Is Sound Transit really one of 'the world's biggest boondoggles'?
A new magazine called Miller-McCune has compiled a list of "The World's Biggest Boondoggles," and right up there in fourth place is Seattle's Sound Transit Link Light Rail (phase 1, not the proposal we'll vote on next November). Here's the dishonorable mention:
In 1996, Seattle proposed a $1.67 billion light rail line from the University of Washington down to Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, to be opened in 2006. By 2000, before construction had even begun, cost estimates ballooned to more than $4 billion, and Sound Transit pledged to scale back. The next year, the U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general advised Congress to hold back funding for the project due to overruns. Along the way, several Sound Transit executives resigned, and State Transportation Secretary Douglas MacDonald revamped the state's cost estimating system. ... Two stages, covering about 16 miles from downtown Seattle to the airport, are now scheduled for completion late next year at a cost of $2.4 billion. An extension to the university, planned for 2016, will cost $1.7 billion more.
Among the others on the list of mega-boondoggles are: Denver's International Airport, which soared from $1.5 billion at announcement in 1985 to $5 billion on completion in 1995. The English Channel Tunnel, which came in at double the bid price of 4.75 billion pounds and half the estimated revenue. Boston's Big Dig, which ballooned from $3.7 billion to $14.6 billion. Miami's Metrorail expansion, with costs that tripled from the initial estimate. Sydney Opera House, which went from $7.2 million to $102 million and took ten years longer to build than expected. Lastly, Bay Area Rapid Transit, which came in at double the original cost estimate and 50 miles shorter.
Are you shocked? If so, consider that most of these projects are in fact wildly popular, even if the public had to be gulled to go along with building them. It's standard practice to low-ball cost estimates, in order to get the bond issue passed, and then to add on costs as politics requires and the public demands more than the bare-bones model. The political context almost always changes once these huge projects begin. (For instance, San Mateo and Marin counties dropped out of BART, and Sound Transit found that it would have to put up lots of money to appease Rainier Valley, miffed that it didn't get a tunnel.) And often these are newly formed agencies, as Sound Transit was, and they can make lots of rookie mistakes in the first years.
The classic case of how ultra-high-profile projects go wrong is the Ground Zero project in New York City, still horribly mired down. In a scathing overview by Ada Louise Huxtable, architecture critic of The Wall Street Journal, you can learn more about how these mega projects go wrong. They almost always involve multiple jurisdictions, which produces warfare and expensive compromises and pandering. There is usually a big problem with centralized leadership. There is a crippling split between economic goals and long-term urban visions. Lastly, what Huxtable calls "goofy planning populism" dictates that thousands of stakeholders be empowered and given a voice at the table.
All this sounds like the Seattle planning malaise, in which nothing happens and nothing gets resolved, may more properly be described as the big-project, many-masters malaise, which has become globalized. Meanwhile, voters confronted with bond issues for such mighty plans might keep in mind the same rule of thumb that works when you call an architect to remodel your house: Double the budget and double the estimated time. And remember, it's usually worth it, if you somehow get it built.
Comments:
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 7:42 a.m. inappropriate
Proposed 2008 Taxes Too Heavy a Burden for Taxpayers: David, this is not the year to give us a nice pat and tell us not to worry our pretty little heads over the cost.
Add up all of the existing taxes, and then add up everything that the elected officials are proposing for 2008- it's pushing people out of being able to afford a home in Seattle, and surrounding areas.
The Sound Transit 2 tax, parks tax, housing, education, increases in gas prices, food prices, huge college tuition increases, escalating health care costs, power cost increases (see: this winter, with oil prices high), and on & on, make this a year to pay attention to the fine print, not look away from it in the hope of some marginal benefit decades down the road.
If you are the average taxpayer, trying to pay a mortgage, raise your children, put them through college, and planning for your own retirement while trying to take care of your parents, then looking the other way on the enormous cost of the next light rail package is NOT a good idea.
Add up ALL of the costs, folks. It's too much.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 8:28 a.m. inappropriate
COST v. BENEFIT: Let's forget the Billions of numbers, and just consider the $15,000 per household price tag on ST2 (Prop 1)over the life of the tax for construction and loan repayment -- kinda like we look at buying a house (forget the latte a day arguement).
The share of commuters using the train will not change much over 30 years (maybe 1%), congestion will be far worse for the 95% of households that don't or can't use the train, and the pollution and greenhouse gas emmisions generated during constuction will take your childrens lifetime to recover,if ever.
As only 1 in 20 commuters will use the new rail line (and most of them already ride the existing buses), then the other 19 families kicking in 15 grand each are giving the choosen few a fat check for $285,000.
A Prius with one occupant generates less green house gas than a moderately loaded light rail train. A plug in electric far surpasses any form of bus or train.
You do the math, and draw your own conclusions about how benefitial this project is.
I'm betting that global warming is real and now. A $15,000 credit to every household to get a clean car, join a van pool, ride the bus, commute less, work from home, reduce energy consumption, etc, etc, etc, would be a better investment from my perspective.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 8:30 a.m. inappropriate
Remodeling costs are a choice: This is a false analogy:
--Meanwhile, voters confronted with bond issues for such mighty plans might keep in mind the same rule of thumb that works when you call an architect to remodel your house: Double the budget and double the estimated time.--
If I'm doing a remodel, I have a choice of whether to continue or not, when it turns out the costs were lowballed or there's inflation, or I change my mind about what I'd like included.
If I'm doing a remodel, I can evaluate architects up front and assess their track record for being on time and on budget. It is my choice about whether I hire one who's good at budgeting or one who is consistently off.
With Sound Transit, I have no ability to vote after the funding is approved. My only input is to write letters to board members, who may or may not read them, or take the time to go to a board meeting, where members may or may not even pay attention much less respond with specific answers, or show up at an "open house" where I'll get a lot of spin from staff.
I have a choice of whether to even start the remodel in the first place. The house I live in is 22 years old, one reason we bought it 10 years ago was because we knew it was unlikely to need major work.
Once voters approve another Sound Transit tax increase, there is no opportunity for voter input, no matter what happens. This is a stark contrast with the monorail, where voters could weigh in when it turns out they'd hired the wrong people with the wrong plan. At least schools and many other entities have to ask for ongoing funding at the local level. Not Sound Transit.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 8:57 a.m. inappropriate
RE: COST v. BENEFIT: Where are you getting your numbers? The cost is $69 per adult per year - not much more than a tank of gas.
I think you'll find that in 15 years we'll be far worse off if we don't build rail.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 10:03 a.m. inappropriate
Nobody Ranks Higher than ST: This "boondoggle" ranking is due to ST's Phase I projected light rail costs. Those are a small part of the financial harm Sound Transit is doing to this region. What economic benefits does ST give our economy overall? Virtually none.
Here are ST's hoped-for financing plans through 2016 (these are ST's numbers, it disclosed them in an SEC filing late last year). If the nasty local law ST wants approved in November passes, ST would get the green light to tax and spend on this massive scale just with respect to Phase I through 2016 (Phase II would mean tens of billions of additional tax collections by ST - the magazine article addresses Phase I, so that's the focus here):
--
Tax Revenues: $6,925,000,000
Federal Grants: $1,821,000,000
Bonds: $2,398,000,000
Fares/Operating Revenues: $431,000,000
Local Grants/Interest Earnings: $567,000,000
Total: $12,143,000,000
Sounder Commuter Rail: $1,268,000,000
ST Express Bus: $785,000,000
Link Light Rail: $4,175,000,000
Transit Operations: $2,712,000,000
System-wide Activities: $533,000,000
Debt Service: $1,218,000,000
Contributions to Reserves: $1,450,000,000
Total: $12,143,000,000
--
Look at the $2.7 billion in operations costs - somebody try explaining that.
Aside to David Brewster - it appears you need to take a good long look at the current legal framework within which ST must operate. ST has no right under the 1996 law to just keep taxing to pay for whatever University Link would end up costing, due to how Res. 75 mandates it spend only within the voter-approved revenues limits.
The ballot measure voters approved in 1996 indicated that due to the revenue limits in Res. 72 App. A the expected Phase I build-out period spending would be $3.9 billion (1995$). This new plan for $12 billion (YOE$) of Phase I spending, if approved in November, would put ST's Phase I right up at the top of this boondoggle list.
More significantly, it isn't ST's light rail spending that makes ST such a finacial disaster. ST is a particularly malignant economic force around here due to its unconscionably high and highly regressive taxing. That $1.5 billion in reserves by 2016 shown above is just the tip of the iceberg. Through 2038 the new ST2 financing plan calls for scores of billions of dollars of regressive taxes, with something like $25 billion earmarked just to be stuck in various ST reserve accounts. That'd be money taken from the pockets of families, removed from the economy, and just used to buy short term US treasury securities.
ST plans on taxing FAR beyond its spending needs merely to secure its bonds. ST was designed to impact the families who can least afford this kind of taxing the hardest.
ST's excessive taxing also would be a massive anchor on the economy of our region. The term economists use is the multiplier effect. That refers to how the billions of dollars stuck into reserves otherwise would be spent and respent many times over in the private sector. The political appointees on ST's board don't care though - that excess taxing would get them reelected handily because of the pork they could dole out with it.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 11:05 a.m. inappropriate
RE: emodeling costs are a choice: Setting aside the fact that an analogy is just an analogy, I don't see how anything you've mentioned breaks this one.
Granted, the decision to build light-rail is not yours alone - it's a decision that impacts an entire region, just like choosing a governor or president - so everyone including you has their fair say.
In any case, this isn't any different from remodels, which typically involve input from at least two people. My wife has as much influence as I do in these matters, and I've been forced to make numerous compromises. Perhaps your wife bows her head and obeys your commands, but you can't expect that from everyone else.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 11:16 a.m. inappropriate
RE: emodeling costs are a choice: The point is, if we're misled on a remodel, we have some choices. With the monorail, voters had some choices. With ST2, voters have no opportunity for input or a revote if they are misled or the numbers turn out to be wrong. This creates an incentive to sandbag the numbers and sugarcoat the risks and uncertainties.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 11:29 a.m. inappropriate
RE: COST v. BENEFIT: Matt. First, if you really believe the poster childs "it's only 69 bucks a year" number that ST likes to throw out, then there's some wonderful property I'd like to interest you in.
Second, kidding aside, please do your own research. Log onto Google and try reading some non-ST2 studies. Get out your calculator, and divide all the tax to pay for all the construction, and all the loans (bonds), then divide by all the households in the taxing district. Keep in mind you also pay state and federal taxes, which go towards ST2.
PS, my number was actually low. I just rounded down.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 11:38 a.m. inappropriate
Interstate Highway System: 4 times original estimate: The true biggest US boondoggle is the Interstate Highway System, proposed in 1956 with an initial cost estimate of $25 billion over 12 years; it ended up costing $114 billion and taking 35 years to complete just the original system, and it's been expanding ever since. And of course those numbers don't include the future costs of replacing aging bridges (before or after collapsing).
People, construction cost estimates are hard to do, especially when you're looking 10 years out!
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 1:36 p.m. inappropriate
RE: COST v. BENEFIT: Is that your way of saying you made it up?
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 2:01 p.m. inappropriate
RE: COST v. BENEFIT: Fine. I ran some numbers myself. It looks like they're just using the actual tax proposed in ST2. That works out to $78 per person per year (they assumed our population goes up over time - I'll hold it constant). Adding in the bonds and fares, we're up to $145 per person per year.
It's still a bargain. We'll soon be paying that much more per month for gas, and if you tried to compare this to the cost of expanding road capacity it's tiny.
Numbers:
$7.8M st2 tax
$6.7M bonds and fares
3.3M people
assumed costs over 30 years
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 2:03 p.m. inappropriate
RE: COST v. BENEFIT: (oops, that's $7.8B and $6.7B)
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 3:08 p.m. inappropriate
RE: COST v. BENEFIT: Wow - cool; according to LRT?'s cartoon "math," I get to live for another 107 years. (ignoring, of course, the sunset provisions of ST2 taxes.
In any other city, somebody who proposed vanpools as a viable alternative to rail transit would be laughed out of town. But in stunted Seattle, where even the (faux) progressives are addicted to driving - and cramming as many vehicles on already congested roads as possible - it's still possible to find one or two anti-rail cranks who won't fall out of their chairs laughing when they read this garbage.
Breaking our addiction to oil and driving won't be easy. But one would never think green-leaning Seattlites would be the last citizens in North America to avoid practicing what they preach in regard to enlightened transportation policies and actions.
Axe-grinders like LRT? will never give up their decades-old obsession fighting reliable, rapid transit. Luckily, a new generation has moved in, watering down the absurd calls for "more vanpools."
One would think the sharp increase in operating costs for fossil fuel-burning vehicles might make some of the rail-haters wake up to reality. But that does not seem to be the case. Old grudges die hard in this town.
Posted Fri, Aug 29, 6:36 p.m. inappropriate
"Boondoggle" is an Understatement: We the taxpayers have been lead down the lightrail fairy-tale path for years, and a bureaucracy is now set firmly in place to ensure that tens of billions of dollars are wasted on this massive government boondoggle. Let's not forget that for quite awhile, Sound Transit was spending millions of taxpayers' dollars per month on salaries and administrative costs, without laying one mile of track.
When the people voted for Sound Transit, it was not because we believed that light rail was the best alternative - it was the only one on the ballot. Most folks would have preferred monorail to light rail, but that option was not part of the package. It should be. Monorails could already be up and running throughout the region. But Sound Transit is stuck on light rail (which is really "slow" rail, and not Rapid-Transit as many mistakenly believe) and so we have unending projects like the tunnel under the ship canal which is already millions over budget and years away from completion.
Folks will scrimp on groceries to be able to drive a car instead of a bus. Get real! A soccer-mom with kids, school, errands, ball games, is not going to pile everyone into a smelly bus (or a light rail train once she figures out it is not any quicker). Nor will a businessman or construction worker whose time is money. Let's build a transportation system that people will actually want to ride, like a swift-moving modern monorail that can travel above-ground along existing transportation routes that people now use everyday. Sound Transit already has our money. Let's stop the snail's pace lightrail nightmare now, and put in a world-class rapid transportation system that people will actually be delighted to use.
Posted Sat, Aug 30, 1:09 a.m. inappropriate
RE: "Boondoggle" is an Understatement: Still living that monorail dream, eh, Seattle Observer?
Well, if you had actually been around to experience the brick wall your fantasyland concept ran into (otherwise known as reality) you might have noticed all the false promises monorail foamers made turned out to be bunk.
Just ask Digg Newsvine, pretend transit watchdog, who is so unstable he "can't recall" those years he spent defending the laghable monorail finances.
In the same vein: did you happen to notice how uninformed the kids at McCune Whatever Ego-boosting Magazine were when rating an old light rail alignment which was never actually pursued? Those clowns could have at least made a phone call.
I did enjoy the choice of Denver's Airport, at least. Especially since the idiots behind that automated baggage system nightmare are the same people working against light rail (and for Kemper Freeman) out here in Seattle.
To put it bluntly: Boeing's Personal Rapid Transit experiment became a laughingstock. However, the nuts behind these ridiculous Nixon era concepts didn't take too kindly to the fact they were being laughed at. Which only strengthened their resolve to kill off viable transit systems like light rail.
Just ask Bill Eager, Richard Harkness, Jim Horn and wannabe Boeing PRT failures John Niles, Emory Bundy and the PRT nut king himself...Kemper Freeman!
Posted Sat, Aug 30, 11:45 a.m. inappropriate
RE: "Boondoggle" is an Understatement: One last reality check for Seattle Observer: the propsed Green Line's average speed was the exact same as Central Link's. So much for that claim. Furthermore, go to www.seattletransitblog.com and look for the recently posted chart comparing buses to light rail. Not surprisingly, the average speed for light rail is almost double that of buses in the Puget Sound region. And reliability is expontially higher.
Your monorail dream is dead and buried forever. Get over it.
Posted Sat, Aug 30, 11:55 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Nobody Ranks Higher than ST: Former monorail apologist Digg Newsvine ignores all kinds of recent research showing infrastructure projects - especially transit infrastructure - dramatically helps (not hurts) local economies.
As opposed to his model: the right to purchase cheap stuff made overseas. And putting a tolling gantry on every onramp and offramp, to literally keep the working poor from driving at all. (some solution!)
All of our competitors - from Asia to Europe - figured this out a long time ago. Which is why they are building hundreds of miles of rail, while we sit around on our hands, grinding old axes, and obsessing over court cases lost years ago.
Posted Sat, Aug 30, 4:07 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Nobody Ranks Higher than ST: Well that is a random rejoinder. "Monorail apologist?" I don't understand how the monorail debacle got as bad as it did, and I sure as hell never was an apologist for it.
Disagree with anything in my post above? Set out your best argument against it. You'll look like a fool - guaranteed.
Your reference to "court cases lost years ago" is really odd. I suggested David Brewster examine the measure voters approved in 1996 that sets the tax revenue spending caps. You don't think any court cases eliminated those spending limits that apply to ST do you? If that is what you are trying to suggest (or imply, or whatever it is you meant to do by referring to old "court cases") then do yourself a favor and come out and say what court case you are talking about. Explain why you think some court case relieved ST of responsibility to comply with what the 1996 law requires. We need a chuckle in these dark times.
Posted Sat, Aug 30, 8:09 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Nobody Ranks Higher than ST: All of our competitors - from Asia to Europe - . . . are building hundreds of miles of rail, while we sit around on our hands
Maybe there are other countries building rail. That doesn't justify the financing plan ST is putting forward, the one that would unduly punish every family in this area for decades. Intergenerational financial penalties? You are in favor of that?
What's the upside ST offers? The plan ST gave us stinks. Plus, MSFT doesn't need what ST is saying it can build as far as trains goes, nor does BA, nor does SBUX, nor does anyfreakingbodyelse.
So why should we vote "yes," twirp?
Posted Sat, Aug 30, 9:21 p.m. inappropriate
Boondoggle or Not? Here's what Sound Transit says is coming from Prop 1: As implied by David Brewster, what's a boondoggle is partly a function of what you get from what you pay. With Sound Transit, we are seeing what we are paying more clearly than what we are getting years late from the original expectations established in 1996. The biggest part of the ST program results will be Seattle's light rail to the Airport, which is still over a year away from opening for services, even though ST wants us to double the agency's revenue with the Prop 1 Do-Over this fall.
Here's what's happening in the boondoggle to come next:
Funded so far, about 19 miles of light rail from Husky Stadium to the Airport, plus Sounder and express buses, expected to generate 195,000 boardings per day in 2030, all at present ST tax levels of around one million dollars per day now, headed up with inflation in the future.
With the Prop 1 Do-Over, which doubles Sound Transit's taxes to two million dollars per day (in 2009, with inflation later), we get more Sounder trains, a few more express buses, and 36 more miles of light rail.
But do we expect to get a doubling of Sound Transit's ridership for a 100% rise in ST's taxes?
Nope -- the daily ST boardings on all services is forecast in the ST2 Mass Transit Plan to go from 195 thousand to 358 thousand by 2030, which is a gain of 84% for a tripling of the light rail track mileage, and a doubling of taxes. Not surprising, because the densest part of the region will be already served by 2030 even without Prop 1 passing, using the 1996 taxation levels.
And what kind of bump do we get from Prop 1 in daily transit trips across the three county region, which takes into account Sound Transit's impact on existing local transit?
Answer: Instead of 482 thousand daily transit trips in 2030 without Prop 1, we get 544 thousand transit trips per day with Prop 1, an increase of just 13%. In the Prop 1 doubled taxes scenario, the cannibalization of existing bus service -- trains taking over for some buses -- will exceed the new transit trips that would be generated by the funding from Prop 1.
The 62,000 additional one-way transit trips per day in 2030 resulting from Prop 1 new taxation is in the context of 15 million trips forecast per day across the region for all modes and all purposes. (More and more cars, trucks, and buses by 2030 are likely to be powered by electricity or natural gas because of declining oil supplies pushing up gasoline prices.)
This officially forecast 13% transit ridership gain from Prop 1 would be applied unevenly across the region, both by location and by the time of day, because of where the train tracks will go. The biggest transit market share gains, according to ST, will be in the major urban centers that are the main focus of the agency's efforts -- Seattle CBD, Bellevue CBD, and U District. For example, light rail trains to downtown Bellevue would raise the commute share of transit from 8% to 12% according to ST.
The decision on Prop 1 may come down to how many people think these results from the ST Mass Transit Plan are good enough. I say "boondoggle," but you may say 12% instead of 8% transit percentage in downtown Bellevue for billions of dollars is "transformative."
Bottom line, across the entire Puget Sound region, the relatively trivial gain in transit use from Prop 1 as forecast by Sound Transit is unlikely to keep up with the travel demand that would arrive in the employment and population growth scenarios that Sound Transit also keeps telling us about.
Sound Transit's own documented claims lead me to the conclusion that the Prop 1 spending plan is a boondoggle.
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 7:57 a.m. inappropriate
If it's a boondoggle, it must be worth it!: My own take on the train we are now bullding is, while it might be a good idea to have some train, it surely isn't this one. We're actually spending 1.7 billion dollars to build a line from downtown to the University with one (1) stop in between. This works out to over $500,000,000 per stop. Plus, the University won't allow park and ride at their end, so how many people are going to actually ride this line? With the ridership estimates of Sound Transit it will be something north of maybe 10 million people a year at between $5-$10 dollars a ticket (i.e,, about 30,000 people a day, including weekends and holidays). This on a route with one (1) stop between downtown and its terminus? (Plus, the middle stop is about a 15 minute walk from downtown, and it's like 15 stories underground, so if we have say 100 people getting on or off it's really going to be interesting what happens next.)
Nevertheless, as David points out, many of the very significant transit projects were boondoggles like Sound Transit in the sense of huge cost overruns. This does make me hopeful that the Airport and University lines will someday be regarded as local treasures. However, I still have my doubts that boondoggleness is a good predictor of project success, despite the fine boondoggles that have been cited. For I fear there are many unsuccessful boondoggles that have not been cited.
For example, take the Shanghai mag-lev train, which goes from the airport to -- oops -- the end of the subway line. No, not the end in the city center, but the other end, sort of near the city's edge. You're supposed to take the mag lev for about $50 and then the subway the rest of the way. Needless to say, most of the riders are people who want to say they've ridden the mag lev, and there are lots of empty trains. But, it's still pretty good PR for China and I'm kind of surprised no to see the Shanghai mag lev on the boondoggle list anyway. American columnists bewailing the state of our transit system love to point to the mag lev as a great example of how much China is investing in public transit. Hey, maybe Seattle's one-stop train line will be pointed to as America's answer to the Shanghai mag lev -- we can spend as much for empty trains as anybody!
BTW, the real gem of Shanghai's transport system is the buses, which are NOT government owned or operated, but only regulated. Imagine, if we used American sophistication with information technology to manage routing and private enterprise to have owner-operated buses, vans, and jitneys. Imagine if we put a few billion bucks into such a system. Imagine... but what we're going to get, really, is several billion dollars worth of trains on rails, the best of 19th century technology in 2010!
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 9:44 a.m. inappropriate
??????: Funded so far, about 19 miles of light rail from Husky Stadium to the Airport,
John, is that incorrect claim based on the same imaginary court case that "MadisonAve" alludes to above?
In all seriousness, you do understand that the Phase I build-out period tax revenue spending limit the voters imposed on ST in 1996 law is $1.98 billion (1995$) - don't you?
That "voter approved taxes" amount is specified in Table 2 of the Sound Move document (which is part of the contolling law). You can see it there in the law, and it isn't hiding from you, right John? What do you think that $1.98 billion figure does refer to, if you think it is not a construction-period tax revenue spending limit?
That $1.98 billion in tax revenues is the local taxes component of the "funds available" referenced in the part of the law we approved in 1996 called "Resolution 75, Sec. 2." You don't disagree with that, do you John?
Nothing in the "Sane Transit" case opinion comes anywhere close removing any of the revenue spending limits we imposed on ST via the law approved at the ballot in 1996 - that is not news to you, is it?
Why do you persist in suggesting that ST is not subject to any of the revenue spending limits set out in the 1996 law? As far as I can tell, you are the main spreader of that bad information.
We know ST is well aware it can not complete the Phase I projects referenced in Sound Move under current law, due to the tax revenue spending limits (and the bonding cap). We know that because the measure ST wants us to approve in November specifies the board would get the new right to "complete" the Phase I and Phase II projects prior to any tax rate reductions. ST doesn't have that right now, or it wouldn't need to ask us for it.
You, and apparently you alone, seem fixated on posting the incorrect proposition that ST has limitless tax revenue spending authority under current law with respect to Phase I build-out period costs. Care to comment on why you persist in harping on that false proposition?
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 10:37 a.m. inappropriate
RE: If it's a boondoggle, it must be worth it!: Ken,
Have you been to Shanghai? I've ridden the maglev, and the cost is 50 yuan - that's about $7 ($5 if you have a plane ticket). It was quick and fun and short. On purpose. The thing was built to be the fastest train in the world (220mph, max tested speed of 311mph) - and they achieved that. Yes, they are currently building it much further.
I strongly disagree about Shanghai's best public transit system. By far it is the subway. Busses are bogged down in Shanghai's world-class traffic, but the subway gets you to any part of the city in minutes. I never once needed a taxi while I was in Shanghai - I used the subway to get absolutely everywhere.
Oh, and that end of the subway stop you're talking about? It has a massive grocery store (called the Metro). I saw people walking out of the grocery store right into the subway with their groceries, taking them right home on the other side of town.
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 12:05 p.m. inappropriate
RE: ??????: Digg,
You and others who read the law closely make the point that there are limits on Sound Transit's spending authority and/or borrowing authority, and I wish you all well in making the point stick, in court or otherwise.
As you point out, Sound Transit's unseemly haste in returning to the ballot with a new Prop 1 less than a year after being defeated in the Prop 1 election of 2007 could be taken as presumptive proof that the agency must think that immediate renewal of voter authority to keep on going is required. I even agree with you that the ballot language can be interpreted to have this meaning.
However, this is not the point of view taken in Sound Transit's own external or internal communications. It has not come up in the public, video-recorded ST Board discussions.
Back-to-the-ballot-in-2008 was not the point of view made by elected leaders like Governor Chris Gregoire, Executive Ron Sims, or Rep. Judy Clibborn, all of whom have expressed opinions on the record prior to July 24 that Sound Transit would be better to wait until 2010 for its next tax election.
Sound Transit itself held out 2010 as a viable option for the next tax election date all through the months between November 7, 2007 (defeat of "Roads & Transit") and July 24, 2008 (ST approval of the Prop 1 Do-Over).
The Mass Transit Now campaign for "yes" on Prop 1 with linkages to Sound Transit leaders is not making the argument you say should be valid and controlling: "Vote for Prop 1 on November 4th or else the Phase 1 construction you approved will be out of money and shut down."
Sound Transit is on record with its major funding source, U.S. Department of Transportation, and with its bond holders, that its present tax rates approved in 1996 are available to keep on being spent without the limits that you read into the voter-approved language.
These reasons and more are why I post that "ST has limitless tax revenue spending authority under current law with respect to Phase I build-out period costs."
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 1:51 p.m. inappropriate
Yep, been to Shanghai: In fact, stayed with some local folks in a neighborhood, a housing block far off the tourist beaten path. No subway anywhere nearby. But, that great Shanghai bus system. If you don't like riding with the locals and never seeing a westerner, you wouldn't like these buses. Also, if you don't read Chinese you need to be with someone who can. But they did NOT get bogged down in traffic, and they were prompt and fast. The owner-operators seemed to actually care about customer service.
The mag lev is a nice tourist attraction, but the metro stop it goes to is what -- better part of an hour outside city center? Did you see many Chinese commuters? You say they're expanding the mag lev, but there's even public opposition to this (unusual in China) and as I understand it plans are on hold. No I didn't take the mag lev because it didn't go anywhere near where I was headed, though I would have just for the thrill of riding a fast train if I'd had time. But it did not do anything whatsoever to serve the Chinese people I met, and the price is very high by Shanghai transit standards. I thought it was more than 50 yuan, but even at that price it's like, 5 or 10 times bus prices depending on the class of service (yes, they have a two lass system). Even the Chinese, with all their accumulated dollars, could not afford to build mag lev trains for real public transit.
As far as subways go, Shangai's might be a good one, but remember, Shanghai has more than twice the number of high rise buldings as New York and several times the population. These are densities that create a completely different environment than Seattle. But still they have a very efficient bus system, though you might not have appreciated it. That's what we here in Seattle could learn from. Not wasting billions of dollars on high-tech toys, though a mag lev would at least make us look high tech, but applying technologies and good business approaches to move people quickly and cheaply where they want to go.
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 2:47 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Nobody Ranks Higher than ST: MadisonAve notes, "recent research showing infrastructure projects - especially transit infrastructure - dramatically helps (not hurts) local economies."
Comment -- research also shows that how well the transit infrastructure actually performs, and what it costs, determines how much it helps or hurts the local economy. In other words, it matters whether or not the infrastructure in question is a boondoggle.
Prop 1 for many of us comes down to costs and benefits. If Link light rail were costing a lot less than it does, I'd be for it. Or, if it did a lot more for mobility and the environment, I'd be for it even at the Prop 1 price tag. But Sound Transit's scheme costs way too much for what it does, and it does far too little for what it costs. On both counts, ST's work on urban passenger railroads is a boondoggle.
Furthermore, Sounder and Link do actual damage to the economy of the region because they waste transit resources that could be spent on better mobility projects ... those that do more and cost less.
Sounder with its park and ride lots is a billion dollar facilitator of sprawl. That a few thousand people fill the seats every day at taxpayer expense does not make it a worthwhile investment. It also has the characteristic of not scaling well to be larger ... the Sounder train tracks have a better and higher use moving containerized freight, and BNSF negotiates high fees from Sound Transit that reflect that reality with every expansion of Sounder ... hence the billion dollars for Sounder will climb higher if the new Prop 1 plan passes.
Some may heap scorn on vanpools and other ridesharing, but these subsidized schemes of voluntary cooperation remove cars from peak period traffic while lowering emissions with far greater efficiency than urban railroads. The expenses to promote ridesharing are in the tens of millions, not billions (1 billion = 1,000 million).
Posted Sun, Aug 31, 4:40 p.m. inappropriate
RE: ??????: Thanks for your thoughtful reply, John.
You note the board does not discuss the 1996 law's limits on ST's taxing and spending authority in open board meetings. The reason for that is simple: they are violating those limits, and they are fully aware of that fact as can be seen by what the new proposed measure says.
The folks marketing the new ballot measure ("Mass Transit Now") aren't highlighting any aspect of how the current law would be modified should the measure in November be approved. They just want to focus on the promise of new trains - no surprise there. They barely mention tax costs.
The resolution DOT wanted (during July, 2003 I believe) just says ST would find resources to finish the initial 13.5 mile segment. It doesn't make any representations about the extent of ST's taxing authority.
The covenants in the bond sales contracts you reference are a non-issue, for ST, the bondholders, and for those of in this region. The key terms in Sound Move on the issue of the debt are those mandating an accelerated payoff schedule for all the bonds. Those terms require the immediate payoff of the outstanding debt, now that a future phase capital spending plan was rejected. Those terms in the law effectively extinguished ST's right to remain a bond issuer because the 2007 ballot measure was rejected. ST must pay off the bonds, on an accelerated basis, and the security covenants in the bond sale contracts won't be an issue then.
Again, I appreciate your candor in explaining how your characterizations of what you believe to be the extent of ST's taxing authority (and tax revenue spending rights) come from your observations of, and inferences from, ST's conduct and what it has been putting in documents.
With all due respect, I might suggest in the future you refer to ST's legal authority in the areas of its taxing and spending rights as being circumscribed by the terms of the voter-approved 1996 law, and leave it at that (with a link to that law, of course!). What you have been doing is akin to reading tea leaves, and what you perceived is quite different than reality. Of course, ST now is bent on trying to change that legal reality via its new ballot offering, but that's a different matter.