light rail system into King, Snohomish, and Pierce Counties, Sound Transit is asking citizens to give their opinions on two possible options for a 2008 ballot measure.

The first option, costing an estimated $9 billion, would be financed by a sales-tax increase in urban areas of the three counties. It would extend light rail north to Northgate, east to Overlake Hospital in Bellevue, and south of Sea-Tac airport to South 200th St. It would pay for design of a light rail extension to Everett, land purchases for extensions to Everett and Tacoma, and study of an extension to Issaquah.

The second option, costing an estimated $10.4 billion, calls for a slightly-larger sales-tax increase and would extend light rail east to Redmond and south to Highline Community College. It also would pay for a streetcar connection to First Hill and north to Aloha St. and bus-lane improvements on Route 99 in Shoreline.

Both options also would include some money for improved bus and Sounder service.

Sound Transit conducted a survey earlier this year and will hold public meetings, whose times and dates are to be announced, as well as offer further opportunities to comment online. It wants to decide what to do by mid-summer.

Notably absent from this taxpayer-financed opinion sampling are two other options which voters might reasonably expect to consider.

Option number three would direct Sound Transit to complete its present Phase I line before proposing any Phase II expansion. The initial line, from Sea-Tac airport to Northgate, is far behind its construction schedule, billions over its promised budget and missing several stations promised when the plan was initially approved by voters. First Hill station, projected to be the station with heaviest use, has been cancelled because of engineering problems and financial shortfalls. (The next projected northward station, at Husky Stadium, would disrupt traffic patterns near the university for several years and require drilling and excavation in the area. The area already is well served by bus transit).

Option number four would direct Sound Transit to terminate northward light rail construction in downtown Seattle. It would provide funds to jump start expansions of normal bus and bus rapid transit service in the three counties. Such service expansions could be instituted immediately — not years from now — and at a small percentage of the price tag attached to a notoriously cost-ineffective light rail system.

Sound Transit, according to previous form, is offering us only two similar options — both centered around gold-plated light rail — and not a fuller range of options which public officials and knowledgeable transportation specialists normally might expect to consider.

My own reaction to the exercise is: What can they be thinking?

Prop. 1 was thunderously rejected both because of its cost and because it neglected other transit and road options beyond light rail. Son of Prop. 1, if presented to voters this fall, apparently would follow the same pattern. What did Sound Transit board members not understand about last fall's vote?

The other consideration is obvious: The region is under economic pressure. Both individual voters and the general economy do not need fresh tax increases. The Boeing tanker contract, WaMu distress, the sale of Safeco, and the recently abandoned Belltown real-estate super project all should tell Sound Transit board members that now is not the time for another tax increase for a light rail-centered ballot measure.

The Sound Transit obtuseness provides yet another reason that the Rice-Stanton proposals for an elected regional transportation body should be adopted. No board member, directly accountable to voters, would dare come forward with the two options presented.

As Transportation Secretary Hammond has pointed out, the proposals were framed with many cost and engineering questions about them still unresolved. Sound familiar? Consider the abandoned Seattle Monorail plan, the dueling Alaskan Way tunnel and elevated-highway rebuild proposals, the running-near-empty Allentown Trolley from Westlake Center to South Lake Union and, of course, the notorious Prop. 1.

Message to Sound Transit board members: Get real. Get it right. Or get out.

• Ted Van Dyk has been involved in, and written about, national policy and politics since 1961. His memoir of public life, Heroes, Hacks and Fools, was published this year and has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize in nonfiction by the publisher, University of Washington Press. You can reach him in care of editor@crosscut.com.

Source posted on Crosscut Magazine

Does the Rice Stanton Group have the solution for Puget Sound

Beyond Proposition 1: A new consensus is emerging

12/18/07

A group headed by Norm Rice and John Stanton is gathering allies for a more rational and practical approach to the region's transit needs. Both supporters and opponents of the failed Proposition 1 are part of the effort.

By Ted Van Dyk, Transportation
Posted on December 18, 2007

"The voters are not fools." —political scientist V.O. Key

In the wake of Proposition 1's overwhelming rejection by King, Pierce, and Snohomish county voters, encouraging signs of rationality are beginning to appear in what has heretofore been the absurdist world of regional transportation planning.

Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels made effusive statements last week on the first run of the $52 million Allentown Trolley from Westlake Center to South Lake Union, regarding his vision of a trolley-system extension through all of downtown Seattle. Gov. Chris Gregoire, having committed $1 billion to a fixup of each end of the creaking Alaskan Way Viaduct, suddenly reversed herself on the issue of final repair or replacement and declared herself open to surface/transit options she previously had rejected. Sound Transit board members, now led by Nickels, were laying plans for resubmission, probably in 2010, of their soundly defeated proposal for an extended light rail system.

None of those outcomes (except possibly the adoption of a surface/transit solution on Alaskan Way) is likely to transpire.

Instead, momentum now has shifted toward more practical and affordable ways that the region's most pressing transportation needs can be met. For one thing, Gregoire has stated that repair or replacement of the Evergreen Point Bridge across Lake Washington will have high priority in the year ahead. Both the 520 bridge and the Alaskan Way Viaduct are state highways, and the governor, indeed, can address both definitively if determined to do so.

We also may see in 2008 a reform of the regional transportation planning and decisionmaking structures that have failed us often in the past.

The Gregoire-appointed Norm Rice-John Stanton commission a year ago proposed that Sound Transit and the Regional Transportation Investment District be superseded by a new, mainly elected, regional transportation body better able to make independent, cost-benefit-based proposals for balanced transportation systems. The proposal was well received in the Legislature but stalled in the face of full-court opposition by Sound Transit and those who are protecting turf or who benefit directly from Sound Transit contracts.

One reason that Sound Transit overreached so badly in seeking record amounts of tax dollars in Prop 1 was that it feared it might shortly be euthanized if the Rice-Stanton proposals were adopted, or that taxes reserved for Sound Transit would be raided for road building or non-Sound Transit bus systems. For Sound Transit, Prop 1 was Stalingrad. Without the fresh infusions of money, even its limited local light rail system lacks funds to get as far north as Husky Stadium.

Former Seattle Mayor Norm Rice and hi-tech executive/investor John Stanton have decided to press aggressively in 2008 for adoption of their proposal. They have been joined, initially, by a core group including of former U.S. Sen. Slade Gorton, Bruce Agnew of the Discovery Institute's Cascadia transportation center, Snohomish County transportation leader Reid Shockey, 2004 attorney general candidate Mike Vaska, and Steve Mullin, president of the Washington Roundtable and co-chair of the pro-Prop 1 campaign. This eclectic group includes previous Sound Transit and Prop 1 advocates. They are united in a belief that rationality and accountability must become cornerstones of future transportation policy.

The Rice-Stanton group already has met with the governor and key legislative leaders and reports no overt opposition to their proposal. They also have had informational meetings with Sound Transit and RTID leaders. According to Stanton, his group has no illusions regarding the support of these bodies, but they hope to at least blunt their opposition.

Rice, Stanton, et. al., shortly will form a committee — let us call it, for now, the Committee for Rational Transportation Decisions — to generate public support for their proposals and to bring pressure on the governor and legislative leaders during the coming short session of the Legislature. The effort, at least for now, will be directed toward legislation rather than a ballot measure, although the latter could remain an option. No legislative lobbyist has yet been hired.

The latest version of the Rice-Stanton proposal calls for the regional transportation authority's members to be directly elected (rather than appointed, as with the Sound Transit and RTID boards) and thus directly accountable to their constituents. It would be supplemented by six appointed members, with four to be appointed by the counties and two by the governor. Though the latter configuration could change, directly elected officials would form a strong majority on the body.

The Rice-Stanton group could also find itself working with Prop. 1 opponents such as Belltown financier Mark Baerwaldt and former state Supreme Court Justice Phil Talmadge. Baerwaldt and Talmadge have also publicly endorsed the notion of the new regional transportation agency to supersede Sound Transit and RTID. These forces, together, have the money, political juice, and potential public support to create the desired institutional change.

In all of this, a new consensus is emerging about a post-Prop 1 agenda. It centers on moving aside turf-oriented, self-serving agencies such as Sound Transit and transferring power to a more objective, more responsive regional body. It would stress immediate priorities such as addressing the urgent Alaskan Way Viaduct and Evergreen Point Bridge, which are aging and structurally vulnerable. It would not stop light rail construction in place, but it would limit construction to a line running from Seattle-Tacoma International Airport to either Convention Place, Husky Stadium, or Northgate. Future funding would be focused more greatly on express bus, bus rapid transit, and normal bus service; dedicated transit lanes; HOV lanes; tolling; and selective repair and expansion of long neglected local roads and lifeline highways. Citywide trolleys definitely would not be part of the scheme.

Things move slowly hereabouts. But finally they appear to be moving in the right direction on regional transportation policy. The coming year could actually be a good one for us in that regard.

The following comments were posted on crosscut in response

Crosscut Must Have a Death Wish
Posted by: ratcityreprobate on Dec 18, 2007 7:09 AM

For the umpteenth time Van Dyk subjects us to his Sound Transit rant. Now we learn that Cascadia transportation center will bring the Intelligent Designer to help the Rice Stanton clown car. What an absurd joke. Those two couldn't organize a one car funeral procession. A really nice guy but do-nothing mayor who went on to nearly bankrupt a Federal banking institution and a right-wing crank are going to lead us out of the wilderness. Please!

Hopefully Van Dyk has adult children living elsewhere who will come for him and place him in an appropriate living situation.

Tacoma News Tribune Weighs In

Posted by: dltooley on Dec 20, 2007 6:59 AM

Today's Tribune weighs in on this subject, with some more detail about what's planned regarding the issue of 'sub-area' equity.



Just because a sex predator changes from a red suit to a blue one doesn't mean they won't still be up to the same tricks. To be fair, the corporate welfare folks calling themselves upstanding democrats or upstanding republicans aren't necessarily caught up in the cycle of sexual abuse.

They do certainly use those poor souls, as well as the racially damaged, to their financial benefit. Some might tell you that is legal, I would disagree.

One crucial aspect is also the question of abuse of authority of any kind. FWIW it is my opinion that the folks who stand to continue to benefit from Sound Transit and the like have a multi-generational history of abuse within the development of their authority.

The best solution to that problem is certainly a matter of debate - the fact of the existence of this major problem is not.

Personally, I think the best standards to use are those standards of law misused by these very same folks. More on this later.

-Doug
Lincoln, Tacoma

Glad I read it, but
Posted by: dltooley on Dec 18, 2007 8:43 AM

Norm Rice is still incompetent. Just because he can steal somebody else's good idea and throw them in jail instead of recognizing their contribution, let alone pay for it, doesn't mean that he'll be able to actually make that idea work.

Rather, quite the contrary.

His hiring of Mike Vaska (A Foster Pepper Sheffelman Attorney - the firm just removed from 'power' at WAMU) is like Christine Gregoire hiring Mark Sidran or Jenny Durkan.

Well okay, he only hired one public shyster, instead of two like Ghetto Queen Christine, so give him that.

-Doug

• t

Current funding
Posted by: summerwind on Dec 18, 2007 10:16 AM

Voters approved the nickel gas tax followed by the 9.5 cent gas tax if highway improvements including the 520 bridge and viaduct
There is a weight fee on our car tabs for transportation projects
There is a .3% sales tax fee on the sales tax for new cars for Transportation improvements
There is a .1% sales tax fee for improved Metro bus service
The RTA tax is still alive and well on our car tabs in King county
King County went into the Ferry business without a vote from the people in King County

It would be nice to review what we got for the current funding before new proposals with new taxes are brought forward.

• Reply
• Post a new comment

About time!
Report a violationPosted by: Piper Scott on Dec 18, 2007 11:02 AM

I'm definitely not a Norm Rice fan, but even so any movement towards a de-Balkanization of transportation planning in the region is a good move, Norm or not. And taming the rabid beast of Sound Transit and getting it to both know and keep its place as being PART of regional transportation and NOT the whole ball of wax is also a good thing.

If you'll pardon the pun, it's time for ST to know that its place is at the back of the bus, not driving the damn thing!

I hope that whatever regional authority comes out of this new effort encompasses not just the immediate turf, but also where people will be in 10, 15, 20 +++ years from now. In other words, Skagit County through Thurston need to be fully included.

Maybe the Puget Sound region will grow up after all!

The Piper

• Reply
• Post a new comment

The idea is good, but...
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Dec 20, 2007 7:07 AM

It won't necessarily solve the problem.

I've been talking about an elected solution for some time, perhaps as long as a decade, and certainly before even the start of the Rice/Stanton effort, most likely one 'brokered' by the incompetent Stanford Frat boy lawyer Mike Vaska.

What they are after is the end of sub-area equity in order to SUCK off the rest of the region to continue to support the heavy needs of the scam that professional Seattle has become.

What is needed is not just for Seattle to pay their own share of their ego - but for them to start giving back to the rest of the State. Top of the list of 'givers' should be the clients of Foster Pepper Sheffelman and Preston Gates Ellis, as well as those lawyers themselves. The list of their associations is long, perhaps best documented in a list of 'partner' law firms maintained by Sound Transit, and all of these folks need to pay.

FWIW, my interpretation of the law is that they have already volunteered to do exactly that.

Funny thing about the law, isn't it, how it applies the same to everyone. Perhaps the funniest are those lawyers who don't realize that Constitutional protections aren't something to try to figure out how to violate to your benefit - their provisions, in letter and spirit, are designed to avoid problems for those in power (by being fair, go figure). These STUPID FOLK actually think they've pulled one off....

-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma

• Reply
• Post a new comment

No more new commissions
Report a violationPosted by: animalal on Dec 18, 2007 4:26 PM

Summerwind has it mostly correct by outlining most of the taxes that need to be 'performance audited' before anything else gets taxed or tax increased. And Piper Scott has it wrong; Sound Transit and its 377 overpaid, bloated, benefit and retirement seeking leeches and the ST board should be THROWN UNDER THE BUS! ST is evil, pure and simple.

• Reply
• Post a new comment

Hear your pain animalal
Report a violationPosted by: steptoe.fan on Dec 18, 2007 4:53 PM

also, nice to hear people thinking FINALLY about some construction
for the transportation mode that OVER 90 % of us use everyday : the Auto .

light rail is not scaleable, re-configurable or even cost effective WITHOUT
MASSIVE SUBSIDY !

• Reply
• Post a new comment

Joke
Report a violationPosted by: Tarl on Dec 18, 2007 8:15 PM

Thanks to Ted's support for this mysterious proposal we can all take comfort in understanding that it is an effort to sabotage Sound Transit and light rail. That's what it sounds like to me anyway. The messenger in this case is just as important as the message.

It also sounds like a set-up to support the Dino Rossi campaign. It looks like a bunch of republicans with money have bought off a few dumb democrats and called it bi-partisan.

It also sounds like a huge diversion from the real issues: getting something done on high priorities like 520 and the Viaduct. These guys all want to consume all the time and resources on their new big government so that Rossi can say the government didn't deliver on the big things.

Its an obvious diversion from the things real people care about. In other words, more of the same from pointy headed elites.

• Reply
• Post a new comment

RE: No Joke
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Dec 19, 2007 9:55 AM

This is a good example of why lawyers calling for 'bipartisanship' is a joke.

Mike Vaska was Foster Pepper Sheffelman's attorney on the Sound Transit effort. As I recall his most significant contribution was the naming the agency, but perhaps it was just the Sounder train.

Vaska did run as a Republican - but his firm is definitely a democratic one, though definitely the highest of the 'limousine liberal' class. They got their start in public bond issues under Rice on a housing issue.

They may well put forth an image of 'diversity' but best believe there is none. I don't know about Stanton, but Rice and Vaska are definitely stinkers. You can see the incompetent arrogance everytime they look in your eyes.

Specific impressions/recollections of each:

There is a historical racial conflict on the UW Campus between the Frats and the various minority organizations. I've no doubt that he suffered some racist insults and no doubt either that some of those folks were from my own department. But continuing that battle with a young white male from that same department whose 'racial' credentials are unassailable is more than just stupid, no matter how much the legal establishment will try to use racial laws to manage hate.

I talked once about this same general subject - his response? 'It's a free Country'. Freedom to screw over everyone else at the benefit of your clients, after yourselves? Methinks not, me thinks rather that FPS and their current clients, no longer including WAMU, are certainly able to volunteer to have their 'standards' applied to themselves.

Rice was probably qualifed as a Councilmember. As a banker he was a good hire for Fannie Mae - but his lack of skill at running that public organization - well before the current mortgage mess - is adequate evidence for his failure as a mayor. I suppose he blames it all on the white male Econ graduates in the banking industry.

Saying yes when you should say no is every bit as racist (and harmful, no matter the context) as it is to say no when you should say yes. The limousine liberals of Seattle fell all over themselves over a black man with potential that the only result was messing him up. This mess up is perhaps the most significant single factor in Seattle's current situation.

FWIW I hear Larry Gossett had a few white male aquaintances at the UW, even as head of the Black Panthers (I think it was the Panthers). I'd guess Sims had a few at Central, a true 'Buffalo Soldier', if he doesn't mind the term.

-Douglas Tooley

• Reply
• Post a new comment

Ugh!
Report a violationPosted by: hoohah on Dec 18, 2007 9:49 PM

First, Mr. VanDyk is wrong to say that absent fresh infusions of money from Prop 1, Sound Transit does not have enough money to get to Husky Stadium. Assuming they get the federal grant they've applied for (and for which they've received a very high rating), they'll have the money to get to Husky Stadium. Construction is scheduled to start toward the end of next year.

Second, Mr. VanDyk's "analysis" seems to consist of heaping approving characterizations (rational, practical, affordable, independent, balanced, accountable, objective, responsive) for the imagined new organization he favors and disapproving adjectives on his bete-noir Sound Transit (turf-oriented, self-serving). There is not much insight, thinking or enlightenment going on in this article.

Third, this new effort he promotes is made up primarily of people who want to expand roads and limit expenditures on transit. They want buses for transit -- the cheapest kind of transit there is and also, not coincidentally, the most inadequate and unsatisfactory, destined to get stuck in traffic just as they already are today.

The Discovery Institute has no credibility on transportation or anything else. This is the organization that led the fight against Darwinism nationally. Their transportation group continually advocates for outlandish plans such as building a new 405 further east to be called I-605 and pie-in-the-sky massive tunnel-building programs that could never be considered "rational" or "practical."

Please, Crosscut, find somebody with some knowledge, credibility and insight to write on transportation.

• Reply
• Post a new comment

RE: Husky Stadium light rail line
Report a violationPosted by: jniles on Dec 19, 2007 12:23 AM

On the contrary, Mr. VanDyk is arguably correct in writing that the November 6th rejection of Prop 1 leaves Sound Transit with insufficient cash to build the Seattle subway light rail tunnel to Husky Stadium. Sound Transit claims everything is OK, but I've seen independently prepared spreadsheets derived from Sound Transit's financial model showing new, higher operating and maintenance cost assumptions from the Citizen Oversight Panel. These spreadsheets indicate ST's cash position in the coming decade of subway construction is too shaky to responsibly begin digging.

ST will work and rework the numbers in the year ahead as part of gaining approval for the $750 million federal grant, money that is not yet in the bag. The celebrated "highest rating" for the grant as previously received by ST is continuously updated in light of new information. Sound Transit has not submitted the final grant application paperwork to USDOT yet. Only when the big grant is approved next year, IF it is approved, will we have independent verification that ST is good to go on digging the tunnel from Pine Street to Broadway & John to Husky Stadium.

Sound Transit would have plenty of money for building light rail to Husky Stadium if the tax receipts from the Eastside were diverted to University Link. However, under the subarea equity policy, these funds are dedicated to projects that benefit the Eastside.

• Reply
• Post a new comment

RE: Husky Stadium light rail line
Report a violationPosted by: Tarl on Dec 19, 2007 8:39 AM

Good point jniles. The way Ted describes this slick old idea, there'd be no more subarea equity - in other words no real way to assure anybody outside of King County that their taxes wouldn't be eaten up by the overwhelming needs of Seattle and King County.

It sounds like a stunt to let the state off the hook when it comes to making transportation a priority.

• Reply
• Post a new comment

RE: Husky Stadium light rail line
Report a violationPosted by: dltooley on Dec 19, 2007 10:00 AM

All this is is an attempt by one of the two big Sound Transit law firms to hedge their bets. It does appear to be a bit of a competitive move against PGE through some shared motivation between Foster Pepper Sheffelman the Discovery Institute.

Both parties should be ashamed to have their names used in such a scam.

One thing for dang sure, when it comes to milking the public treasury FPS and PGE are nothing more tweedle dee and tweedle dum.

-Doug

• Reply
• Post a new comment

Cascadia Center and I-605
Report a violationPosted by: jniles on Dec 19, 2007 12:19 PM

Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute has never advocated building the I-605 outer beltway. The Center participated in a WSDOT funded study some years ago of a railroad, pipeline, and trail corridor to the east of I-405 and the urbanized area to which others, not Cascadia Center, later attached a highway. None of this moved forward.

Cascadia Center's post Prop 1 ideas are posted at www.cascadiaproject.org. There is no mention of anything like I-605.

Cascadia Center's ideas on tunneling for highway right-of-way are also posted on the web. An important element of tunneling as described by this organization is non-governmental investment funding, with a payback on the investment from tolls. If one of the tunneling ideas pencils out as rational and practical for investors, it could happen. If not, no tunneling.

• Reply
• Post a new comment

RE: Cascadia Center and I-605
Report a violationPosted by: hoohah on Dec 22, 2007 2:12 AM

jniles writes:
"Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute has never advocated building the I-605 outer beltway."

This simply is untrue. Here is an excerpt from a long history of the I-605 proposal, whose name was changed to the jazzier sounding "Commerce Corridor":

QUOTE:
"The Commerce Corridor, as a privately developed toll expressway and utility
system through and adjacent to the foothills of western Washington, would
be thoroughly dependent on freight in order to cover the enormous costs of
building and maintaining it....

The Cascadia Project, a division of Seattle's Discovery Institute, has been
a prime mover, politically and rhetorically, of the previously rejected and
now somewhat newfangled corridor concept. Rather than keeping it focused on
Pierce, King, and Snohomish Counties, as before, the latest grandiose
vision extends it north to Canada and south to Lewis County.
Cascadia's own report last year on Washington's transportation woes,
entitled "How Do We Get There From Here?: A Transportation Future for the
Puget Sound Region," advocated for new north-south truck highways on both
sides of the Cascades Range. Cascadia's true believer, Bruce Agnew, has
been working the stakeholders in Whatcom and Skagit Counties on this
project for years."
UNQUOTE

For the complete history, see http://tinyurl.com/2aabyr

The Discovery Institute report referenced above ("How do we get there from here?") was one tunnel proposal after another, including two tunnels for a new 520. Cost didn't seem to enter the equation anywhere. Their idea seems to be that if you privatize things, cost is never a problem.

You can see where the Discovery Institute is at by reading their own report:
http://tinyurl.com/3y6aer

I repeat: The Discovery Institute has no credibility.

For Whom the Bridge Tolls
Posted by: Stuka on Dec 19, 2007 12:56 PM

Unless we have competent engineers running the transportation system instead of committees of politicians, we're never going to get anywhere. Electing members to committees is better marginally, but doesn't address the problem of competence.

As much as I believe that ST is more or less a large transportation cancer, designed to be a cancer, and effective at being a cancer, in some respects its well run, and if its growth could be brought into concert with other transport spending, it's cancerous properties could go into remission and ST could become, someday, (dare I say it) cost effective.

But the race is not to the ST swift-boaters, nor to the ST Titantic deck chair rearrangers. One should ask instead, For whom the bridge tolls? Ultimately, accountable tolling, combined with a mixture of market-driven pricing (hot lanes up to $9.00 a trip, $3 for your average bridge trip on your average bridge) and social-benefit pricing (discounts for frequent users, the poor, service drivers, etc., not to mention global warming and transit subsidies) will transform the way we pay for things.

The reason this will happen is that pricing is reasonable and rational (which in politics is usually the kiss of death), but also politically doable. It may take 50 years to get to an automatically tolled transportation system, but we can easily start right now, and the technology is pretty much available in rudimentary form right now. Getting your infrastructure bill in the mail every month is the obvious way for things to go. It's where all utilities go when taxpayers revolt. The utilities ultimately become utilities ala sewers and power companies, and pay for everything out of one budget, instead of this nutty patchwork of sales, gas, RTID, and MVET taxes split across a bunch of jurisdictions.

Appointing the next guy in charge of regional transport problems is like appointing the next exchequer of Iraq. Maybe your guy won, and your enemy lost, but that battle is not the problem.

For your holiday (maybe even your Christmas) enjoyment, here's gift text from the Transportation 2020(?) study describing current tolling technology:

"1. DSRC RFID Schemes ... — Dedicated Short Range
Communication (DSRC) is the most common form of primary electronic road pricing technology in general use and is the standard on most free-flow toll facilities. The technology is based on the use of on-board vehicle units OBUs), sometimes referred to as transponders, which communicate with gantry-mounted equipment at defined charge or check points. These units can also incorporate a smart card facility for payment. The roadside equipment identifies and verifies each vehicle’s OBU and ... either processes a charge from its designated account or confirms its rights of access. In most systems, the DSRC system also locates the vehicle within its detection zone ...

2. Vehicle Positioning Systems (VPS) — Vehicle positioning systems (e.g., GPS, Galileo) use a satellite location system (generally a [GPS] system) to determine the vehicle’s position and measure location and distance travelled for the purposes of charging and access control. A limitation of vehicle-based systems is that in addition to the position system itself, they require an external communications system ... to periodically report [a] vehicle’s required charges. Germany’s truck toll system (the only adopted PS-based system currently in operation) uses cellular telephone technology, and its associated charges, to perform this task."

By the way, the study cites $25B in revenue that such a system could bring in over (if I recall correctly) 20 years. The obvious no-brainer for all, on all sides of this issue, is that taxation is a problem for transportation, and that tolling can be done corridor-by-corridor, can be made very accountable, and makes the future possible.

Paying it forward with the Tech
Posted by: dltooley on Dec 20, 2007 7:19 AM

Well said, Mr. Stuka.

One thing to keep in mind with both technologies is that they could be used not just for tolling, but also for additional purposes - all under the umbrella of what some call 'Intelligent Vehicle Systems'.

Most important of those are systems which provide a freeway based 'cruise' control which could greatly increase capacity via something called 'platooning' whereby following distances are reduce.

Such a system must have lots of redundancy in both the vehicle and the freeway. Having BOTH short term radio capability and vehicle based GPS is a good thing, and hopefully there are smart enough people out there working this so as to use the competing techs as prototypes of what hopefully will become a smart unified system.

Although I'm a Ford guy, this is an argument for GM, because of their long experience with ONSTAR. Ford has recently started to partner with Microsoft on entertainment, and I believe, navigation, computer systems. Although some aspect of Microsoft is likely to survive in the entertainment media field NO WAY IN HECK would I ever put my safety in the hands of a car relying on a Vista OS.

That's not even talking about the danger the relationship between the handlers of Microsoft and the government would have. Er, excuse me, that is the topic isn't it. Funny how it all ties together, must be god revealing himself, or perhaps just the fact that they've messed up so bad that you can't avoid no matter how you look at it.

The hand of God, indeed!

-Douglas Tooley
Lincoln, Tacoma

RE: For Whom the Bridge Tolls
Posted by: Tarl on Dec 20, 2007 8:03 AM

It's your dream, so you are free to keep dreaming it. Meanwhile serious people need to get a few things done.

Window Dressing
osted by: Digg Newsvine on Dec 19, 2007 2:12 PM

"It centers on moving aside turf-oriented, self-serving agencies such as Sound Transit and transferring power to a more objective, more responsive regional body."

All I can say is WOW! Mullin, Vaska and Gorton are all ultra-pro Sound Transit. Reid Shockey was nothing but a go-along to get-along type on the ST Citizen's Oversight Committee. Now they want to take power from ST? Doubtful.

ST'll be just fine, whatever that posse proposes. Window-dressing city.

rearranging the org chart boxes is not enough
Posted by: jniles on Dec 21, 2007 8:58 PM

Digg Newsvine write: "Mullin, Vaska and Gorton are all ultra-pro Sound Transit. Reid Shockey was nothing but a go-along to get-along type on the ST Citizen's Oversight Committee. Now they want to take power from ST? Doubtful. ST'll be just fine, whatever that posse proposes. Window-dressing city."

Bingo. There is a way to do "governance reform" that totally protects Sound Transit and its mission to build the largest light rail network in North America. You can bet that there will be focused crew going down that road.

Blowing up the current process is only one part of the reforms necessary to build cost-effective public transit around here. The other part is getting a focus on the mission of building cost-effective public transit. Building a six-mile long subway tunnel at $500 million per mile is not the way to get to cost-effective public transit. Sound Transit is hell-bent on digging that tunnel.

Why is this about Sound Transit?
Posted by: debo on Dec 21, 2007 10:31 PM

Mr. Van Dyk, please refrain from helping the restructuring effort. Your post may be a good illustration of your own Plan B, but has little to do with structural reform that Rep. Jarrett and I have been talking about and working on for several years now.

Our work centers on re-negotiating the existing contract that creates and empowers the Puget Sound Regional Council. If we intend to strengthen the land use-transportation linkage, to motivate sufficient density to abate the high cost of housing and to ensure environmentally-friendly mobility in this region, (instead of just talking about it, which we seem to enjoy) … well, then, that won’t happen by doing the same things that we’ve been doing for the last 20 years. While we’ve been wringing our hands, talking about how we don’t want to become L.A. … well, that traffic out there looks amazingly like L.A., don’t you think?

This whole discussion is about a lot more than Sound Transit, and eventually, we’ll collectively figure that out. But in the meantime, it makes for a good on-line conflict, huh?

Deb Eddy

RE: Why is this about Sound Transit?
Posted by: jniles on Dec 23, 2007 6:14 PM

Dear Rep. Eddy,

Thank you for your comment and for your service in Olympia.

Governance reform is about more than Sound Transit, but what to do about this agency is central to reform efforts, because of this agency's prodigious appetite for regional resources in today's system of governance.

For example, the recently failed Prop 1 could be viewed as the leadership-endorsed end product of a half decade or more of effort by all the various actors in the present system of regional transportation governance.

So how were resources allocated within Prop 1? Whether you measure the spending or the tax authorization, the money would have gone overwhelmingly to Sound Transit, our regional transit agency that in its 11th year of life is delivering 14 million trips annually in a place that experiences 12.5 milllion trips per day. Some voters thought the roads part of Prop 1 was the bad, but most of the requested money was for Sound Transit's light rail.

The role of Sound Transit is central to the mission assigned to the new governance system that you and Rep. Jarrett are working on. Is governance reform about keeping Sound Transit on course doing what it tried to do with Prop 1? Is 70 miles of light rail -- the largest light rail network in America -- the key to sustainable mobility, the key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions? Or, as some of us advocate, does Sound Transit's work need to be refocused? A close look at PSRC's numbers convinces some of us that the region is on the wrong path.

Sound Transit's current mission is to build a massive, separate alternative to the road network, but the market share achieved is low. The road and highway network carries the vast bulk of all people and goods movement in the region. As PSRC has documented, that road network now and in the future carries the vast majority of transit movement, even if Sound Transit's rail network were ever to be realized.

As shown in best practice examples of bus-rapid-transit techniques from around the world, there are many ways to make the streets, roads, and highways work much better for transit, but that's not the main place where Sound Transit is trying to go. (King County Metro, City of Seattle, Community Transit, and others are working on better bus mobility, but it's only a very small part of Sound Transit's work.)

Managing Sound Transit's appetite for resources to a proportion consistent with the share of their contribution to mobility has got to be key element of reform in the view of some of us. Refocusing Sound Transit's work toward buses that move faster on an expressway system and arterials that move faster for all traffic would be a useful change of mission for Sound Transit, a change that provides an alternative for achieving "integrated roads & transit" beyond the stinky mess of Prop 1 shot down by voters.

At the moment, PSRC rationalizes and endorses the insignificant transit performance delivered by Sound Transit. Regrettably, PSRC certified that the type of results seen from Prop 1 were adequate for the billions collected and spent by Sound Transit. So, Rep. Eddy, you and Rep. Jarrett are quite perceptive in rethinking the role of PSRC.

But don't stop there. It's Sound Transit that's wagging the PSRC dog's tail, not the other way around.

A simple and good first step from the legislature -- make the Sound Transit board directly elected by district.

John Niles

RE: Why is this about Sound Transit?
Posted by: Tarl on Dec 24, 2007 6:16 AM

So it turns out Ted is right. This Stanton Rice push is really all about taking over Sound Transit. It sounds like the Eddy/Jarrett idea is all about taking over the PSRC.

You can't have two government reforms of the government if your goal is to consolidate the same governments.

John Niles just added a third. Anybody have another idea? You bet. That's why this subject is the focus of so much wheel-spinning waste.

Do we really need another government like the Port of Seattle?

Further discussion on the same-old-same-old ...
Posted by: debo on Dec 29, 2007 7:13 AM

Tarl, I appreciate your passion, but you're shooting at trees in a very snarled-up forest. And that, of course, is part of the problem ...

PSRC is the agency by which all of us - cities, counties, states, agencies, modes, advocates, gadflies and etc. - set transportation policy for the URBAN region, i.e., the area the defies easy boundaries because it all pretty much runs together, figuratively and functionally. John's observation about PSRC's certification of ST plans is illustrative of how this all works, at present: one federated board approves the work of another federated board, and it's all rather obscure and politically invisible to the average person.

There is no "new" government being proposed, nor the willy-nilly consolidation of any governments, at least by Fred and me. We may well suggest that one or another of these boards be chosen differently, to improve political accountability and also to improve decisiveness (right now, lots of entities have essential veto authority, which is why is takes so long to come to agreement). And we will absolutely be looking at new performance expectations as part of PSRC's charge ... and that, frankly, is the really hard part, as there are cost/benefit analyses and external/internal trade-offs in every transportation decision.