Proving that even the Times Editorial Board can comprehend reality when you rub their noses in it, The Times is now recommending all plans for Seattle's $100 million a mile (and growing) light rail be put on hold until the costs are looked at objectively and better alternatives are explored.

   
Thursday, October 19, 2000, 12:00 a.m. Pacific 



Editorial
Time out on region's light rail plan











This page has been a long-time supporter of light rail. Over the past year, our enthusiasm has begun to wane and be replaced by doubt. 



In 1996, voters supported light rail, too - by 57 percent. 



But they did not know then that the Metro transit tunnel would be permanently emptied of buses, making downtown congestion worse, not better. 



They did not know that light rail would end in a station 200 feet deep in an area with no parking. 



They did not know that a tunnel would be dug under Beacon Hill. 



They did not know that an even-longer tunnel, 4½ miles, would be chewed under Capitol Hill from downtown Seattle to the University District. 



Voters were promised an agency that would keep Eastside money on the Eastside, south King County money in south King County, etc. These so-called firewalls are now threatened by cost projections that have risen by more than $400 million. 



In addition, bids for the Capitol Hill tunnel have reportedly come in at $800-$900 million, or some $300 million over budget. Suburbanites have reason to fear they will be taxed to pay for a hole in Seattle. 



Officially, we don't know what that hole will cost. Even Sound Transit's public directors don't expect to know until Dec. 8. Then, in an artful exercise in railroading, these same directors are to be given a proposed contract - and its cost - and expected to make a decision over Christmas. They are slated to approve the projected overruns three days after New Year's and sign the tunnel contract Jan. 25. They are warned if they don't sign by Feb. 14, they risk losing a $500 million federal grant. 



Once a contract is signed, there's no turning back. The last chance to turn back is now. The last chance to make major modifications - to cross Portage Bay by bridge, for example - is now. 



This editorial page joins the growing band of citizens calling for an audit now. Light rail needs to be repriced. Taxpayers of the region need to know what it will really cost for the minimum system - SeaTac to Northgate. 



At the same time, let's recalculate opportunity costs - what will not happen because of the money spent on light rail. Specifically, light rail should be compared with spending the same local money on transit-dedicated road lanes, regionwide coordination of traffic signals, and other ideas now being proposed. This time-out should include an analysis of the proposal by former Metro boss Chuck Collins to offer greatly expanded bus service for free. 



An essential question must be answered: What plan gives the greatest mobility throughout the region at an affordable cost? 



Sound Transit resists such comparisons. Under political fire, it has agreed to appoint an independent panel to review the tunnel contract. That is a good idea, but it is not enough. At issue is not just the tunnel. The panel should review the entire light-rail plan. Its members should have no ties - personal or financial - to light rail. Finally, the panel should be given enough time - several months, at least - to do it right. 



What about that $500 million from the feds? Deadlines can be extended, and grants, once lost, can be applied for again. If the current plan turns out to be the wrong decision for the region, $500 million doesn't make it right. 



What about the 1996 vote? The voters agreed to tax themselves to solve a big, big problem. They were told light rail would help to solve that problem. They agreed to create an agency to run regional buses, a commuter rail line and to build light rail, all controlled by a board of directors who would safeguard the public interest. 



It's time for the directors to do just that. The board's paramount duty is not to provide a specific technology, but to address the region's mobility challenges in the most cost-effective way. 







Copyright ) 2000 The Seattle Times Company 
 

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000

Answers

Man that's a BBBBBBROOOOOOOAAAAAADDDD policy statement by the Times, Mark. Little formatting problem, maybe?

Screw Transit, Build Roads!

zowie

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), October 19, 2000.

Hope this formats a little better:

Light-rail critics ask for audit

2000-10-20
by Bruce Rommel
Journal Reporter

Critics of the proposed Link light-rail passenger line yesterday asked Sound Transit officials for an independent audit and review of plans for the entire $2 billion-plus system.

After hearing the request, officials are proceeding with an earlier plan to audit only the construction and financing details for the proposed 4.6-mile tunnel from downtown Seattle to the U- District.

A letter requesting a complete audit of the 21-mile system was presented by King County Councilwoman Maggi Fimia at a meeting of the Sound Transit Board of Directors.

Besides Fimia, the letter was signed by County Councilman Rob McKenna and some members of the city councils of Seattle, Mercer Island and Normandy Park.

They fear cost overruns for Link could jeopardize other public transit operations. They also question whether Link will draw enough riders to justify its costs.

King County Councilman Greg Nickels, a member of Sound Transit's Finance Committee, said the agency's audit and financing plans for the light-rail tunnel will be made public before construction starts. If there aren't sufficient funds, the project won't proceed, he said.

The light-rail tunnel is budgeted at $562 million, but construction estimates are rumored to be more than $800 million. Sound Transit is negotiating with contractors and hasn't released figures on bids for tunnel construction.

Bruce Rommel covers transportation. He can be reached at bruce.rommel@southcountyjour nal.com or 253-872-6722.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 20, 2000.

They're probably just responding to their major source of income, their advertisers.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), October 21, 2000.