To help put the RTID/Sound Transit package in context, a reader sent me PDFs of some of the original "Sound Move" documents from 1996, which were used to sell the original Sound Transit to the voters.
I've posted the "Regional Transit Long Range Vision" [5MB], the "Sound Move Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan" [22MB] and the "Detailed Description of Costs and Facilities" [2MB]
Worth noting some of the specific promises that were made:
"14 stations" for the Commuter Rail [there are now only 9, and they didn't make it to Lakewood]
"conservative funding assumptions"
"the entire system will be completed and operational within ten years"
"The RTA has identified reliable funding sources for building the light-rail line between the University District and SeaTac"
"The RTA has adopted strict cost management control principles to make certain Sound Move stays on schedule and within budget"
"The RTA is committed to the entire system being completed and operational within 10 years"
"The assumptions used to project costs and revenues for Sound Move are consciously conservative"
"The financial policies provide important tools to the RTA to make sure that Sound Move is financed on time and within budget and that principles and commitments to the public are met"
Among the specific commitments for projects that were supposed to be fully operational in 10 years, was light rail from the U-district to SeaTac for $1.7 billion1 with only another $26 million for an extension to Northgate. The reality is far shorter and far more expensive than what was approved by the voters.
1 The $1.7 billion cost estimate was stated in 1995 dollars, which equates to $2.2 billion in 2006 dollars, according to this calculator
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at July 02, 2007 09:41 AM | Email ThisWe can listen to words, or we can watch actions. Talk is cheap. And personally, I can't see anyone in local government that I trust.
If you believe what politicians like Sims or Nickels say, you can expect to be disappointed. Forget about all the reasons spewed for boondoggles like Sound Transit and just follow the money. Billions here and billions there. Shrinking results for ever-increasing costs - thinking of Sims' Brightwater now - and who's pockets are being filled? And how much of that makes its way back into the campaign coffers of our "responsible" leaders?
In the end it's just government's parasitic nature to suckle the taxpayer for politicians own political benefit. And the taxpayer is just too distracted/apathetic/mis-informed/etc. to see it happening.
Posted by: MJC on July 2, 2007 12:28 PM"The Alaskan Way Viaduct and 520 Bridge will likely collapse or be rendered inoperable by another major earthquake, putting citizens at grave risk, striking a disastrous blow to trade and crippling our economy. I-912 guts a package that invests in every part of the state and creates thousands of private sector jobs."
"Save Lives. Reduce congestion. Create jobs. Please vote No on I-912."
"Protect your transportation dollars and you'll get results: fewer bottlenecks; reduced congestion; safer roads."
Posted by: Seabecker on July 2, 2007 12:30 PMAnd the math would be:
2 + 2 = ?
a) 0 b) 2 c) infinity, d) none of the above.
Posted by: Al on July 2, 2007 12:33 PMI support Sound Transit. I am likely to vote against the RTID/Sound Transit package because of the global warming impact of new roads and I hope Sound Transit comes back to the ballot alone quickly should the package fail. These are my personal opinions, and not the position of the organization I work for -- Seattle Great City Initiative, which has not taken any position on this issue.
I do not advocate firing ST employees, and I think very highly of Ron Sims.
Whoever is misusing my name should stop, and Sound Politics should ban the person from posting again.
Michael McGinn
Posted by: Michael McGinn on July 2, 2007 01:39 PMEither you didn't read the proposed ordinance, or don't want to.
"While the county will make the decision about any amendments to the King County Comprehensive Plan for the property, the city shall be entitled to participate in the planning process so its positions can be considered. It is the intent to have the Summit Pit property annexed to the city of Maple Valley, consistent with all state and local review processes."
In exchange, it sounds as though the County is getting 276 acres of real estate out by the Green River for protection, plus any cash value differential, and 600+ TDRs that residents in the Rural area have put up for sale can be purchased by that developer you mentioned.
There's no love lost for Ron Sims, and I think that he's WAY off base about global warming and a LOT of other issues, but, sheesh.
RTID/Sound Transit package because of the global warming impact of new roads
_________________________________________
Just great. Maybe, just maybe you may wish to do a tad bit more checking on (Global Warming)
Al Gore and his gang are losing support as more experts are coming out and telling Al he's all wet!
Now if Ron and Company were to let the City annex the property PRIOR to the NON-COMPETITIVE Sale of the property you have obviously never been to, you might have a point. It is a money grab of the first order, the Icy creek property that you refer to as 276 acres is the option property held by Yarrow Development for 21 homes. The county tried to buy that property back in 2004, but could not come to terms, so now they are "Back dooring" the purchase and giving some "Friends" an exclusive deal to build 2,000 units in a town that cannot do a thing about it and doesn't have ANY influence in the process.
FT who will get the Development Fees? The City of Maple Valley? No. What is the premium on the Credits from the TDR Bank that Yarrow will pay for the ability to get "bonus" density on their project? The property is currently zoned RA-5 (1 home per 5 acres) yet they are proposing 12+ homes per acre, what would the difference be to the TAXPAYERS of King County in an OPEN bidding process for that parcel if they changed the zoning BEFORE the sale? Finally FT since you apparently stand to benefit from this project, how does this square with Ron Sims recent anti-sprawl announcement? Where are the transit dollars UP-FRONT for these folks in the affordable housing getting to the employment centers? Ron and the County are proposing some draconian solutions to the congestion problems around King County but when they can make a buck on the deal, they simply do not care.
Posted by: Huh? on July 2, 2007 02:42 PMThat chart puts RTID into some useful perspective. When you look at the new RTID plan, it shows King County overall would get very little in the way of road improvements. In particular, Seattle would provide the lion's share of the taxes, but very little RTID money would be spent on improving roads for drivers in Seattle.
The breakdown of what money gets spent where is on pages 30-32 of the RTID blueprint for progress, at rtid.org. The amount of revenues raised during the first 20 years is shown on page 88.
The taxes and bond debt that would be the responsibility of King County over the 20 years would total $8,503 million. The expenditures on projects would be $5,380 over that period. These are "YOE" or nominal dollars.
The comparable figures for Pierce are: $3,030 and $2,047 respectively.
The comparable figures for Snohomish are: $2,967 and $2,092 respectively.
As can be seen, the ratio of money spent to tax/debt obligations is by far the worst for King County.
When you look at the numbers for spending in Seattle vs. the amount of RTID taxes Seattle taxpayers would have to pay, and the debt Seattle taxpayers would need to pay off, the ratio becomes astoundingly bad.
On page 31 of the RTID Blueprint for Progress there is a breakdown of what would get spent by RTID in Seattle. Taking half of the SR 520 and I-90 spending ($537 million), and adding in the "Seattle Mobility Project" plus the Lander St. overpass and the South Park Bridge (total: $547 million) gives a figure of $1,084 million.
That's it for Seattle spending by RTID. That isn't going to help inter-city vehicle congestion in the slightest. So Seattle taxpayers would be on the hook for paying half of King County's tax obligations to RTID, and tax obligations to retire half of King County's share of RTID bonds. The YOE cost of those items to Seattle taxpayers would be $4,252. In exchange, what would Seattle get in the way of road upgrades? Only $1,084 million in project spending.
Not only did everybody in Seattle get ripped off with Seattle monorail, not only did our taxes to ST bring us a hole in the ground and promises that eventually there will be trains (of limited usefulness), now RTID turns out to be a massive ripoff of Seattle taxpayers.
I'm not feeling the need to vote to support massive transfers of Seattle tax dollars to road building between Bellevue, Renton and the Sammamish Plateau.
That's what passes for leadership here in the Peoples Republic of Seattle.
Posted by: Jeff B. on July 2, 2007 04:24 PMFor further details of this rouse of an RTID plan, see;
http://www.roadsandtransitfactual.info/
Posted by: KS on July 2, 2007 08:54 PM
WPPSS. (Google it.)
The same exact political and real families that ran Washington for their own benefit then, still run it now.
"In the event that the proceeds of federal contributions, plus any other moneys of the RTA legally available, are insufficient to accomplish all of the capital improvements provided by this Resolution, the RTA shall use the available funds for paying the cost of those improvements that are contained in the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan and are deemed by the Board to be most necessary and in the best interests of the RTA after consideration of the financial policies approved by Resolution No. 72. In the event that the Ten-Year Regional Transit System Plan improvements, or some portion thereof, are impractical to accomplish due to changed conditions or force majeure events, the RTA may use the available funds to pay principal of or interest on bonds, to reduce tax levies, or to pay for other capital and/or service improvements that achieve the stated goals of said plan, as the Board in its discretion shall determine as appropriate or necessary in accordance with law and Board policy."
What this means is the ST board had authority to re-scope the project and build what it could afford-- rather than risking commitment to a project it couldn't finish. And what happened? ST re-defined the project to go from downtown to Tukwila. The cost was set at $2.1B in inflated dollars in 2001. That project is now 75 percent complete, on schedule and on budget. Two years later the airport segment was added for $240M, and next year ST will break ground on the University of Washington segment at $1.6B. All of this is affordable with current revenues, and will give the region about 20 miles of rail transit with 15 stations. Defintely not the whole enchilada, but pretty darn good and badly needed.
Also, a quick fact check on Sounder. The plan called for 13 stations. Nine are currently operational. The 10th and 11th are under construction (Lakewood and South Tacoma), and the 12th will be this year (Mukilteo). ST bought and owns the track to Lakewood, service will begin when track improvements and stations are complete.
Prediction: someday, most folks will look back and be grateful ST took the heat to actually get something done.
Posted by: shooter on July 2, 2007 11:23 PM"Two years later the airport segment was added for $240M, and next year ST will break ground on the University of Washington segment at $1.6B. All of this is affordable with current revenues,"
Where shooter's argument fails is that the term "available funds" in the passage he quoted refers to the revenue limits in Table 2 of the Paying for the System section of Sound Move. ST already spent those.
The dollar amounts for "voter approved local taxes" and "debt" in that table were made available to ST. It has spent those amounts during the implementing period. It can not spend more revenues from either of those sources putting Phase I system elements into place (such as University Link). That is because those are upper limits on ST's spending authority during the time it is putting the system into place. That is what the voter-approved ordinance states.
ST already spent all the local taxes it was authorized to spend during the implementation period. ST has no right to secure additional debt by taxes. ST does not have "available revenues" to pay for University Link.
If ST2 is approved, ST could spend additional taxes on University Link, and other things described in the 1996 plan it can't afford now.
Care to comment, shooter? What revenues would ST use to make up the difference between the anticipated grant from the feds and whatever University Link would end up costing?
Posted by: dribbler on July 3, 2007 08:05 AMThe question that imediately popped into my mind is how long will it be before the same clowns who insist on returning to the rail transportation of the last century also start to demand that we once again plank our streets? Not that it would not be an improvement should 95% of the streets in Tacoma be planked.
Posted by: JDH on July 3, 2007 08:25 AMI swear that is what RTID and KC Metro are saying...whatever it is I don't like it.
Posted by: eric on July 3, 2007 08:53 AMThe voters imposed spending limits on ST. ST only is authorized to spend set amounts of taxes and bond sale revenue while putting what it can of the system plan into place. Those revenues limits are specified on page 34 (in Table 2) of the version of Sound Move Stefan posted yesterday. ST's already maxed out under those limiits.
What say you shooter?
Posted by: dribbler on July 3, 2007 08:57 AM"conservative funding assumptions"
"the entire system will be completed and operational within ten years"
"The RTA has identified reliable funding sources for building the light-rail line between the University District and SeaTac"
"The RTA has adopted strict cost management control principles to make certain Sound Move stays on schedule and within budget"
"The RTA is committed to the entire system being completed and operational within 10 years"
"The assumptions used to project costs and revenues for Sound Move are consciously conservative"
"The financial policies provide important tools to the RTA to make sure that Sound Move is financed on time and within budget and that principles and commitments to the public are met"
Posted by: JDH on July 3, 2007 09:58 AMshooter - now you are supposed to post this:
"Nah, dribbler. There are no limits in Sound Move. If you think there are, then you must go prove it in a court of law. But we know why you won't do that -- you know you would lose, and badly."
shooter - let's go! Tell us why your argument is not just hot air in light of the dollar-figure limits on revenue spending set out in Table 2. Stefan has a link to it above. Table 2 is right on page 34. Is there some problem with your vision?
Posted by: dribbler on July 3, 2007 01:13 PMTo JDH, you've hit upon the crux of the matter. Why should the public vote for the fall ballot? The public will have to examine whether ST's record to date, along with the prospect of a significant expansion, weigh more heavily in their judgement of what needs to happen in our transportation system than ST's record of the late 1990s. We will certainly find out the answer in November. The fireworks are about to start...