Anybody read the USDOT interim report on Sound Transit?

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

Told you Link was a debacle!

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 05, 2001

Answers

No federal money for light rail This year's share to be held back, pending fixes

Thursday, April 5, 2001

By CHRIS McGANN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER

The federal budget this year will not include a vital $75 million grant for Sound Transit's light-rail project, top transportation officials said yesterday, striking a potentially fatal blow to the faltering project.

A preliminary U.S. Department of Transportation inspector general's report issued yesterday said many serious issues surrounding Sound Transit's proposed light-rail system should have been addressed before the federal government agreed to contribute $500 million over several years to the project.

It recommended that funding be suspended until the Federal Transit Administration resolves those issues and Congress reviews the revised rail project. Sound Transit hoped to get $75 million this year.

The critical report was requested by Rep. Hal Rogers, R-KY, chairman of the House subcommittee that controls appropriations for transportation projects. At a recent hearing on two "problem projects" that focused mainly on Sound Transit, Rogers said the inspector general's finding would weigh heavily on his committee's decision to pay for the project.

In a prepared statement yesterday, Rogers stepped up the attack, saying it's "prudent" to hold up the money.

"This report finds that both the Federal Transit Administration and Sound Transit failed in providing due diligence to this project -- a basic responsibility expected by those who pay federal, state and local taxes," Rogers said. "It's clear that the full funding grant agreement itself was indeed premature, with numerous, basic questions about the project left unanswered."

President Bush's transportation secretary, Norm Mineta, briefed Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., on the report yesterday.

"The Bush budget will not have (Sound Transit) funding for 2001. That money will be suspended until Sound Transit has developed an improved project that satisfies everyone's concerns," said Murray spokesman Todd Webster.



-- (craigcar@crosswinds.com), April 05, 2001.

Gee... where's patrick when we need him?

-- Westin (Jimwestin@netscape.net), April 07, 2001.

My guess is he suicided when the Feds pulled the plug on the money, if he hadn't already left the US when Bush was elected.

;-)

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 07, 2001.

Craig,

I'm not ready to celebrate it's demise yet, but from my point of view this is certainly a step in the right direction. With the politician's and bureaucrat's addiction to throwing our tax dollars away, anything is still possible. Hopefully some of the board members will show a little common sense.

Here's something we can argue about with our big spending friends, lets say the whole Link, Sound Transit, RTA program, our whatever you want to call it, is canceled, what do you think will happen to the RTA excise tax we now pay in our vehicle license renewal fees?

And on a different subject, did you see where they closed the remaining loopholes on the $30 excise tax law? I guess some of the pols are paying attention.

Wayne A.

-- Wayne A. (wga1943@yahoo.com), April 07, 2001.


"Here's something we can argue about with our big spending friends, lets say the whole Link, Sound Transit, RTA program, our whatever you want to call it, is canceled, what do you think will happen to the RTA excise tax we now pay in our vehicle license renewal fees? "

I notice we are still paying the telephone bill surcharge that was put in place to pay the costs of the Spanish-American War.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 09, 2001.


"Westin" writes:

>>Gee... where's patrick when we need him?<<

Maybe he was busy getting fired from his job as Executive Director of the Washington State Republican Party after running it into the ground. Oops, my mistake, that was you, Kelly.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), April 12, 2001.


BB- Rather than just trying to badmouth Westin, do you have an opinion on the topic of this thread?

Editorials & Opinion : Wednesday, April 11, 2001 Guest columnist Sound Transit Board: It's time to do your job By Booth Gardner Special to The Times After the overwhelmingly negative wave of recent events, you would think a board that calls itself "Sound" would stop shelling out our money to move forward on such a monumental undertaking as a $4.2 billion light-rail plan. You would think they would call a timeout not just to patch up the holes that have been revealed, but a timeout to actually rethink whether this flawed vessel, light rail, is going to get us to the vital goal of reducing traffic congestion in central Puget Sound. Yet, in response to the damaging report issued last week by the U.S. Inspector General's Office, a report questioning the light-rail project so strongly that the Federal Transit Agency has suspended its contributions, all we get here at home is more patch-up. The interim head of Sound Transit, Joni Earl, sent a memo to elected officials and civic leaders that, while acknowledging valid questions were raised by the report, goes on to ask for continued support as Sound Transit "move(s) forward with light rail." My response is this: Is there any event or combination of facts, any misgivings about costs, funding, ridership, or concerns over the inspector general's criticisms, anything at all that would finally cause the Sound Transit Board to ask, "Is proceeding with light rail still a good idea?" It seems no issue exists that's significant enough to prompt the board's serious review of alternative solutions. Not the same project Folks, this light rail isn't even the same light rail you voted for years back. While it still runs north and south, several stations have been cut, projected disruptions to neighborhoods are now greater than originally advertised, and costs have escalated dramatically to 80 percent over budget. The construction schedule has been stretched by 30 percent; prospects of extending beyond 45th Street to Northgate before 2020 have vanished and the planned debt has mushroomed beyond $2 billion. Sound Transit has steadily shifted financial resources from "Airport Link" to "University Link," making the prospect of reaching the airport highly unlikely. What Sound Transit clings to is one short segment that has become the nation's most expensive light-rail project. And now, the U.S. inspector general has weighed in with all the impact of an elephant doing a cannonball into a backyard pool. The inspector general's report so questions the performance of Sound Transit with regard to light rail that they've recommended $125 million in federal funding be withheld. Sound Transit has the funds to hire sound management, yet is criticized by the feds for failure to do due diligence on its initial grant application and repeated sloppiness since. In its young life as an agency, it is already on its second director and a second light- rail project manager. They have had a front-office exodus, in- fighting among the various divisions, and a public-relations staff resigning in frustration. If you had a second chance, would you buy into Sound Transit as it is currently being managed? Surely, if we've learned nothing else from the market's current downturn, we've learned to be more cautious about how we invest our money. We've learned not to put all our resources, as Seattle has, into a single, risky investment. Where are the leaders? So where are the elected officials serving on the Sound Transit board and supposedly protecting our interests? Most of the Sound Transit board members are not to be blamed for being caught off guard. Elected officials have a wide range of responsibilities and tremendous demands on their time. They do not traffic in details. As long as everything is quiet, their attention is needed elsewhere. The board trusted the staff and the staff dug a hole of misinformation and left them in it. No one holds them responsible for all the trouble in which Sound Transit finds itself. The board's irresponsibility is found in the decision to remain silent despite their growing awareness of that misinformation, including possession of significant evidence that light rail may not be a cost-effective transit alternative. Civic groups, critics, and other elected officials are calling ever more loudly for a complete review of the project, including available alternatives that would better address traffic congestion at lower costs. Yet, most Sound Transit board members resolutely keep their heads buried in the sand, allowing staff to go forward with the light- rail plan without any such fundamental re-examination and limiting the Royer project-review committee to an evaluation of "project scope, cost and schedule." While we acknowledge that most board members were misled, there are two who should have been alert to Sound Transit's internal problems and the lack of candor amongst its staff. The board chair, Dave Earling, is an active, strong and articulate defender of light rail. But the question persists - why wasn't he aware of the rot inside the organization and, if he was, why did he remain silent? And Finance Chair Greg Nickels must have been briefed as well. If so, why didn't he bring the problems, particularly the glaring cost overruns, to light? There are some exceptions to these failings. King County Councilman Rob McKenna has been a steady and lucid critic of the light-rail plan's costs and benefits. One board member from Tacoma, City Councilman Kevin Phelps, has joined with those who call for a complete review of other transit solutions. Seattle Mayor Paul Schell has proposed an alternative approach, after concluding that a lot could be done without that federal grant money which now accounts for just 19 percent of University Link's cost. In short, there are board members who know that we must change direction. They are calling for a comprehensive look at alternatives, sensible use of the people's money, and a concerted effort to effectively address our area's transportation problems. Do we ask the board to resign? No. It would suffice if they would just do their job. Booth Gardner ended two terms as Washington's governor in 1992. He is also a former state senator and Pierce County executive and served as U.S. ambassador and trade delegate to GATT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the forerunner to the World Trade Organization.


-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), April 12, 2001.

Here's a link to the IG report

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), April 12, 2001.

from the editorial "The critical report was requested by Rep. Hal Rogers, R-KY, chairman of the House subcommittee that controls appropriations for transportation projects. At a recent hearing on two "problem projects" that focused mainly on Sound Transit, Rogers said the inspector general's finding would weigh heavily on his committee's decision to pay for the project.

In a prepared statement yesterday, Rogers stepped up the attack, saying it's "prudent" to hold up the money. "

I'm glad Representative Rogers is looking out for us in the Puget Sound area. I'm sure he doesn't want to see good federal money wasted on transit in the Northwest. Not with downtown Louisville planning for light rail, and Cincinatti planning a downtown to the airport light rail link, oh, and we can't forget the Amtrak Kentucky Cardinal route.

I'll be waiting for the refund on the taxes we won't use.

Yessssireee, we sure are clever, aren't we?

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), April 18, 2001.


A few counter-points, Jim:

1. The IG report was NOT written by the good Representative, it was written by the DOT IG. These are the people that the US DOT has put in charge of conducting audits of their own programs. If you have evidence that they are not providing appropriate oversight, please feel free to present it.

2. LOTS of people are trying to get federal money to build light rail (and everything else). The issue here is "bang for the buck." Can you cite one program with anticipated costs of over $200 million per mile, excepting Sound Transit? Can you cite one with higher capital cost per projected new rider than Sound Transit? Can you cite one with higher capital cost per projected rider than Sound Transit? Can you cite one project that, after five years, has yet to turn the first shovel of dirt, and is already three years behind schedule and nearing $2 billion over budget? And this is while it's still in the paperwork stage, the REAL technical risk comes when the construction actually starts (if ever). Boston's "big dig," by comparison, didn't start to REALLY see the over-runs and schedule delays until AFTER construction started.


While I may be as cynical as the next about politicians, making allegations that this is all somehow the Representative trying to feather his own political nest, in this case, is like having your football team drubbed 70-0 and saying it wasn't fair because with two minutes left in the fourth quarter the referee let extra time run off the clock. At that point, it's more an act of charity than one of partisanship.

-- Craig Carson (craigcar@crosswinds.net), April 19, 2001.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ