Ted, I was enjoying you writing until you started in on the light rail again. There have been two elections for light rail and they both passed handily. If Mayor McGinn's proposed Seattle light rail expansion goes forward, it will also have to pass a vote of the people. How can you argue light rail is the result of public and private sector big shots? Please answer this specific question.

Andy asks: "How can you argue light rail is the result of public and private sector big shots?"

The author is not arguing anything there - he's stating facts.

The state and local enabling legislation authorizing everything Sound Transit does was drafted by a few private-sector lawyers (at Preston Gates - now K&L; Gates). 15 of the 18 boardmembers are appointed by a few high public officials. Those appointees in turn implement every one of that local government's policies. Very few people created the legal framework of ST, and very few people have been in charge of what it has done since 1996.

Here are some questions for you, Andy. It is clear in retrospect that people were not presented with the truth about the excessive tax costs that would flow from voting yes on those ballot measures. That problem continues, and in fact is worse now than ever. If you try addressing these issues, you'll see how difficult it has been made to examine the costs ST is imposing on people:

- estimate as best you can the amount of tax revenue Sound Transit pledged to collect when it sold the long-term debt in 2007 and 2009,

- estimate as best you can the amount of tax revenue Sound Transit will collect from each family in the RTA district this year,

- compare how much annual local taxing ST, Metro, Community Transit, and Pierce Transit together now engage in to the amount of annual local taxing their peer bus/train service providers do, and

- estimate how much annual local taxing per family ST, Metro, Community Transit, and Pierce Transit together now engage in to the amount of local taxing their peer bus/train service providers do.

I am confident you will not attempt to respond to this post in a cogent manner, Andy. The reason I am confident about that is information such as this is not now made available to the public, and it was not disclosed by the ballot measures' proponents prior to the two votes.

Had the public been made aware of information such as the above they would not have approved those ballot measures. The ST financing plans are FAR too expensive in terms of regressive taxing, when compared to the tax costs people in peer regions incur to receive bus and train service.

Let's be real. The main reason the ST ballot measures received enough votes was due to how the proponents were dishonest. They failed to disclose material information about the excessive taxing plans. The local enabling legislation and the voters guides did not provide sufficient data to allow people to understand how wrong approval of those measures would be on relative tax cost scales of the types outlined above.

Moreover, ST and its enablers continue to go to great lengths to keep from the public information about the excessive costs of that government, particularly in comparison to the costs to people for transit in peer regions.

ST by all measures is a monumental ripoff that isn't helping the community and will do nothing but hurt the local economy. It is kept alive because a handful of politicians and private sector entities (including media outlets that directly and indirectly make money off the tax revenue) keep the truth about the unwarranted and outrageous costs from the public.

It'd be anyone reading this tried providing supportable information relating to the issues outlined above. I'm pretty sure Andy won't make the effort. The relevant data are difficult to locate and ascertain by design. In addition, as Andy chose to speak out in favor of that government in this thread, he probably will behave as virtually all other public supporters of ST behave - he'll refuse to answer questions about what he posts.

I'd like to provide here some estimates of how much more local taxing the transit services providers here engage in vs. their peers. If anyone believes this imbalance has been disclosed (prior to or since the votes on the ST ballot measures) by government officials or in media reports then kindly provide the links.

Transit services providers in other regions do very well with far more modest levels of taxing and bond selling. There’s no reason this region should be any different. The only local taxing for transit should be both in line with the amounts the peers haul in, and it should not exceed what’s needed for reasonable operations and capital costs. What goes on around here though fails on those counts. Metro, Sound Transit, and the transit governments in Pierce and Snohomish counties expect to haul in something on the order of $1.3 billion in local tax revenue this year, the vast majority of which will be sales tax revenue.

The peers do a great job providing buses and expanding train systems for their people and businesses with far less annual local tax revenue:

TriMet (Portland) - $233 million;

DART (Dallas/Fort Worth) - $385 million;

San Diego Metropolitan Transit System - $100 million; and

RTID (Denver) - $241 million.

There is no good reason for this discrepancy. “Taxing for transit” around here manifestly is excessive.

My estimate of the local taxing this year on the average family of 4 in the 91% of King County that also is in the ST district is about $425. That is far higher than in the peer regions. For example, there is no sales tax or car tab tax imposed by TriMet.

Too much tax, and the wrong kind of taxing, are the defining characteristics of how transit around here is paid for.

Why are the peer regions taxing so much less for transit, and using less regressive taxes? That is relevant information the public should have. We need to learn from transit financing practices elsewhere.

To the point that Andy raises above about voters approving those two ballot measures - what voters did not have information about is how they measures would result in grossly excessive impositions of regressive taxes.

Anyone want to try explaining why there is so much more transit taxing here than in the peer regions, and why those excessive taxing plans were not disclosed prior to the votes?

An excellent piece for thought about all levels of government. It is rare when a piece fires one shotgun round whose pellets strike with accuracy so many honored bovines. If there is a problem with the article, it is that the scattergun approach may have obscured the basic premise.

I think that the Internet era term for these recurring situations is “fail”. The problems of lack of disclosure of information and failure of critical discourse go back through history, and not just ours.

As a Vietnam era infantry officer who had read some of Fall’s work before theater deployment, I keep tabs on our current adventures. It seems to matter not what party is “in power”, Eisenhower’s military-industrial complex holds sway.

As a social liberal and a political conservative, I find it telling that the only issue taken with the posting deals with light rail. Puget Sound deals with the North / South water and terrain factors left by our geologic history. Light rail is expensive and handles only specific terminals.

If one wants to increase the use and efficiency of public transport, I would suggest a bit of common sense and adoption of 21st century technology. The means exist to establish “bus rapid transit” that serves, not only traditional need centers, but specific communities of residents and workers.

Route scheduling can be demand based on interactive communications between riders and providers. Busses need not be of traditional size. When workable communities of patrons are identified, a wide range of alternative modes can be provided.

Of course this is the Seattle metroplex, common sense: FAIL.

What a bizarre response to my simple question. How do you know from my comment that I am indeed a supporter of light rail? When did I 'chose to speak out in favor of that government' ?

I was interested in the answer from a critical thinking standpoint, since it is mentioned in the title.

Is 'crossrip' Ted van Dyke? I hope not.

Mr.Van Dyk,

After reading Bernard Fall, I do so wish you had exercised your independent thinking skills in 1968, and convinced Hubert H. Humphrey to NOT blindly follow LBJ off the cliff. Humphrey was way too late in declaring his independence from Johnson. Instead, we got Nixon and his 'secret plan'.

Nice going, Ted.

Ross Kane
Warm Beach

So 'crossrip', I looked up the st2 ballot measure and it seems pretty clear what the taxes would be:

http://your.kingcounty.gov/elections/contests/measureinfo.aspx?cid=31890&eid;=1226

You say 'It is clear in retrospect that people were not presented with the truth about the excessive tax costs...'

How do you justify that statement?

I have found that when people begin statements with 'Clearly,' or 'It is clear', what follows is usually the least clear thing you can imagine.

Unfortunately your link doesn't shed light on the issues I'd hoped you'd address Andy.

Here they are again - see if you can provide links to reliable sources regarding them:

- estimate as best you can the amount of tax revenue Sound Transit pledged to collect when it sold the long-term bonds in 2007 and 2009,

- estimate as best you can the amount of tax revenue Sound Transit will collect from each family in the RTA district this year,

- compare how much annual local taxing ST, Metro, Community Transit, and Pierce Transit together now engage in to the amount of annual local taxing their peer bus/train service providers do, and

- estimate how much annual local taxing per family ST, Metro, Community Transit, and Pierce Transit together now engage in to the amount of local taxing their peer bus/train service providers do.

I've got another two questions for you, as you're on the line.

I'd say the signed bond sales contracts oblige ST to confiscate something on the order of $40 billion of tax revenue as security over the next thirty years. What's your estimate of that figure? Kindly show us how you derive it.

Given that ST says it wants to sell about $6.5 billion more in long term bonds, and it'll have some grant money from other governments, fare revenues,etc., is it safe to say that over the next thirty years ST pledged to confiscate what it expects could be $25 billion in tax revenue more than it expects to need for capital and operations costs over that period?

Looking forward to your responses!

The fourth one of those is a duplicate of the third; it should read instead this way:

- estimate the amount of local taxing ST and Metro will engage in, based on the terms of their bond sale contracts, over the next thirty years.

The horrors of Vietnam = the horrors of light rail. Truly one of the most pathetic Van Dyk logic leaps yet!

If I hadn't been laughing at Van Dyk's strange obsession with rail transit over the years, I would think this column was an early April Fool's joke.

Andy, if you want to experience more of crossrip's bizarre rants, check out mukaseyisatyrant on the Seattle PI forums. His solo threads go on for years.

After reading Bernard Fall, I do so wish you had exercised your independent thinking skills in 1968, and convinced Hubert H. Humphrey to NOT blindly follow LBJ off the cliff. Humphrey was way too late in declaring his independence from Johnson. Instead, we got Nixon and his 'secret plan'.
------------------

Ross: if you hadn't noticed, Van Dyk's columns are almost always about exercising the demons of past political and policy failures. His reliance on conspiracy theories and "extreme local government corruption" tipped a couple people off to check out the chapters of Van Dyk's life which were NOT included in his memoires.

'The Watergate years' would be a fascinating first hand account of Van Dyk "the insider" and his experience with how money and big industry can corrupt politics. But, if Van Dyk ever wrote about this part of his life, he may be forced to take some responsibility for his failures - rather than blaming them on everybody else.

Same goes for Crossrip. But we really aren't interested in reading his memoires. Trust me!

It is interesting that there is a transit project that would fit perfectly into Ted's article. It has all the aspects he is looking for; Back room politics, public and private sector big shots, a cast of shadowy characters and conspiracy theories (Discovery Institute, Cascadia Institute, Gates Foundation, Port of Seattle, Organized Labor, Governor Gregoire), and, contravening a vote of the people. I'll give you three guesses.

Come on Ted, throw us a curve ball sometimes--all these down the middle fastballs are getting boring.

Well, Ted, you can relax about one thing- McGinn has no 'plan' to build more light rail. If that is to happen, it will happen the same way the Link was built- by large numbers of professionals balancing future needs and costs of transportation, and citizens who think light rail is a very viable option. Your ire might better be directed at the SAM 'Sculpture Park', which displaced a much-loved waterfront streetcar, and wherein we may admire such 'sculptures' as ceramicized paper bags.

I found it interesting that in Ted's second paragraph, Ho Chi Minh is characterized as being ready to "sue" for peace in the early 50s. That would be the Ho Chi Minh who surrounded and destroyed a French army corps at Dien Bien Phu- but in Ted's telling, the Viet Minh are gasping for peace.

And presumably much the same is true of rail transit. Just as European colonialism died in SE Asia when the Japanese swept us out, but the battles went on for 30 years, the automobile died when gas hit $4/gallon and we realized the car was incompatible with solving AGW.

Yes, many of us are trapped in self-destructive habits of driving. Our regional economy is heavily dependent on the military might with which we keep the oil flowing. And lord knows, we have enough old geezers retiring here to keep the cracker-barrel homilies flowing. But the handwriting is on the wall, for those who can read.

As for 'Crossrip', what a comment on the editors that they should label his blarney a "Pick".

Next week we can look forward to "Light Rail: Seattle's Hiroshima!"

I wonder if Mr. Van Dyk is enjoying the popular rail line out there in Phoenix?

Enjoyed the many comments.

First, I did exercise my critical faculties in the Johnson Administration and opposed Vietnam policy (I wrote Humphrey's speech in Salt Lake City breaking with LBJ during the 1968 campaign). I continued to oppose the policy actively over many subsequent years. The war should never have been waged and was prolonged unnecessarily for many years.

Second, I am not surprised to find the usual vituperation from MadisonAve and others regarding Sound Transit light rail. I made a simple, uncontestable statement: Namely, that light rail is hugely expensive (and will take many years to construct) as compared to bus-transit alternatives which would transport more people to more places at far less cost. Light rail advocates prefer to argue about anything other than those basic facts.

The system is moving on the basis of a long and continuing campaign sponsored and funded by what amounts to much of the local establishment---including contractors, sub-contractors, law firms, consulting firms, financial institutions and others benefiting financially from light rail and the elected officials who receive their campaign contributions. If you parachuted a large number of reputable transportation/public finance analysts into the region, and asked them to choose transit alternatives, I doubt you would find more than a handful favoring light rail. It is, as former WSDOT chief Doug MacDonald says, "not a transportation project but a contruction project."

Ted must not take the bus to work. Unless you are going downtown, it can be a miserable way to get around. Speaking as someone who has actually used both kinds of system, there's no comparison: Rail comes out on top every time.