So why are we having the public meetings if the decision has already been made?

greenspun.com : LUSENET : I-695 Thirty Dollar License Tab Initiative : One Thread

You gotta ask, why are the Sound Transit people going through the charade of holding a couple of public meetings when the decision is already made?
An equally good question is how they decided to move the terminus willy-nilly, without a second thought or a formal EIS?
Does it seem to you that their decision-making is getting panicky?

Yeah, seems that way to me too.

Full speed ahead for light rail

Federal money prompts haste; tunnel to Ravenna now in plans

Friday, January 5, 2001
By CHRIS McGANN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

In a hasty attempt to secure $500 million in federal funding before the Clinton administration steps down, Sound Transit will move forward with light rail despite mounting objections about costs, the agency's leaders say.
And its plans now include a light-rail tunnel extension beyond the University District to Ravenna, a segment previously said to be unaffordable.
Extending the route north is one of several politically popular changes designed to persuade the Sound Transit board of directors -- still reeling from news that its staff had withheld a $1.2 billion increase in project costs -- to endorse moving forward next Thursday.
That's when the board is scheduled to decide the fate of its rail project in light of a cost increase from $2.4 billion to $3.6 billion and a three-year delay in completion.
But Sound Transit Executive Director Bob White and board Chairman Dave Earling say they already know what the board will decide on that pivotal day:
The agency will not explore alternatives to light rail such as a free bus system or a new monorail, despite public pressure including a radio ad campaign launched this week.
The board will agree to accept the higher cost and longer schedule and move forward -- a tacit condition for receiving the $500 million federal grant before the Bush administration takes over. Accepting the federal money would mean that Sound Transit must complete a 7-mile "central link" from South Lander Street in Seattle to 45th Street in the University District -- the portion that the grant addresses.
That would send the agency headlong into a project still fraught with financial and legal uncertainties. So why the rush?
President Clinton's transit administrators, the people with whom the agency has worked for more than a year to secure the $500 million, multiyear grant, give up their positions in two weeks and won't be replaced until the Senate confirms President-elect George W. Bush's appointees. The agency must act to avoid delaying or even losing its shot at the money, White and Earling said.
Sound Transit's application for the federal money last year was recommended by the Federal Transit Administration and survived a 60-day congressional review based on a cost-benefit analysis and the region's ability to pay nearly 70 percent of the system's costs. The 22-mile rail system is financed largely by a 0.4 percent sales tax and a 0.3 percent motor vehicle excise tax approved by voters in 1996.
But the FTA held back on issuing the grant for reasons it refused to disclose.
Then Sound Transit suspended negotiations with Modern Transit Constructors, the firm selected to design and build the 4.5-mile rail tunnel from downtown Seattle to the University District, because its construction cost estimates were much higher than Sound Transit's.
As a result, the agency's light-rail director resigned. And new leaders came up with a revised price of $3.6 billion and a delay until 2009.
Now, Sound Transit officials say the FTA has adjusted its proposed grant agreement to reflect the cost and schedule changes and promised to award the grant -- on the condition the agency commits to continuing.
Earling said this is the third time in 30 years that the Seattle area has had a chance at getting federal money for light rail and this time they will snatch it up.
"The board is of the mind that we can't wait another generation," he said. "We're going to have to move forward on this, or we will have an insurmountable obstacle."
Critic John Niles said plunging into a federal grant agreement is irresponsible.
"A change in the cost by itself (with no additional riders) means the whole project should be carefully re-examined by both the public and the FTA."
Bruce Frame, FTA spokesman, has said that it's not unusual for costs to change as transit projects progress, nor do higher costs ruin the agency's chances of securing the grant. Sound Transit officials say ridership estimates are good enough to justify the higher cost of the line.
Tuck Wilson, the agency's interim light-rail director, said once the grant agreement is signed the agency can still improve the project and reduce the cost on final design. He said extending the rail tunnel to Ravenna is such an opportunity.
Instead of ending on 45th Street, it would continue to either Northeast 58th Street or Northeast 75th Street. At those locations, tunnel builders could remove dirt at street level rather than out the long vertical shaft that stopping at 45th Street would require.
"It's safer, quicker and helps with schedule and cost," Wilson said, adding that the northern extension would also help move the line closer to Northgate -- a goal shared by many board members.
The Sound Transit board will choose between a tunnel exiting on Eighth Avenue at Northeast 58th Street near Interstate 5 or near Northeast 75th Street on 12th Avenue, the option preferred by neighborhood residents, during the next six months.
Penny Eckert, president of the Roosevelt Neighborhood Association, said the Eighth Avenue alignment has always been unacceptable to the neighborhood.
Although the construction project would involve some inconveniences, exiting in Ravenna "makes sense to me. That would provide a huge incentive to continue north. As quaint at this neighborhood is, it wouldn't make any sense to make this the northern terminus of the line."
Wilson added that the agency will seek $900 million for light rail in the next federal funding cycle.
Wilson admits that the plan assumes collecting taxes for a longer period than originally envisioned -- which has prompted calls for another election.
He said completing the project within the more realistic cost and schedule estimates will restore public trust.
And agency officials say another public vote is out of the question. King County Executive Ron Sims, a Sound Transit board member, said voters have already spoken and other options are too costly or impractical. "Rail is the alternative. And the voters knew that when they voted for it," he said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- P-I reporter Chris McGann can be reached at 206-448-8169 or chrismcgann@seattle-pi.com

Let's see...... the agency that lied to us by 3 years and $1.2 billion wants to "restore public trust" by changing the plan for the northern terminus to an area that has never previously been discussed, that they admit "...wouldn't make any sense to make this the northern terminus of the line"

This makes sense only as a plan to do anything possible to take the financial grant that will legally commit us to the 7 mile minimum operable segment, so that regardless of future cost over-runs, mismanagement, and delays, these people will always have a job.
Wouldn't surprise me if they were able to drag construction of this one segment out to their retirements.
But what of due diligence?
What of the concept that the public should get some value for their tax dollar?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 05, 2001

Answers

to Mark: Your post includes the following: "Wilson added that the agency will seek $900 million for light rail in the next federal funding cycle."

Looks like Patrick was right. he always said there would be more mega-money from the Feds. I guess you owe him an apology.

Ron Sims seems a bit strange to say that there can't be another election. The people voted for a balanced approach to mitigating congestion. Half the money would be spent on rail, the other half on buses, HOV improvements, Park'n'Rides, etc. Now, the percentage of money is going to swing in favor of rail. That's NOT what the people voted.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 07, 2001.


"Looks like Patrick was right. he always said there would be more mega-money from the Feds. I guess you owe him an apology. "

I never said Sound Transit wouldn't SEEK the money. Just said they wouldn't get it.

I have already posted appropriations committee minutes and budgets. There's only so much money, and there are a LOT of cities competing for it. It looks like DC is going to have to do some major rebuilding on their Metro. The rest of the New Start money is divied up over more than a dozen other contenders.

We will be VERY lucky to see the first half billion, especially since we are way over budget and way behind schedule and, as I said, have yet to turn the first spade of dirt.

But it doesn't cost me anything for you and Patrick to dream on, but I would have thought that as long as your wishing for things you weren't going to get, you'd wish for a billion or so for the Narrows Bridge.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 07, 2001.

to Mark: You write: "...I would have thought that as long as your wishing for things you weren't going to get, you'd wish for a billion or so for the Narrows Bridge."

The Narrows Bridge operates just fine. If I were going to spend a billion dollars, it sure as heck wouldn't be on a new Narrows Bridge. The most dangerous strecth of roadway I've ever observed is I-5 northbound between Hwy 16 and the Puyallup River Bridge. That's where I'd spend the money.

I-5 is a federal highway. It should be the federal government's responsibility to fix it. Considering that the state of Washington is now paying more in federal taxes (less in state taxes), as a result of I-695, the feds should do something about our antiquated interstate system.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 08, 2001.


Tuesday, January 09, 2001, 12:00 a.m. Pacific 

Light rail has few supporters at hearing

by Andrew Garber Seattle Times staff reporter Sound Transit's $3.8 billion light-rail project had few defenders during a packed public hearing yesterday.

People streamed up to a microphone in the agency's board room at Union Station to attack the venture as too expensive and a waste of tax money.

"I feel it is a large cliff we're going to be jumping off of," John Flynn of Ballard told the agency. "We need to go about this in another way."

Suzy Wakefield of Kirkland called the light-rail project a "rip-off" that will do nothing to relieve traffic congestion on the Eastside.

And so it went one after another, with occasional supporters such as Bob Markholt, who lives in Rainier Valley.

"Stay the course," he urged the agency. "Everyone with an opinion is coming forward (to criticize light rail) without a clue."

Yesterday's hearing was part of a two-day "open house" being held by the agency to get comments and educate people about light rail. Another session is scheduled for today from 4 to 8 p.m. at Union Station, 401 S. Jackson St.

The Sound Transit board will meet Thursday to decide if it should move ahead with the project and accept $500 million in federal money.

Dave Earling, chairman of the Sound Transit board, said yeterday's testimony did nothing to change his mind.

He believes the agency has widespread public support and should take the federal money.

Rob McKenna, a member of the board and a light-rail critic, disagrees. He plans to ask the board on Thursday to put the project up for a public vote.

That was a frequent request made by people testifying yesterday. The project has changed so much since voters approved it in 1996; it needs to be voted on again, they said.

Monday's criticism comes after a string of bad publicity for the agency.

Its light-rail director resigned in November because of controversy over costs.

Last month the agency revealed the project is more than $1 billion over budget and will take three additional years to build. The trains are supposed to start running in 2009.

And the agency's new plan to cover the gap in costs - which includes asking the federal government for about a half-billion dollars in additional money and assumes there won't be a recession - has been criticized as overly optimistic.

McKenna also complains that the new budget takes away money that could have been used to extend light rail to Northgate.

Sound Transit currently plans to build a 21-mile light-rail system from SeaTac to the University District and extend the line an additional three miles to Northgate if it can come up with the $435 to $545 million it needs.

Going to Northgate is considered a critical link, because it would add an estimated 20,000 passengers daily.

But Sound Transit plans to use almost $800 million in local and federal money, which could have been used for the Northgate extension, to cover current cost overruns.

Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 09, 2001.

Nothing in the above article from the Seattle Times surprise's me, but in the past couple of years, the regular readers of this forum have heard our left leaning friends tell us time and again the bureaucrat's and pols will listen if you show up at the meetings and let them know your feelings.

I quote from Dave Earling, chairman of Sound Transit Board, at yesterdays public meeting, yesterdays testimony "did nothing to change his mind".

Just another example of why waste your time, when their minds are already made up. I understand those who feel the pols and bureaucrats should be left alone as they will make the right choices as to how to spend our money, will not change their minds, this is just one more example of what others have been saying all along.

Wayne A.

-- Wayne A. (wga1943@yahoo.com), January 09, 2001.



Wayne-

The pols will never see the light, but they can certainly feel the heat. That's what the initiative process is all about. It really did my heart good to see Sid Snyder, majority leader, lifetime politician, and party hack, whining about the initiative process in today's Tribune.

These are the guys who consider themselves the elite, as his pathetic complaints about the voters interfering with the workings of government indicate. As if it was the government of the politicians and bureaucrats, by the politicians and bureaucrats, and for the politicians and bureaucrats.

So whip yourself up an initiative that threatens something they value (like the ability to tax us without our consent). If they don't see the light, make them feel the heat. They'll listen to you then.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 09, 2001.

to Wayne: >> I quote from Dave Earling, chairman of Sound Transit Board, at yesterdays public meeting, yesterdays testimony "did nothing to change his mind".

Just another example of why waste your time, when their minds are already made up. I understand those who feel the pols and bureaucrats should be left alone as they will make the right choices as to how to spend our money, will not change their minds, this is just one more example of what others have been saying all along. <<

The same could be said for a light rail supporter trying to convince Rob McKenna to change his mind. It's the wishy-washy ones who you want to direct your argument towards.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 10, 2001.


Mark writes:

>>It really did my heart good to see Sid Snyder, majority leader, lifetime politician, and party hack, whining about the initiative process in today's Tribune.<<

I can only presume that you are referring to the following quote, which I saw in yesterday's PI:

"Voters certainly sent a mixed message," said Sen. Majority Leader Sid Snyder, D-Vancouver. "There's going to be a lot of unfulfilled needs this year because we just don't have the money to meet the essentials."

http://seattlep-i.nwsource.com/local/legi092.shtml

>>These are the guys who consider themselves the elite, as his pathetic complaints about the voters interfering with the workings of government indicate.<<

Pointing out the fact that the voters sent a mixed message by approving increased spending and increased taxes while at the same time approving decreased taxes and decreased spending is hardly a "pathetic complaint." It's stating the obvious.

"Party hack" or no, do you specifically disagree with what Snyder said about mixed messages, or do you just not like him because he's a Democrat?

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 10, 2001.


I said Tribune, not PI.

In that paper he specifically whined about the initiative process in general, and how superior the regular legislative process was. Sounded pathetic.

I called him a party hack because that's what he is. Not just a Democrat, but a career politician. Used to live in Ilwaco 25 years ago and knew him then, always playing the angles. If he or any other long time politicos and bureaucrats don't like the new game of direct citizen involvement through the initiative process, they can get the hell out of MY state government!
Otherwise, they can just shut up and deal with it.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 10, 2001.

to BB: You write: "Pointing out the fact that the voters sent a mixed message by approving increased spending and increased taxes while at the same time approving decreased taxes and decreased spending is hardly a "pathetic complaint." It's stating the obvious."

Not true. For example, the voters made education a top priority. Yet, the state subsidizes passenger ferries by as much as 85% of the actual cost. The message from the voters is clear (except to you and the pols). The state should get out of the ferry business, allowing regional transit authorities to run them, instead. Then, the people on Vashon Island, Bainbridge Island, and in Kitsap County could decide how to fund the service via a mix of fares, sales taxes, special license tab fees (just like Sound Transit), and/or property taxes.

As for increased taxes, the people in King County probably perceive they're better off paying a modest increase in the sales taxes vs. huge license tab fees. And, obviously, the people in King County are, to some extent, satisfied with the type of bus system they currently have.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 11, 2001.



Mark:

>>I said Tribune, not PI.<<

I know that's what you said, but there was no article on the Trib's website with anywhere near the type of statements by Snyder which you described.

Just out of curiousity, do you disagree with the statement that a mixed message was sent by the passage of 728, 732, and 722?

Matt:

>>The message from the voters is clear (except to you and the pols). The state should get out of the ferry business, allowing regional transit authorities to run them, instead.<<

If you think that the message that was sent by approving an initiative giving cost of living increases to teachers is that the state should get out of the ferry business, it's no wonder that you get frustrated about the state not doing what you want them to do. The connection between the two issues is so tenuous that it (to me anyway) seems patently unreasonable for anybody to assume that an elected official could "get the message" that you think that they should be getting.

If you think that the state should get out of the ferry business, get an initiative on the ballot demanding that they do so.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 11, 2001.


to BB: You write: "If you think that the message that was sent by approving an initiative giving cost of living increases to teachers is that the state should get out of the ferry business, it's no wonder that you get frustrated about the state not doing what you want them to do. The connection between the two issues is so tenuous that it (to me anyway) seems patently unreasonable for anybody to assume that an elected official could "get the message" that you think that they should be getting."

I was just giving the ferries as an example of how the government COULD increase spending on education without raising STATE-WIDE taxes. I interpreted your statements to mean that the voters had sent contradictory messages. When, in fact, they did no such thing.

The state can get out of the ferry business. That will free up money. The state can end the war on drugs. That will free up money big time. The state can convert the HOV system to a fee-for-use system. That will generate some modest revenue.

The voters said increase spending on EDUCATION WITHOUT RAISING TAXES AND WITHOUT RAISING STATE-WIDE SPENDING LIMITS. What part of the message don't you understand?

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 12, 2001.


Matt:

>>I was just giving the ferries as an example of how the government COULD increase spending on education without raising STATE-WIDE taxes.<<

And to save money the state also COULD shut down the Washington State Patrol, or shut down every prison and release all the inmates contained inside, but neither of these things will ever happen. Just like the state getting out of the ferry business will never happen.

>>I interpreted your statements to mean that the voters had sent contradictory messages. When, in fact, they did no such thing.<<

Sure they did. 722 demanded lower taxes, and therefore lower spending, and 732 and 728 demanded more spending, and therefore higher taxes.

>>The state can get out of the ferry business. That will free up money. The state can end the war on drugs. That will free up money big time. The state can convert the HOV system to a fee-for-use system. That will generate some modest revenue.<<

Like I said above, the state COULD do a lot of things, but there's a difference between hypotheticals and reality.

>>The voters said increase spending on EDUCATION WITHOUT RAISING TAXES AND WITHOUT RAISING STATE-WIDE SPENDING LIMITS. What part of the message don't you understand?<<

There was nothing in 732 or 728 that mentioned raising taxes or the 601 spending limit. If that's the message that you think politicians should have gotten, it's not found anywhere in the text of 728 and 732.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), January 13, 2001.


to BB: You write: "Sure they did. 722 demanded lower taxes, and therefore lower spending, and 732 and 728 demanded more spending, and therefore higher taxes."

Once again, you're wrong. 732 and 728 demanded more spending on EDUCATION, not more spending overall. Hence, there is no need for higher taxes, if other programs are cut. Why can't you understand the concept?! The voters sent a message to make education a priority. A priority means education comes first. Other programs have to compete for what's left over.

You say I-722 called for lower taxes, and therefore lower spending. Yes, the state should eliminate programs which are of little value, or, which could be easily administered by regional, county, or municipal authorities. Alternatively, the state is free to generate revenue in a non-coercive manner. I've already given one example of generating revenue by converting the HOV system into a fee-for-use system. So, TOTAL spending amongst the state, regional, county, etc. entities will not necessarily decrease. Some state spending must be shifted to other governmental entities, and the affected voters would have the final say.

Don't forget, the voters voted for I-695, which gave the voters the right to approve ALL tax and fee increases. People aren't against higher taxes. They're against higher taxes without their approval.

You also write: "There was nothing in 732 or 728 that mentioned raising taxes or the 601 spending limit. If that's the message that you think politicians should have gotten, it's not found anywhere in the text of 728 and 732."

I was referring to the cumulative message of combining many of the recent tax and spending iniatives including 601 (limits to growth in state spending), 695 (voter approval of ALL tax and fee increases), etc.

The voters have made education a priority. Other initiatives limit overall spending and tax increases. Hence, the legislature must cut other programs. Since the ferry system can be easily foisted on the communities that need it, this is the most obvious item of significance to cut from the state budget.

So far, you've presented no evidence that the voters have sent contradictory messages. 601, 695, 722, 728 & 732 all mesh well with each other. It's time for the legislature to actually do their job, for once.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 14, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ