Will I-695 kill Sound Transit? I certainly hope so. It's hanging by a thread. It never made economic sense. It never made logistical sense. The feds are losing interest in light rail, moving to dedicated busway systems which are cheaper and faster. The feds were partially funding it ONLY because the locals guaranteed to pay half (previously, the feds were paying up to 80% of light rail projects). Now federal money is drying up, at the same time Sound Transit's plans are falling apart. If the MVET goes away, Seattle may well have no vehicle to collect it's local MVET. With both federal and local funding drying up, it may not survive. From Today's Seattle Fishwrapper

http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/rail_19990911.html

Sound Transit's 15-member Citizens Oversight Panel has warned the agency that growing controversy about the proposed light-rail line could sabotage the entire $3.9 billion transit plan.

While no specific community or institution was named in the oversight report, representatives of two Seattle neighborhoods and the University of Washington have publicly criticized the proposed light-rail route from SeaTac to the University District. Community groups from Rainier Valley are opposed to surface rail going through the neighborhood. Downtown Seattle business groups have lamented the possible increase in bus traffic that would result from light rail using the downtown tunnel.

"We are particularly concerned that the region stay focused and on schedule so as not to lose your place in the federal funding `pipeline,' " the senators wrote. In the last two years, Sound Transit has received $70 million in federal appropriations. In the next several weeks, Congress is expected to make final decisions on the transportation appropriations requests for next year. Sound Transit is directly competing with 10 other transit projects across the nation. Sound Transit asked for about $150 million. So far, the House of Representatives has recommended $14 million. The Senate has yet to announce its funding priorit

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 11, 1999

Answers

With any luck I-695 will kill Sound Transit's plans for a light rail system. Light rail systems are slow and operate mostly at ground level and on surface streets, interacting with automobile and pedestrian traffic. A heavy rail system, similar to Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) in the San Francisco bay area, has trains running at over 70 mph along its own dedicated tracks, can carry more passengers and has no interaction with pedestrians or automobiles. Heavy rail is more costly to develop and construct but produces a faster and more efficient means to transport more people than light rail systems.

But Washington state's political muscle has crammed the light rail plan down taxpayers throats by allowing current transportation systems to deteriorate. Anyone who believes the light rail system will cost a mere $3.9 billion dollars is incredibly naive. Considering past political boondoggles, that figure will probably be $8-10 billion by the time the system is somewhat complete. Riders will soon realize they are stuck with a slow, low capacity transit system to be eventually replaced by traditional heavy rail.

Politicians have sold this cheaper light rail system to appear as if they are working to solve the transporation mess. Keep in mind these were the same people looking at possiblities to expand the Seattle monorail. What's next, horse drawn trolley cars?

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), September 18, 1999.

Actually, the problem with linear rail systems is that they are linear, not whether they are light or heavy. And speed is a function of frequency of stops, much more than speed potential of the engine. Average speed for light rail is only 14mph, but average speed for heavy rail is only 21 (http://www.bts.gov/btsprod/nts/apxa/transt98.html). BART has some advantage of long legs with few stops (like in underwater tunnels).

But the big problem remains geometry. People need to both live and work within 1/4 mile of transit stations for commuting by transit to be very appealing. With a grid of bus stops, you can cover quite an area that way at only mildly outrageous prices. With light or heavy rail you're paying $5-6 million per station and a total of $100 million a mile, at least for LINK. Since each station draws from pi(1/4 mile)2 each station draws from a service area of two-tenths of a square mile. With 20 stations (like LINK) you cover 4 square miles (at a cost of $2 billion (1996 dollars)). You basically have, for this amount, a system that is appealing to every commuter who happens to both live AND work in those 4 square miles. You can increase the number of stops, but only by slowing down the system speed (unlike a bus, a train can't pass around another train that is loading passengers). Given that the Seattle Metro Area is now over 500 square miles, this will of course have a trivial effect on congestion (other than the traffic congestion while it's being built). But it never was intended to be a significant people mover, the politicians basically want it as a public works project. It brings money into town, just like a convention, since most of the resources to fund it are payed for by someone else.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 19, 1999.

Craig:

Have you ever seen a BART station? They have these great inventions, called parking lots, right there next to the station. They even have bike storage. Your math assumes the only riders walk to the station, and are only willing to walk a quarter mile. That is just not the case. Most riders either leave a car in the lot or are delivered by another family member (on the way to get the kids to school for example). You may be right about the relative merits of rail and bus, but please use accurate information in the defense of your position.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 19, 1999.

d- Yes I have. To your no doubt great astonishment, I have a masters from UC Berkeley (Go Bears!) and am quite familiar with BART. IF you go to the USDOT website you will find any number of studies having to do with intermodal transfers. Here is a representative one: http://www.bts.gov/tmip/papers/mode/transfer/ch5.htm <<5.0 Results, Transfer Penalties in Urban Mode Choice Modeling.url>> These indicate that it is possible to get people to use park n rides, kiss n rides(that's really the name, the Metro in DC has these extensively), intermodal transfer stations (bus to rail), bicycle parking areas, and a variety of other modes. But these all involve significant real and perceived waiting time penalties, and it gets harder and harder to get people to voluntarily do this. Also, there is progressively less gain as people do this. A kiss n ride, for example, winds up involving two short trips by a vehicle to the drop-off point and back home. Because of cold start issues, these typically result in about 80% of the pollution that two trips to work would have made (again, depends on the length of the trip, but for an average commute in an average city, this is pretty close). The park n ride is almost as bad as the kiss n ride from an air pollution standpoint, eliminating only two legs of the four, and none of the cold starts. But now you put in the capital expense and maintenance expense of the park n ride. If these are reasonably successful, those expenses are significant. Metro King County is seriously considering charging for their park n rides (which is imminently logical, but defeats the whole purpose of subsidizing transit). http://www.metrokc.gov/exec/news/1999/0917992.htm http://archives.seattletimes.com/cgi-bin/texis.mummy/web/vortex/displa y?storyID=37d829381e&query=park+and+ride

You can certainly feed the rail stations with bus routes, but that, unfortunately, makes the bus routes less efficient and increases total commute time over buses alone for light rail (which travels no faster than local buses) and compared to express buses for heavy rail. You also have the intermodal transfer penalty which averages one-half the time between consecutive trains on the route (I know, you'd think that you could reliably time it better than that, but the literature suggests that you can't) plus the amount of time to leave the bus, go up or down the ramp to the rail boarding area, etc. Unfortuantely, this time is PERCEIVED by transit patrons as even greater than it actually is, kind of an annoyance factor. This results in a relatively small proportion of transit riders even willing to put up with one intermodal transfer, very few willing to put up with two (as would typically be required to use a rail system on a journey starting and ending over 1/4 mile from the station), and only the rare diehard willing to take three or more transfers. But getting back to the light rail station at hand, the two end stations now appear likely to be the UW and Sea-Tac airport, neither of which would be my idea of a good place to put a park n ride or kiss n ride. The proposed stations further into town are little better, so I think the issues kind of moot for LINK. So I do truly believe that I have used accurate information to defend my position, and am willing to give you more references if you want them. It's an area that has been extensively studied by USDOT (you wouldn't believe the number or cost of the studies) and it's one of the reasons that they are moving toward funding dedicated busways which have almost the capacity and are a whole lot cheaper than rail. The problem truly is one of geometry, and it's not really amenable to correction other than by tremendously increasing the population density, akin to Paris (which is also suburbanizing and having it's rail systems lose market share to the auto, for precisely the same reasons).

"Your math assumes the only riders walk to the station, and are only willing to walk a quarter mile" Actually, the studies indicate that the majority of transit riders (not the hardy few) are only willing to walk about a quarter mile in good weather (something that western Washington is not blessed with in abundance, notwithstanding the beautiful day today that I spent canoeing) when the would be transit rider is not significantly encumbered (no more than a light pack or briefcase) and when they perceive the area they are walking through to be "safe." There willingness to walk to a transit stop goes down significantly at night, in high crime areas, in foul weather, when they have toddler age children (too heavy to carry, too much of a will of their own to walk along in docile fashion), and most significantly when multiple transfers will be required to get to th

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 19, 1999.

Craig:

Thank you for the additional information. As I said, you may be right about the relative benefits of rail vs bus, etc. The added information is helpful. I also lived in the Bay Area for some time, several years ago, and my experience of BART may be out of date. What I saw was a use that was not about pollution, and trip time was only part of the reason it was used. With some planning, a family could manage with one car instead of two. A San Francisco worker could arrive at work having read the paper, and not frustrated by traffic. In the tunnel under the bay, the BART got up to about 70 mph, while those on the bridge were lucky to average 30. If you timed it right, using the BART was as fast or faster than driving yourself, with no parking, no wear on the car, less cost per trip (to the rider at least), and it was a relatively pleasant experience.

Of course, if you loaded six people in a car, driving to San Francisco was cheaper than the BART. Perhaps thats what we need, more van-pools. Five or six transit provided vans in each neighborhood, with destinations in the five or six major employment centers.

I am not sure what this has to do with I-695. Must be the transit connection, and the loss of funding; but the state is expected to adjust priorities or cut everthing 2%, so transit will still be funded, and we will still need to be involved in helping set priorities and elect representatives. A vote on I-695 is not a vote on transit at all. It is not even mentioned in the initiative.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 20, 1999.

Db and Craig,

When taking BART from the East Bay over to San Fran I think that the time wasted parking at Orinda or Walnut Creek and walking up to the train platform is negated by the other bottlenecks on the freeways that lead to the city. Keep in mind the Caldecott is always relatively bad, as is the wait to pay toll on the Bay Bridge. In rush hour you could be stuck for 30 minutes to a half hour at the foot of the bridge. During rush hour anyway, BART could end up being much faster.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

"I am not sure what this has to do with I-695. Must be the transit connection, and the loss of funding; but the state is expected to adjust priorities or cut everthing 2%, so transit will still be funded, "

Except a significant part of the Sound Transit system was funded by a local MVET for the three county area involved. The loss of the state MVET will potentially cause the loss of the collection mechanism for the local MVET. Since the three counties can only collect the local MVET by reconstituting the whole collection system, the collection costs will likely go up tremendously relative to the actual collections for that part of the Sound Transit system funded by the local MVET. The likelihood of getting state money to replace the loss of the local MVET is not high, IMHO. Also, if you look at the USDOT information, the only reason that Sound Transit got the priority for funding it did was that it had a relatively high (~50%) local funding (versus 20% funding for Portlands initial portion of MAX, for example). Just on technical merit, the Seattle proposal was at best mediocre. The "high percentage of local funding through dedicated taxes," is mentioned repeatedly in all position papers endorsing continued federal funding, and appears to be a major selling point. With ten other cities trying to get funds from the decreasing pool of federal funding, losing this advantage would bring the federal funding into doubt, and the whole house of cards could well fall down.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

d and BB-

Excellent article at this site concerning light rail versus bus: http://www.seattletimes.com/news/editorial/html98/vese_19990920.html

It doesn't quite say that rail is a boondoggle, but comes pretty close to it.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

Craig,

You should be supporting Sound Transit, not bashing it. It did, after all, pass with a public vote. This is exactly the standard you want in the future.

You can't have it both ways. You're the one that wants things to change so all funding decisions are made by the public. If the public makes a decision to tax themselves, it should be an example of your ideal system working.

By complaining about Sound Transit you sabotage the idea that the people can make all the decisions about taxing themselves, which is the heart of your vision for the future.

BB

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

"You can't have it both ways. You're the one that wants things to change so all funding decisions are made by the public. If the public makes a decision to tax themselves, it should be an example of your ideal system working. " Just because I want public participation in funding decisions doesn't mean they are ALWAYS going to make the right choice. Lord knows, the legislature doesn't. When they make a mistake, I campaign to get them to fix it, just like when the elected representatives make a mistake. It's called participatory democracy, and I'm participatin'

The Craigster

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 20, 1999.

"You should be supporting Sound Transit, not bashing it. " Indicating that an organization has made a bad business decision and encouraging them to rectify that error before fairly substantial sums of money (~$4 billion) are expended does not constitue "bashing." It constitutes constructive criticism. If indeed the original plan is unexecutable, because of I-695, because of changing federal priorities, or because it was simply an erroneous decision to begin with, recommending a change in the plan is reasonable and a prudent course of action for any civic minded individual. You can argue as to whether or not Craig made the case for these assertions, but unless you refute them, I don't know how you can accuse him of "bashing" Sound Transit.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 20, 1999.

d, BB -

Other good places to look for data on this topic:

Federal Transit Administrator Gordon Linton announced the selection of ten communities to participate in the federal Bus Rapid Transit demonstration program. Bus Rapid Transit illustrates how combining planning and technological devices will allow buses to operate with the speed, reliability and efficiency of light rail vehicles at only a fraction of the cost.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/

and

In evaluating the project justification criteria, FTA gives primary consideration to the measures for transit supportive land use, cost effectiveness, and mobility improvements to arrive at the combined "justification" rating. For local financial commitment, the measures for the proposed local share of capital costs and the strength of the capital and operating financing plans are the primary factors in determining the combined "finance" rating. For a proposed project to be rated as "recommended," it must be rated at least "medium" in terms of both finance and justification. To be "highly recommended," a proposed project must be rated higher than "medium" for both finance and justification. Proposed projects not rated at least "medium" in both finance and justification will be rated as "not recommended."

Stability and Reliability of Capital Financing Plan Rating: High The Link capital financial plan demonstrates a very high degree of local financial commitment to the project. Sound Transit's Sound Move program, which includes the Link light rail project, is supported by two local tax sources: a 0.4% sales and use tax, and a 0.3% motor vehicle excise tax (MVET), approved by the region's voters in November 1996. The taxes continue in perpetuity with no sunset provisions and are dedicated solely to Sound Transit projects. In 1998, Sound Transit expects to receive $175.1 million from the sales and use tax, and $44.5 million from the MVET. Growth in tax revenues from these sources has outpaced inflation, reflecting positive regional economic growth. Conservative forecasts of local economic growth and inflation were used to project funding from local tax sources. Capital cost estimates are reasonable given the size and proposed design of the project, and adequate contingencies exist to cover unanticipated cost overruns.

http://www.fta.dot.gov/ntl/index.html

BB- Although you may not like the message that Craig is sending, it would appear to be a valid message. If you believe strongly that a rail system IS appropriate and that Craig's analysis of the threat to Sound Transit is valid, this would seem to be an issue that you could use to convince like minded individuals that I-695 should be defeated. If you believe that he has misread the politics of this situation, you're entitled to rebut his assessment. Your personal criticism of him smacks of shooting the messenger.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 20, 1999.

Hell, it's dead already. They are giving up on the 22 miles and going to 7.2 miles. At $149 million per mile!!!

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/rta22.shtml

Time to bail out of this turkey, before we lose even more money. Hopefully, I-695 will pass and deliver the coup de grace to a really bad idea.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Yes BB-

"Turkey" is bashing. With the performance of the managers of this system here to date, it ought to be bashed.

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 1999.

Mark-

That's somewhat of an exageration. This is as of yet only a contingency plan. Yes, the feds are getting much tighter with their money. They have forced people to provide plans for a "minimal operable segment" which can get by on reduced funding in the event that they cannot provide as much as originally promised (or if they should decide to transfer the funds to the dedicated busways programs). It does have the unfortunate side effect of making planners sub-optimize the whole plan to be able to have a stand-alone mini-plan. In this case, it may force the maintenance facility to be placed in a more expensive or more politically difficult place than would otherwise be the case. It does indeed tend to drive up the cost per mile to do this, even if the whole thing ultimately gets built. From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, it would make more sense to cancel the more marginal systems and fully fund the most cost effective systems. This might put all the federal funding for the LINK at risk if that were to happen, since (absent the high local tax contribution) the LINK technical proposal is not as meritoriuos as many of the competitors.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 22, 1999.

Outstanding article concerning the light rail in Seattle Weekly:

Sound Transit's Citizen Oversight Panel recently issued a "call to action," urging local leaders to stop bickering and "recommit to making the [Sound Transit] vision a reality." Local editorial writers have whined their impatience at the Mayor and Executive. And Senators Slade Gorton and Patty Murray recently penned a letter to Sound Transit board members warning that federal money for the light rail project could be endangered unless they manage to drum up some community "consensus" soon. This has left Sims and Schell in a tough spot, compelled to go along with a $2 billion transit project that they have all but admitted is only dimly effective, if not in some ways counterproductive. "This is not a system designed for maximizing the number of people going to take it," Sims conceded in a radio interview last week. There doesn't appear to be any easy way out--or even a hard way. The current light rail plan--released in February and known, in bureaucrat-ese, as "the locally preferred alternative"--has the rail line starting at Sea-Tac and ending at NE 45th Street by the University of Washington. About fifty thousand people are expected to take the train each day--most of them former bus riders--and for them, travel should be faster and more reliable than what Metro provides. But there could be some nasty side effects. Community leaders in the University District worry that traffic will be made worse, as their already congested neighborhood becomes the light rail drop-off point. And when trains take over the Seattle bus tunnel, downtown streets will be flooded with buses--a situation that has the business community in a lather.

http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9938/features-fefer.shtml

I recommend that all take a look at it.

-- Gary Henriksen (henrik@harbornet.com), September 23, 1999.

Another good article about Sound Transit's troubles:

The president of the Downtown Seattle Association yesterday made it clear her organization will not support a Sound Transit light rail line that ends, as now planned, in the University District.

http://www.seattle-pi.com/local/rta24.shtml

This system is running behind schedule, over budget, and even it's proponents are now admitting it really won't be able to do what they hoped it would. It has deteriorated to a huge public works project, that will spend a lot of money and make no real difference. We need to cancel this project, and either return the taxes or at least apply the revenues against things that can make a difference.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 24, 1999.

Commuter trains now running 9 months behind It may be another year before the new Sounder commuter trains begin picking up passengers at the new stations in Auburn, Kent and Tukwila. That's about nine months later than originally scheduled for the launch of the passenger rail service between Seattle and Tacoma.

http://www.southcountyjournal.com/scjnews_archive/cmo01722.html

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 24, 1999.

This tread goes on and on, as if I-695 is a referendum on transit or ferries, or anything else funded through the MVET. It isn't. The initiative cuts a source of funding, but does not change one state priority, or delete one state or local program. It tells government to do it for less, and sort the problems out. Cutting the budgets without cutting programs probably can't be done, but the initiative gives no guidence about what to do about that.

No programs or priorities are mentioned in the text of the initiative, and to interpret an approval of the initiative as some sort of mandate to cut specific programs, is just not justified. If you want an initiative that requires the state to make the ferry system 80% user funded, put it on the ballot. 695 doesn't say that. If you want an initiative that terminates all development of Sound Transit, put it on the ballot. I-695 does not do that.

Since Sound Transit was approved by voters, if the MVET funding is cut it seems state and local governments would be justified in cutting everything else to restore funding to a program the majority of voters want. If you want to kill Sound Transit, you are going to have to kill it directly - with another vote, not this one.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 24, 1999.

"No programs or priorities are mentioned in the text of the initiative, and to interpret an approval of the initiative as some sort of mandate to cut specific programs, is just not justified." I'd agree wholeheartedly with this, although from their posts it's obvious that a lot of I-695 supporters are saying just the opposite, that is, that University Place will lose 40%, etc. I personally don't support transit as much as many people do, but feel that light rail is the least effective of the transit programs. I think that the execution of Sound Transit in general and LINK in particular is so over budget and behind schedule that it won't take much to kill it. In this case, I-695 might well be the straw that breaks the camel's back. And it will not require another vote to kill it. If the federal funding that was anticipated doesn't arrive (which is looking more and more likely) and the voters are not willing to vote ADDITIONAL taxes for it, it will either be terminated or truncated into the little 7+ mile minimum operable segment. Wanta bet one of those two beers I offered to buy you?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 25, 1999.

Craig:

No bet. My comment was on the intent and implications of the initiative, and not a defense of Sound Transit. If 695 is only about funding, and not programs; all the discussion about ferry costs and Sound Transit, etc. is just sounding off. Unfortunately, it leads to false expectations.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), September 25, 1999.

The PLAN:

http://www.soundtransit.org/investor/budget.pdf The Sound Move financial plan assumed that most of the federal funds for Sound Transit would come from what is referred to as federal Section 5309 New Starts funds. New Starts are discretionary funds, earmarked directly by Congress for major capital investments in fixed guideway systems in urban areas. They are administered by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). The finance plan also assumed addi-tional funding from other federal grant sources. Specifically, the finance plan assumed: $550 million (1995$)1 from New Starts funds to help finance the Link light rail system between Seattle and SeaTac. $177 million (1995$)2 from a from a variety of federal funding categories, including New Starts, to help fund the Sounder commuter rail program and Regional Express projects. Sound Move federal funding assumptions were purposefully conservative regarding the level of federal participation. However, Sound Transit has consistently indicated its intent to seek more New Starts funds than assumed in the financial plan. The adopted policies state that if additional federal funding is attained for the Link light rail program, it will be used to fund the segment between the University District and Northgate. The policies further state that Sound Transit will seek to apply for other grants in partnership with other local agencies and jurisdictions.

The REALITY

WASHINGTON - Congressional negotiators on Wednesday provided only $30 million for commuter and light rail in the Puget Sound region, less than a quarter of what Sound Transit had requested. Given the tight budget caps under which Congress is operating and the number of mass transit projects nationwide seeking federal support, lawmakers said Sound Transit did about as well as could be expected. Over the next 10 years, Sound Transit will need almost $950 million in federal funding to complete the regional transit system. So far, it is coming at a trickle. The transit authority had requested $143 million for the coming fiscal year, a figure that few expected the agency would receive but that transit officials defended as an amount they could realistically spend. This coming year's funding level is $16 million less than Congress provided last year, but Sound Transit apparently continues to be a high-priority project. http://www.tribnet.com/news/local/0930a15.html

If the MVET goes, this will be another blow to continued funding, both directly through the potential loss of the local option MVET, and indirectly since federal funding may be difficult to get with a perceived loss of local support (MVET) and continuing local disagreement over the Rainier Valley at-grade route, service to Northgate, and bus tunnel issues.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), September 30, 1999.

Craig:

You keep missing the point that 695 cuts the funding (MVET), but does not change the priorities of government on any specific program. Sound Transit was approved by the voters. By the logic of the initiative, if the popular vote is the final word, then the state and local governments should replace the lost MVET funding and any other funding losses to preserve the program. If you want to change a government program or priority, this initiative isn't the way to do it.

-- dbvz (dbvz@wa.freei.net), October 02, 1999.

d-

I am not missing the point. The point is that Sound Transit is hanging by a thread. If it loses it's dedicated MVET funding it is hanging by less than a thread. Call it the law of unintended consequences if you wish, but passage of I-695 would likely be a death blow for light rail, and possibly Sounder commuter rail as well.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 02, 1999.

So how are you betting today? Since the last posting, the various governments supporting (?) LINK have semi-coalesced on a plan.

This calls for the STATE to take $400 million out of petty change in the transportation fund. http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/9942/features-fefer2.shtml

Except the STATE wasn't planning on doing this, even BEFORE I-695. If I-695 passes, they have a modest cut of their own to fill. If it doesn't they are still shaking in their collective boots from a close call with a populist initiative, and will be reluctant to come up with additional resources for Seattle. Heck, even the rest of the County is reluctant to come up with resources for Seattle: http://search.tribnet.com/archive/90days/1026b32.htm

In the meantime, there aren't going to be any huge increases for transit capital spending in this year's federal budget, and if George W. is elected, Congress may keep the 2001 fiscal year budget on ice from the end of September until George W. can OK something more to their liking. And from the look of it, that won't be more capital investment for fixed raiil transit facilities.

So ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, place your bets. Will I-695 kill Link Light Rail if it passes? How about if it just comes close? Or do you think it might kill all of Sound Transit? How are you betting???

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 26, 1999.

Transit tunnel plan not a done deal

October 26, 1999

David Quigg; The News Tribune

South King County

On the drawing board, the plan for sending light rail through downtown Seattle is simple: King County is going to turn over its big- bucks Metro bus tunnel for the new trains.

But Monday showed things may prove more complicated.

Some County Council members argued that Sound Transit - the regional agency that will build light rail - should have to buy the tunnel from the county.

Plans currently call for Sound Transit simply to assume the county's yearly $12 million debt payments. But Councilman Chris Vance (R- Auburn) called that a bad deal. He likened it to a home buyer who offers only to take over the current owner's mortgage - not to pay the fair value of the house.

"All the cities in my district are pretty hard-core about this," he said.

This dissent came less than two weeks after leaders from King, Pierce and Snohomish counties trumpeted new regional unity and determination to make light rail work. Sound Transit had been facing a funding gap of $205 million on Central Link - its basic $2 billion SeaTac-to- Seattle light-rail line.

County Councilman Rob McKenna (R-Bellevue), who is on the Sound Transit board, was on hand for that feel-good announcement but did not have a speaking part.

On Monday, wearing yet another hat, he made it clear he thinks Sound Transit should take on more light rail expenses.

A letter McKenna co-signed as the chairman of the Eastside Transportation Partnership stated, "We believe that King County should receive compensation for the full value of the tunnel, not simply the debt."

That would boost Sound Transit's overall costs by an estimated $33 million.

McKenna and the Eastside group argue that King County will need the extra payments to manage traffic problems caused when light rail kicks Metro buses out of the downtown tunnel. The resulting snarl on the streets above will hurt Eastside bus commuters, the group said.

Concerns over bus gridlock are not new.

Downtown leaders have lobbied hardest to make sure that light rail extends to Seattle's Northgate transit center - a move that's supposed to keep an extra 16,500 commuters off surface streets each day.

County Executive Ron Sims originally argued for a full buyout of the bus tunnel. But Sims' transit adviser, David Hopkins, said four concessions from Sound Transit changed the executive's position.

Sound Transit promised:

* Never to pass tunnel costs on to other parts of King County. Plans call for light-rail tracks to eventually continue south to Tacoma. Without a deal on tunnel costs, Sound Transit could charge a connection fee to those other county areas, Hopkins said.

* To fund downtown street improvements to lessen the impacts of more buses on the roads.

* To pay for bus facilities at light rail stations.

* To compensate Seattle and King County for expenses caused by conversion work on the tunnel.

Meanwhile, Sound Transit is set to decide on a final route for light rail Nov. 18. That makes a timely agreement on the tunnel important.

Tacoma City Councilman Paul Miller, chairman of the Sound Transit board, said he hopes King County will keep the tunnel issue from becoming adversarial.

The downtown bus tunnel opened in 1990. IT COST $480 MILLION TO BUILD. By 2004, when Sound Transit's downtown construction is set to start, the county will still owe $130 million.

By subtracting tunnel funding that originally came from the federal government and taking into account depreciation and other factors, county staff members estimate the tunnel will be worth about $163 million at that point.

The council is scheduled to return to the tunnel issue next Monday.

- - -

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 26, 1999.

I doubt I-695 will kill Sound Transit. The voters opted for Sound Transit, completely consistent with the principles of I-695.

If there were a non-stop express bus from Gig Harbor to a rail depot, then I could use the light rail, myself.

In general, Sound Transit will succeed to the extent they offer a network of non-stop express buses. As far as I can tell, when a bus travels a long distance in the Puget Sound region without stops, it tends to have high ridership.

As for rail, it seems to suffer from the same problem of road building , as it is not timely or flexible. But, that is what the voters wanted. It's a shame the voters weren't offered the opportunity to fund an expansion of vanpooling, instead of rail.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 27, 1999.

It would appear, Matthew, that the governor doesn't agree with you. He gave an interview on KUOW that implied that it would kill ALL of Sound Transit, not just the LINK.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 27, 1999.

to Craig: To a certain extent, I-695 should have no impact on Sound Transit, as the voters have already dedicated tax revenues to the program. Furthermore, I-695 will make more federal dollars available, as Washingtonians will pay more federal income tax as a result of I-695.

Again, like any business, Sound Transit's success will depend on how well they exceed their customer's expectations.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 27, 1999.

Sorry Matt- From the Times

Light-rail route is finalized

by Alex Fryer Seattle Times staff reporter The leaders of Sound Transit met in Seattle this morning, but they wanted to be heard in the state's and nation's capitals.

Seattle Mayor Paul Schell and King County Executive Ron Sims announced that the agency was united in delaying several light-rail stations and ASKING FOR STATE MONEY to extend the line from the University District to Northgate. Currently, THERE IS NO STATE MONEY for Sound Transit.

Sound Transit officials say extending the 23-mile light-rail route to Northgate would cost $415 million THE AGENCY DOESN'T HAVE.

Today's announcement responds to a letter sent from U.S. Sens. Slade Gorton and Patty Murray last month urging the 18-member Sound Transit board to reach a consensus on the route.

Agreement on the basic plan is a necessary first step to gaining hundreds of millions of dollars in federal transit funds.

"Every time I go to Washington, I'm asked, `Do we have support, or should we be sending money to another state?' " said Dave Earling, an Edmonds City Council member and Sound Transit board vice chairman.

"This announcement sends a clear message to Washington that we have come together on a routing plan," he said. BY DECIDING TO LOBBY FOR STATE MONEY for Sound Transit, the board committed to a political fight to be waged by the executives of three counties and other important elected officials, said Sims.

"What you have today is a commitment by the board that we will do the heavy lifting to get us to Northgate," he said.

Beyond signaling an INTENT TO SEEK STATE DOLLARS for Sound Transit, the agency's leadership outlined a way to bridge a $215 million shortfall in the agency's budget.

To build the light-rail line from SeaTac to the University District by 2006, Schell said the city would contribute $43 million in general- fund contributions, return the city sales tax collected on construction to Sound Transit and pay for utility relocations.

King County would also rebate about $8 million in sales tax to the agency.

In an effort to save more money, Sound Transit agreed to defer several stations, including the Westlake eastern entrance, the Royal Brougham station and the Graham Street station.

The agency would also reduce the cost of building a partially complete Beacon Hill station and delay a park-and-ride lot near the Boeing Access Road station.

The cuts and delays are expected to save the agency $82 million.

An additional $58 million could be added to the Sound Transit budget if the agency takes on greater debt.

But King County Council member Greg Nickels said he has reservations about tinkering with the finances. By taking on added debt now, Sound Transit may not have the money to extend light rail past Northgate in the future, he said.

"I have some concerns about relaxing the debt standards. We still have a long way to go," said Nickels, who also serves as a Sound Transit board member.

Now this may sount to you like every thing is OK, Matt, but it doesn't to me. Besides, the Lockester SAID it could kill Sound Transit. Our Governor wouldn't lie, would he?

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 27, 1999.

"Our Governor wouldn't lie, would he?" All depends. Were his lips moving????

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 27, 1999.

to Craig: Again, I-695 will mean even more federal dollars are available, as Washingtonians will be paying more in federal taxes. But, even if the rail project is scrapped, there's still the opportunity to create a network of non-stop express buses, which would certainly be more timely than rail.

Furthermore, Sound Transit will have the opportunity to scoop up lots of buses and drivers from Kitsap, Pierce, and Metro transit agencies, as they are unable to justify their existing routes in light of reduced funds.

As Sound Transit wins kudos for providing badly needed bus routes, the public will be more willing to vote for higher taxes to expand Sound Transit's vision.

Don't forget, too, that higher gasoline taxes and/or tolls will make transit a more popular alternative, as well. I-695 will be the best thing that could ever happen to Sound Transit.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), October 28, 1999.

Matt-

Please read all the articles in the transportation and transit threads that go, "It's the demographics, stupid!" The demographics haven't changed. The geometry for fixed route linear facilities hasn't changed. Wishing won't make it so.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 28, 1999.

From the Sound Transit News Site. Either they are fibbing to us, or Sound Transit is TOAST if I-695 passes.

The loss of state MVET for local transit agencies, WSDOT and cities and counties will likely affect projects and services included in Sound Move. Local Transit Agencies: Sound Move is predicated upon strong partnerships with local transit agencies. Local transit agencies and Sound Transit are responsible for providing a coordinated system of services. Central to an efficient transportation network are park and ride facilities and transit centers, as well as increased local and regional transit service. Should I-695 pass, it is likely that local transit agencies will have significantly reduced revenues which may result in reductions in service. According to the Office of Financial Management (OFM), it is estimated that King County Metro would lose $100 million in 2000 and $105 million in 2001. Pierce Transit would lose $23 million in 2000 and $24 million in 2001. Community Transit would lose $18 million in 2000 and $19 million in 2001. Without adequate service support from local transit agencies, it will be difficult for Sound Transit to deliver the system plan promised to the voters in 1996. Washington State Department of Transportation: Enactment of I-695 would result in a loss of $1.2 billion in the 1999-01 biennium from accounts that support WSDOT. WSDOT is responsible for core HOV lane completion - the foundation of Sound Transits regional bus transit system. The WSDOT is estimating a $414 million loss in revenues for HOV completion over the next biennium should I-695 pass. In addition, WSDOT participates in track improvement programs as well as rail maintenance facilities that will benefit its intercity Amtrak service and Sound Transits commuter rail service. WSDOT is anticipating a $60 million loss for track improvements that support Sound Transit commuter rail, as well as a $15 million loss for the maintenance facility. If I-695 is approved and the states MVET funding source is eliminated, these programs and projects may be affected. Cities and Counties: I-695 would result in a loss of MVET revenue to cities and counties. While cities and counties receive MVET for a variety of local government services such as criminal justice, public health and public safety, the MVET also provides revenues to cities and counties for transportation projects that benefit their jurisdictions and Sound Transit such as the I-405/Bellevue Downtown Access project. Impacts to Sound Transit I-695 may require voter approval for passenger fare increases. I-695 requires voter approval to increase any tax, fee or other monetary charge imposed by government. I-695 defines tax broadly and includes the phrase "other monetary charge by government." Transit fares could be construed as a "charge by government" and therefore considered a tax. This determination, however, will likely be subject to judicial interpretation. I-695 does not repeal Sound Transits ability to impose Motor Vehicle Excise Tax (MVET). I-695 repeals the State MVET, the state travel trailer and excise tax and the state clean air excise tax in their entirety. I-695 does not expressly repeal Sound Transits authority to impose the Sound Transit MVET. Sound Transits MVET was voter approved in 1996. I-695 does create ambiguities with regard to collection of MVET. I- 695 does eliminate the states valuation statutes for calculating MVET. The valuation statutes are the basis for determining the amount that the 0.3 percent voter approved MVET rate yields. Currently, Sound Transit contracts with the Department of Licensing (DOL) for collection of MVET revenues. If the state MVET were repealed we would need to work with the DOL to insure that the administrative apparatus for collecting Sound Transit MVET revenues remains in place. I-695 does not repeal Sound Transits authority to issue bonds. Existing bonds are secured solely by a pledge of sales and use tax and MVET. The pledge for payment of bonds is a prior lien and superior to all other charges of any kind or nature. However, I-695 may impair Sound Transits ability to issue future bonds. Problems with the collection of MVET may affect the agencys practical ability to issue future bonds. Sound Transits ability to bond accounts for approximately $1 billion of the overall Sound Move funding program. http://www.soundtransit.org/News/I695.html

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 28, 1999.

ANOTHER small nail in the coffin of Sound Transit. Over budget, and running late:

THE AREA IN BRIEF - Seattle: Sound Transit delays start of Seattle- Tacoma rail service

David Quigg; The News Tribune

The Sound Transit board decided Thursday to start Tacoma-to-Seattle commuter rail service next September.

The so-called "Sounder" line originally was slated to start carrying commuters to stations in Tacoma, Puyallup, Sumner, Auburn, Kent, Tukwila and Seattle this December. But longer-than-expected negotiations to share existing tracks and the need for extensive improvements on those tracks caused delays.

The plan approved by the board calls for starting service with three daily round trips on the line. Sounder is supposed to provide nine daily round trips.

If starting three round trips in September proves impossible, the board approved negotiating with the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe Railway to begin single-train service early next year.

- David Quigg, The News Tribune

-- (craigcar@crosswinds.net), October 29, 1999.

Losing support of surrounding communities, yet another nail in the coffin of Sound Transit. With the passage of I-695, there'll be no state support, and they will arguably lose their local option MVET.

Posted at 02:03 a.m. PST; Monday, November 1, 1999

Tukwila seeks another route for Sound Transit

by Alex Fryer Seattle Times staff reporter When Tukwila Mayor John Rants points to an aerial map of his South King County city, he sees a community cleaved by concrete.

There's interstates 5 and 405, and state Highway 518. And of course, state Highway 99, long known for its fast-food joints, pay-by-the- hour motels and street walkers.

Now, Rants and other city officials have dug in their heels against the latest intruder: Sound Transit. http://www.seattletimes.com/news/local/html98/rail_19991101.html

-- raig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), November 01, 1999.

And the future looks dimmer and dimmer for Sound Transit, but we continue to spend money. This is a classic ploy, made famous by the military. Yeah, this system is over budget and behind schedule and going to cost us MUCH MORE than what we said, but YOU HAVE TO GET IT NOW. ALL OF THE MONEY WE'VE ALREADY SPENT WILL BE WASTED IF YOU DON'T. Don't fall for this well worn line. Pull the plug early, and save the wasted money. From the Everett Herald http://www.heraldnet.com/Stories/99/12/1/11732794.htm

When the trains will pull out of the station with paying customers, however, is a question transit officials say has become harder to answer with the passage of Initiative 695. The law passed by voters last month cut vehicle license tabs to $30 a year, reducing most governments' budgets.

The first of the commuter trains is supposed to begin ferrying people between Tacoma and Seattle in 2000, with service to Everett starting in early fall of 2001, according to officials with Sound Transit, the regional agency overseeing the $750 million commuter rail project.

While the herd of shiny new rail cars is arriving on time, the likely loss of $60 million in state money to pay for rail improvements south of Seattle has made an opening date uncertain, Sound Transit spokesman Clarence Moriwaki said.

"It's raised many more questions than we have answers for," he said.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), December 01, 1999.