Today's Seattle Times has a pro-"roads-and-transit" op-ed by some familiar boondoggle boosters, former Governor Dan Evans and superlawyer Judith Runstad.
Runstad is a partner with Foster Pepper, which stands to make millions off the boondoggle as Sound Transit's bond counsel.
Some people think of Evans as the wise elder statesman who always knows what's good for us. But more people should remember that he reflexively jumps to the front of the parade for every overreaching public works project that is a financial and/or political disaster waiting to happen, including WPPSS, the Seattle Monorail and last year's big dig waterfront tunnel.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at October 09, 2007 09:49 AM | Email ThisHe was a big booster of GMA, until.... he tried to subdivide some of his own property near Hood Canal and was told he was outside the boundaries.
And Stefan, to me trotting out supporters for an initiative really clarifies how I am going to vote. For example, I read the voters' pamphlet for the new initiatives and read who was for and who was against. The endorsements were most telling and really cemented how I was going to vote.
Posted by: swatter on October 9, 2007 10:05 AMIn the case of local government propositions (like Roads and Transit), the government putting the measure on the ballot gets to select who serves on both the "pro" and "con" committees.
Of course the choose dregs for the "con" committee!
Posted by: realist on October 9, 2007 10:30 AMLike I mentioned above, I have read the initiatives and after looking at the endorsers, my decision became clarified. In some cases, it wasn't so clear.
But dumb, I don't think so.
Who do you go with? If Kirby Wilbur recommends something, do you vote for or against it based upon that recommendation? Or the Ross guy on KIRO? It is good fodder.
How or what do you base your decisions on? I think it dumb myself to read the pamphlet and vote based upon what is in the pamphlet only. But, there isn't a whole lot of information out there to base a decision on. Knowing someone or their politics always helps.
Knowing Dan Evans is for something is one of those things that makes me think about voting against. Same with Runstad. Of course, that is balanced because Eric is for it and I also listen or read his works, too. Oh, my vote is an emphatic NO on this one.
Posted by: swatter on October 9, 2007 10:45 AMIf we are going to be forced into neverending taxes to pay for light rail, then that vote should stand on its own.
The roads package can stand on its own too, and maybe that can have dose of common sense too by fully funding the 520 replacement.
Posted by: Palouse on October 9, 2007 10:54 AMLight Rail memorandum controversy
In late 2002, Chronicle website managers accidentally posted an internal memorandum on its Web site, HoustonChronicle.com. The memorandum [25] outlined a draft agenda of coordinated news articles, editorials, and op-eds seemingly intended to promote a hotly contested mass transit referendum to expand Houston's controversial METRORail system on the 2003 ballot, which was later approved narrowly by voters. The memo's anonymous author proposed supporting the referendum and stated:
"Next November, voters in the city and across the Metropolitan Transit Authority service area will cast a truly important vote: They will decide whether Metro should be permitted to expand our rail rail system beyond the 7-mile South Main line. There isn't a more critical issue on the horizon.
I propose a series of editorials, editorial cartoons and Sounding Board columns leading up to the rail referendum, with this specific objective: Continuing our long standing efforts to make rail a permanent part of the transit mix here.
The timing, language and approach of the paper's editorials would, of course, be the decision of the Editorial Board. But I suggest that they could be built upon and informed by a news-feature package with an equally specific focus..."
The memorandum then proposed several "investigative" news stories and editorials designed to examine "the campaign led by Tom DeLay and Bob Lanier to defeat rail expansion." DeLay, a Houston congressman, and Lanier, a former mayor of Houston, had both actively opposed light rail in the past.
The document was online for only an hour, but long enough to be viewed by some readers. Soon after the Houston Review, a conservative newspaper published by students at the University of Houston (now defunct), printed the memo's full text and an accompanying commentary that criticized the paper for bias toward rail. The Houston Press also accused the Chronicle of having a bias toward rail.[26] They dubbed the paper Houston's "in-house light rail newsletter," described it as a "tireless promoter of rail," and mocked its editorial board's portrayal of light rail as the key to making Houston a "world class" city [27] -- a claim echoed by the city's former mayor, Lee Brown, who campaigned on a platform of bringing light rail to Houston. Other local weekly and monthly newspapers, including the Houston Forward Times, a local African-American weekly newspaper, seized on the controversy, as did local talk radio stations, bloggers, and the conservative Free Republic Internet forum.
The Chronicle's response was notably muted. Its first official response appeared in the "corrections" section later the same week stating: "An internal Houston Chronicle document was mistakenly posted to the editorial/opinion area of the Web site early Thursday morning. We apologize for any confusion it may have caused."
Later, the Houston Press discovered Chronicle editor [eff Cohen, who gave a statement in defense of the memorandum: "I make no apologies for having a thorough discussion of the issue. We have nothing to apologize for...There was an inadvertent posting of it to the Web site, and I'm sorry about that, but I make no apologies for the contents of it."
After the memo's accidental release, the Chronicle's critics noted that its Editorial Board continued being a vocal advocate of the expansion of Houston's light rail and charged that the paper became a partisan participant in the debate over light rail expansion. According to a content analysis of the paper by the Houston Review done to support their allegation of bias, the Houston Chronicle published 5 editorials attacking rail opponents, 6 editorials promoting or endorsing light rail, 6 news stories attacking the motives of rail opponents, 3 news stories promoting a criminal investigation of rail opponents, and 1 staff editorial endorsing a criminal investigation of rail opponents during the course of the election.[28] As the bond referendum approached, rail opponents criticized the Houston Chronicle's request that Texans for True Mobility (TTM), the main critic of METRORail, provide the paper with a copy of their financial contributor reports. TTM declined, saying they did not believe the Chronicle would adequately protect the privacy of their donors.
The Chronicle responded by making a complaint to the Harris County District Attorney's office asking that Texans for True Mobility be investigated for potential violations of Texas election law. The Chronicle alleged that TTM broke a law requiring PACs to disclose their donors. Violation of this law, a misdemeanor, is punishable by a maximum $500 fine. TTM was a registered non-profit 501(c)(6) organization and said this status did not require them to disclose contributors like PACs must do. The Chronicle argued that the law covered TTM because it made "paid political moves." Texas campaign law allows nonprofits to run "educational" advertisements, but those advertisements cannot endorse specific political positions or people or make a specific recommendation in a pending election. The dispute was over whether TTM's advertisements, and specifically the slogans "Metro's Rail Plan Costs Too Much ... Does Too Little" and "Metro's Plan Won't Work Here," were specific recommendations on how to vote.
Rosenthal later dismissed the Chronicle's complaint, finding it without merit on the grounds that the statute did not apply. Rosenthal's involvement in the probe itself came under fire by the Houston Press, which in editorials questioned whether Rosenthal was too close to TTM: from 2000 to 2004, Rosenthal accepted some $30,000 in donations from known TTM supporters.
Later that year, the group revealed that that their TV and radio ads were funded by $30,000 in contributions made the day before the election by two PACs controlled by DeLay.
By comparison with TTM, which was extensively attacked in the paper's editorials and covered in multiple news stories, the Chronicle devoted only a portion of one article to the finances of Texans for Public Transportation (TPT), the main pro-METRORail group, according to the Houston Review.[29] The Houston Review further alleged multiple conflicts of interest in TPT's financing. The report involved fourteen METRORail contracters and business interests who stood to gain financially from the project and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote the referendum.[30]
Posted by: JDH on October 9, 2007 11:27 AMThe something is better than nothing argument is a foolish argument. Most of the leftist Seattle voters that sit in rapture of folks like McDermott, are simply too uneducated and emotionally driven to look past the economic inadequacies of ST2/RTID. But that does not change the facts that between $50 to $100 Billion will be spent mostly on a rail system that will only serve about 1% of the population, and will never be able to relieve congestion.
Trains are a 19th century technology that had their zenith when automobiles were unreliable and not affordable by the average man. Also in the 19th century, there were very few rail right-of-ways built on anything other than open ground. Today, we have a region that is densely populated, which requires a huge investment in tunnels and viaducts to carry trains over existing infrastructure. And still most of the light rail corridors will be built on existing roads, bound by safe arterial speeds and stoplights, just like autos.
The car is cheap, and getting more so. The car is reliable and getting more so. The car allows an unprecedented level of personal freedom that a train will never match. The car distributes the expense of maintenance and operation to each individual and away from public funding. The car provides unparalleled safety and privacy. Only a tiny minority have the option of traveling by any means other than their cars.
It does not matter what the transit Utopians waste on trains, the car is not going away.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 9, 2007 12:26 PMhttp://americandreamcoalition.org/1-2004.pdf
http://americandreamcoalition.org/RD2005.pdf
Posted by: JDH on October 9, 2007 01:37 PMAs to why light rail won't work:
Unless you are within reasonable walking distance of a station, you are going to have get in a car for part of your commute. So once you have the car rolling, why not just keep going to your destination rather than:
1. stop at a staion
2. hang around the station for awhile waiting for the next train
3. crowd onto a car
4. probably standup for most of the hour or more trip
5. wait for bus to take you hopefully somewhat close to your work
6. arrive 30 - 60 minutes later than if you had driven
7. Repeat 1-6 on trip home
One fact sheet based on US Census numbers is that 27% of all commutes in Kent are within Kent. 25% are to Seattle.
The trips to Seattle are more than adequately served by Express Buses and Sounder. In fact, the Express buses are great because they can be sent to multiple Park n Rides which can change as housing expands and new population clusters emerge.
The intra-Kent transit can be served by Loop type buses and ferry people in and around.
In no instance would a "hard coded" rail system be of any use whatsoever!
I am a believer in B-C-B -- bus, car, bike. These three "transit systems" are flexible, dynamic, right costed, and can advance with the technology (hybrid now, hydrogen later).
The bike promotes health and exercise (like walking).
But all three are capable of moving people multi point and all during the day (how do you go to lunch if you take the train to a suburban office park with no cafeteria ?!).
No -- light rail must be abandoned.
Even if it is faster, cheaper, and easier to use a bus or a car to get from say one's Tacoma home, to say, the King County Building in downtown Seattle, any government employee ought to be required to use the Sounder Trains. If someone does not like this arrangement, then they can seek employment in the private sector, but we should force public employees to use the otherwise expensive and underutilized public transit that we have already built. And Sims and Nickels ought to be forced to use transit on any day that they cannot specifically document a need to use a car from the county or city fleet.
ST can come up with an even more creative and brilliant proposal that we can actually believe they'll build, something like a system to ferry our SOVs over each other with flying monkeys! With this stupid rail plan they are just being short sided and lazy bureaucrats attempting to suck the very life out of every single one of us when they should be out fixing potholes! Why should we have to pay for their dreams (or nightmares)?
Posted by: Acid Brain on October 9, 2007 05:51 PMKent traffic needs to be diverted to the valley highways or benson Highway, aka the original corridors,so we can free up the interstates for bypass traffic.
In fact 405 should have An east valley exit,and a benson highway exit to get rid of the bottleneck at 167 and 405.
Any transit system needs to be diverted to the original corridors to lead the way in getting more local traffic bask onto them to free up the interstates for bypass traffic.
If, say, the liquor board wants to go out and run a bunch of stings to entrap & fine some unsuspecting grocery clerks, let 'em do it via train and bus (bicycle too if they wish).
Posted by: russell garrard on October 9, 2007 06:53 PM8. Get robbed ( LA is famed for it)
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on October 9, 2007 08:26 PM@8: Kent doesn't get LRT in this plan because it is already well served by Sounder and ST Express buses. Read it a little closer.
Y'all need to start thinking about this in terms of bandwidth: transportation capacity, dollar-for-dollar, pound for pound. One-way LRT service provides room for 12,000 trips per hour, compared to one lane of freeway at 2000 trips per hour. D'ya really think you could build six lanes of interstate freeway from Sea-Tac to Tacoma for $3 billion? Not a chance. DOT puts cost per lane mile at about $220 million.
Same goes for the north and east. That's why the lines are sited where the most people are actually trying to get to and from. It ain't brain surgery. We need to ditch dial-up and give broadband a try.
Posted by: shooter on October 9, 2007 09:42 PMIf Dave Ross has come out against it, hopefully people regardless of political affiliation will understand that this is a colossal boondoogle and waste of our resources that will underacheive the expectations. Drafted by power hungry politicians, with little consideration given to people; if passed, this would make the money down the rathole by the Big Dig in Boston look like child's play.
Posted by: KS on October 9, 2007 09:42 PMDid Dave Ross announce against rail? I had not heard that.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on October 9, 2007 10:34 PMIt's foolish to think that anyone, but the very few who happen to have origins and destinations very near to the LRT stations will ever ride the train, when they know that they will have already had to use their car and or shuttles and buses at either end. Distance wise, commutes in the area really are not that far, so it is hard for anything but a bus that goes almost end to end to compete with one's own automobile in terms of total trip time. Especially slow light rail trains. Express buses will actually have a greater average speed than the Light Rails trains.
And there is a cost associated with riding transit that for most also has to include the cost of fueling and maintaining a vehicle to get to the train. It's an extra hassle that most will find to be not worth it. And that's just the people that actually commute in the train corridor, which is a tiny fraction of the overall region's population, and all of the disparate business parks where jobs are actually located, etc.
Further, trains have a fixed capacity in terms of number of cars that can be run together, spacing, speeds, etc. Whereas, at an average slow speed of say 40 MPH in heavy traffic, the freeway can carry far more total volume. No one is asking for six more lanes. One more lane will hugely add to the ability of traffic to space itself out and move at a higher average speed.
The argument isn't even about whether or not we need transit. It's about not doubling up on the transit systems we are already paying for. Express buses are serving the region well. At a crossroads where we could choose Bus Rapid Transit to really make the region a transit example and leader, instead, we have fools trying to take us back to the 19th century with trains. Trains that have failed in many other similar American cities. Study Portland or Atlanta. 1%-2% ridership doesn't solve congestion, it just gives a few people a convenience.
Posted by: Jeff B. on October 9, 2007 11:12 PMhttp://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/bundymon.htm
http://www.seattleweekly.com/2001-10-17/news/monorail-s-trail.php
Niles on Monorail:
http://www.globaltelematics.com/pitf//lightrailposition.htm
"In conclusion, Central Link Initial Segment and its unaffordable extensions represent billions of dollars for an unnecessary, wasteful transit mode that does far less for sustainable transportation and for improving the environment than alternative uses of the money, such as enhancing the infrastructure for Bus Rapid Transit, Transportation Systems Management, van pools, car pools, and the extension of the Seattle Monorail, as described at www.effectivetransportation.org, the CETA website."
>>Although Bundy supports the monorail in principal, he hopes Sidran will be as "hardheaded" on the ETC's proposal as he has been on Sound Transit's. "I hope he would want to be satisfied that, when the facts are in, it's a reasonable investment that genuinely merits support," Bundy says.
Posted by: Stuart Jenner on October 10, 2007 12:38 AMI'm not sure in which election Bundy first voted against it, but I know I started voting against the monorail after the environmental impact statement came out in the summer of 2002, and after my friend and colleague Dr. Dick Nelson wrote a comprehensive analytical case against it which we published at http://www.bettertransport.info/pitf/greenline.htm.
My opinion was not shared by all the members of CETA, and I did not spend time trying to convince them of my opinion.
Let me add that even though I thought the Greenline was not a good idea in the 2002-2004 period, during this period it was officially approved and funded, it was being developed by a City agency, and the Greenline still made more sense to me than Sound Transit's light rail subway, so I had no problem writing what I wrote in 2004 that Shooter found on the Internet and now cites.
With enough research, one could probably discover that I was a big supporter of the development of Metro Rail in Washington, DC when I worked in the Mayor's Office in District of Columbia Government. In that case, I became much less enthusiastic when I found it hosed up my public transit commute in DC -- riding the bus to the train instead of riding the bus all the way to work made my commute take longer and be less comfortable.
If Link light rail to the airport in Seattle is eventually completed, I will undoubtedly ride it from time to time, and will probably enjoy the experience. That won't ever change the fact that from 1995 through today, and probably ongoing, I was against Link light rail being built.
Posted by: John Niles on October 10, 2007 01:22 AM
Part of the answer is tolling. See the following new story:
"The state should expand highway tolling if an experiment succeeds in King County and improve Interstate 5 through downtown Seattle, according to a performance audit report released today."
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/transportation/334919_audit11.html
The problem with RTID is that it only partially funds about three dozen projects, including some massive ones that would be left with huge funding gaps. That is especially true for the 520 and 405 projects, now that we know the gas tax revenue projections are being revised downward.
There WILL need to be additional revenue sources tapped to pay the final costs of those megaprojects, and others. But the politicos aren't telling us what those other sources will be. They just want to lock up the neverending tax streams of RTID/ST2, then they'll spring all kinds of new taxes on us.
The right way for them to do it would be allocate sufficient funds to each megaproject, one at a time. That would be prudent. Then move to the next one, once some balanced revenue sources are allocated to the first.
Partially-funding dozens of road projects, like RTID does, makes NO sense.