Hello all. Saw this one this morning, and just couldn't resist one more post. You all remember how zowie and mark enjoyed trying to rake me over the coals for saying that the federal government would be providing $500 million to Sound Transit. Oh how they giggled when an initial funding of about $30 million was provided. I tried to warn them that the $500 million was still coming, but they couldn't quite help themselves from laughing at my "phantom" money claims. Well boys, payback's a bitch.

From the News Tribune:

$500 million for light rail on way U.S. funds will help build south Seattle-to-University District link

Les Blumenthal; The News Tribune

WASHINGTON - The Clinton administration is expected soon to provide a major boost to Sound Transit's light-rail system when it twists open the federal money spigot and agrees to provide $500 million for the project.

The so-called full-funding agreement, which could come as early as this week, follows years of lobbying the White House, Transportation Department and Federal Transit Administration by Sound Transit officials and the Washington state congressional delegation.

"This is a huge one," King County Councilman Greg Nickels, vice chairman of Sound Transit's board, said as he made the rounds in Washington, D.C., last week to ensure there would be no last-minute glitches. "This will be the most important milestone since the public vote (approving Sound Transit and its financing program) in 1996."

Lawmakers agreed.

"It will be an important step forward and would show the federal government's commitment," said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Shoreline).

The federal government is expected to eventually provide about one-third of the financing for the $2.4 billion light-rail line that will stretch from Seattle's University District to SeaTac and also include a smaller spur in downtown Tacoma.

The first $500 million installment will be used to help pay for construction between Lander Street in south Seattle and the University District, which should open in 2006, said Nickels. Additional federal funding will be needed to extend the line south to SeaTac.

Originally, Sound Transit suggested it needed between $900 million and $1 billion in federal funding. But as problems with a new subway system in Los Angeles have multiplied, the Federal Transit Administration has capped each full-funding agreement at $500 million.

"It's known as the Los Angeles prism," said Tim Lovain, a lobbyist for Sound Transit, adding there are no limits on coming back and seeking additional money.

The federal funding agreement comes as Sound Transit is putting the finishing touches on a commuter rail line stretching from Tacoma to Everett that is scheduled to begin operation Sept. 18. Eventually the commuter rail will reach Lakewood.

The entire system - light rail, commuter rail and enhanced bus service - was designed to ease traffic congestion that clogs the commute in the Puget Sound corridor. With only one major north-south freeway, Interstate 5, connecting Everett and Tacoma through Seattle, the region's traffic headaches are among the worst in the nation.

Nickels and others who met with administration officials and congressional aides last week said that from every indication the administration was ready to issue the agreement.

"All the signals are good," said Bob White, Sound Transit's executive director.

The few lingering questions involved whether the regional transit authority had the "financial capacity" to complete the light-rail project, White said.

"It wasn't a showstopper and there are no remaining issues," he said.

So far, Congress has provided about $100 million for the commuter rail line, known as Sounder, and about $39 million for light rail, known as Link.

But Congress has been reluctant to provide more money for light rail until the full-funding agreement was negotiated.

"It will make it easier," said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Bremerton), a member of the House Appropriations Committee. "We aren't going to have to fight each year to get it."

Once the Federal Transit Administration accepts the agreement, Congress will have 60 days to review it. In the House, the Appropriations Committee and the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee will take a look. In the Senate, it will be the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Appropriations Committee. The banking committee has jurisdiction over mass transit programs.

A formal vote is not required.

Neither Dicks nor Murray expect any problems, though Congress sent two other recent agreements back to the transit authority for more work. A proposal involving a Dallas transit system was slowed over questions about local financing, and one for St. Louis turned back over questions about ridership projections.

"We have met with committee staff and so far there are no real questions," White said.

Murray and the state's other senator, Republican Slade Gorton, are members of the transportation subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, which divvies up mass transit funding.

Congress has about $1 billion to spend annually on mass transit projects, and the competition has always been fierce.

Seattle is competing with about a dozen projects in roughly similar stages of development, including ones in Baltimore, Chicago, Denver, Memphis, Minneapolis, New Jersey, Pittsburgh, Portland, Salt Lake City and Washington, D.C.

The total cost of Seattle's light rail makes it the most expensive up and coming mass transit project in the nation.

And just as such new starts as Sound Transit are coming to Congress, another dozen or so mass transit projects with full-funding agreements are starting to wind down, though they will still require federal dollars.

Despite the competition, Lovain said, Sound Transit would be in good shape when it came to annual congressional appropriations.

"We are optimistic because of support in the (state congressional) delegation and because it's a high-quality project," he said.

Voters in Pierce, King and Snohomish counties approved the $4 billion initiative that created Sound Transit in 1996. Plans call for a regional system to include light rail, Sounder commuter trains, express buses and other transportation improvements.

The bulk of the funding is coming from local taxes, including a 0.4 percent sales tax and a 0.3 percent vehicle license tax.

- - -

An alternate title to this post was "SCREW ZOWIE, BUILD SOUND TRANSIT!!"

Note that this funding would NOT be subject to I-745.

Finally, as Craig will probably note, this funding is not yet set in stone. But as the article states, the odds are quite good, and last time funding was requested from congress, they actually INCREASED funding.

See ya later boys.

P.S. I'm sure the server's hard drive wouldn't have filled up quite so fast had certain people not thought it cool to post the entire source code of articles instead of just the text...

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), July 17, 2000

Answers

"The total cost of Seattle's light rail makes it the most expensive up and coming mass transit project in the nation."

I should hope to tell you we don't settle for second rate!...Overall this article was a yawn....I got a chuckle at Bob's comment about no more issues....whew!

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

Let's see, Portland Max was initially 80% funded by the feds. Sound Transit expected the feds to pony up 40% of LINK and "suggested $900 to $1 Billion. They got a "promise" of $500 million over the lidetime of the $2 billion (and growing) project, and THAT not even in constant year dollars.

The pathetic thing is that Patrick actually acts like he's trumpeting victory, when the reality is that Sound Transit spokesmen are putting the best face possible on their disappointment.

Let's see now Patrick, where was that "second pot of money" you kept talking about. This is clearly from the "first" pot, which we know is really limited.

If you can cite the budget line number, do it now, because this constitutes a real disappointment to Sound Transit. They could use the cheering up!


-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

Nice try Mark. What part of "the Federal Transit Administration has capped each full-funding agreement at $500 million" didn't you understand? ST didn't get $1 billion because they can only ask for $500 million chuncks at a time.

But of course that doesn't hide the fact that you and zowie both were persistant in your claims that the $500 million now being awarded wouldn't ever exist. There's a very distinct pattern you've developed. I state that the federal government will award ST financial support, you deny this claim. When the money does get awarded, suddenly your tactics turn from "won't ever happen" to "yeah, but they didn't get all the money they wanted." This is like someone betting that a team won't win and then claiming victory when the team does win but doesn't beat the spread.

FACT: I said that the federal government would be providing ST with $500 million. Mark and zowie claimed I was living in a fantasy world for believing that. The reality is that I was right and despite Mark's whinning to the contrary, he was wrong. You can feel free to be a sore loser about this Mark, but that doesn't mask the fact that you are indeed a loser on the "will the federal government provide Sound Transit with $500 million" argument.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), July 18, 2000.

And for the record, yes, this is the second pot-o-money for the light rail line

"So far, Congress has provided about $100 million for the commuter rail line, known as Sounder, and about $39 million for light rail, known as Link."

First pot: $39 million Second pot: $500 million

And in case anyone thinks that's the end of federal funding:

"It will make it easier," said Rep. Norm Dicks (D-Bremerton), a member of the House Appropriations Committee. "We aren't going to have to fight each year to get it."

Finally, just how unhappy do you think Sound Transit is?

"The federal government is expected to eventually provide about one- third of the financing for the $2.4 billion light-rail line"

1/3 of $2.4 billion is about $800 million $539 million is 67% of the EVENTUALLY expected federal funding

Mark, feel free to go on the record again about the ability of Sound Transit to come through with additional federal funding. It only needs an additional $261 million to match expected funding levels, but your continued belief that they won't be able to do that seems to only accelerate them towards that goal.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), July 18, 2000.

"It only needs an additional $261 million to match expected funding levels, but your continued belief that they won't be able to do that seems to only accelerate them towards that goal" Count your dollars when you get them. You ain't got them yet. We'll see. Also, this is from the same budget line as my initial posting, not a "second pot of money" and not in hand yet either. On a related subject, I'm not a great advocate for transit, personally, but bureaucratic arrogance and stupidity bothers me at least as much.

Patrick, care to comment on this article? Tell me it can't happen here!

Dead Snake Shuts Down Rapid 
Transit Project 
The Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - A dead snake halted construction for nine days 
on part of a $1.5 billion project to extend trains to the city's 
airport. 
The discovery of the foot-long San Francisco garter snake, apparently 
crushed by heavy equipment, showed that the area was habitat for the 
endangered species. 
Federal officials ordered the shutdown on the Bay Area Rapid Transit 
extension, in part to prod the contractor to devise means of spotting 
and protecting other snake habitat along the route. 
"I think the contractor got the word that the project can be shut 
down," said Sheila Larsen of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
"They are fully aware of the delays that can occur." 
The shutdown cost "on the order of six figures," said BART spokesman 
Dave Madden. 
The extension to the San Francisco airport is supposed to be 
completed by New Year's Eve 2001, although Madden said that is "an 
ambitious goal" because of delays caused by weather and other 
problems. 

Garter snake

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 18, 2000.

What am I supposed to comment on? Same thing could and has happened for road projects. The proposed Cross-Base Highway in Pierce County would have to deal with endangered squirrels, for example. You're attempting to slap a universal contruction issue onto a transit issue. Feel free, but there are probably ten environmental road construction delays that I can bring up for every one of your transit examples.

But back on the subject at hand (just a slightly non-transparent attempt at a change of subject there Mark), I'm just pointing out your track record for predicting that I won't be able to count ANY money has been nothing short of a gigantic failure.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), July 19, 2000.

Talk about strawmen!

Let's go back to the original thread and see what you claimed versus the reality. The claim:

"Sound Transit's 21-mile system would connect SeaTac to Northgate with a combination of surface and underground rail lines. It would cost $1.5 billion. Local governments are hoping to get an agreement with the federal government by August for $500 million to finance part of the rail system. " And there is the ADDITIONAL $500 million that Sound Transit is attempting to get by making the deadline this week. Thanks for playing boys. "

The Reality: This turkey is well over $2.4 billion (and getting worse), and this will carry it only from the U-Dub to Sea-Tac. Sound Transit was asking for between $900 million and $1 billion and got a very equivocal promise of a maximum* of $500 million over the next ten years, subject to Congress appropriating as much as DOT requests to this account, and subject to no one of higher priority going over budget on their project .

Patrick being Patrick, now takes an outcome that is only missing a minimum of a half billion federal dollars, a Northgate to U-DUB segment, and an having an increase in local costs of $900 million from his prediction, starts a new thread, and claims victory in his usual haughty but ignorant style.

Patrick, if you are going to be an idiot, don't be such a transparent idiot. Reading your postings is like watching old I LOVE LUCY reruns. You feel embarassed to be a member of the same race. Except in her case, she was a smart person who was making big money to play the fool. In your case, you're not making any money playing the fool.
Come to think of it, you're also not playing the fool. It's apparently the reality.
*(But as problems with a new subway system in Los Angeles have multiplied, the Federal Transit Administration has capped each full-funding agreement at $500 million. )


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 19, 2000.

Whatssamatta Patrick? Decide to stop "playing"?

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

Mark,

The "Big Dig" in Boston is improving a 7 mile corridor and is running $12+ billion. It is adding roadway capacity as well as re-routing transit lines. Is that the sort of solution that you would like to see? Should we blindly spend funds on roadways, just because of the DEMOGRAPHICS?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), July 21, 2000.

First, I note that I shut you up rather quickly on that entire dead snake thing you though would be a slam against transit.

Second, I don't intend to start "playing" again. I'm only here on this one thread, and watching it to see how much you have to back pedal. I don't know about you, but I work for a living. So you'll just have to deal with the fact that when it comes to choosing between my work and responding to your increasingly desperate rebuttles, I'm just gonna have to go with the work.

Third, to address your previous point (and here's where that desperate thing comes in), by taking a quote out of context, you're only compounding the hole you first dug by claiming the $500 million wouldn't exist, then claiming victory when it was ONLY $500 million, then trying to change the subject.

I noted the "ADDITIONAL" $500 million because at the time Mark and zowie were making light of the fact that the Federal government had just awarded ST a substantially smaller funding amount than the $500 million I had predicted. My claims that the smaller funding award and the 1/2 billion dollar award were two different things was met with a great deal of ridicule and denial. I'm still quite amazed that Mark thinks he's somehow pulling a victory out of this. He clearly thought that the $500 million would not be awarded, but apparently the fact that it's ONLY $500 million should make up for the fact that what he said would happen and what REALLY happened are completely opposite of each other.

But the really sad thing is that apparently Mark seems to think that all he has to do is bite this one bullet because he's under the impression that the so called "Los Angeles prism" cuts ST off at this funding level for the next ten years. Thus, seeing as ST is still several hundred million dollars away from its hoped for federal funding level, he feels comfortable laying the smack down safe in the knowledge that it will be ten years before ST can go back for more.

Once again, Mark's dreams and reality are two different things. Had he paid closer attention, he would have noticed a few quotes like "The first $500 million installment", "there are no limits on coming back and seeking additional money." and "Sound Transit would be in good shape when it came to annual congressional appropriations." This is the second of what promises to be many federal funding appropriations over the next few years. And as I mentioned before, after only two attempts, ST is well over halfway to their federal funding goal. What I keep trying to tell Mark, and what he either keeps forgetting or trying to stay in denial over, is that A)ST's federal funding goal is a CUMULATIVE goal that isn't expected to be filled in one appropriation, and B) don't expect each newly announced funding to be the last one for a very long time.

You might as well accept the fact, Mark, that the Federal government is planning on providing ST with a SIZABLE chunk of money for a number of years. You can feel free to continue to use the tired excuse of "it's ONLY $39 million" or "ONLY $500 million," but the simple fact of the matter is that it is ONLY quickly providing ST with a large portion of the funding to build the light rail line, and sooner or later that "only X amount of money" is going to be the amount that completes the funding.

Oh, and those comments about how the cost of building the system keep going up? The same thing always applies to road building too. So just like how you thought the dead snake thing would be an exclusive blow to transit, cost overruns can and do pound the road construction projects you covet. And as I stated before, for every example you can provide about a transit overrun, I can counter with 10 examples of road construction overruns, so you best leave that sleeping dog alone.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), July 21, 2000.

The "Big Dig" in Boston is improving a 7 mile corridor and is running $12+ billion. It is adding roadway capacity as well as re-routing transit lines. Is that the sort of solution that you would like to see? Should we blindly spend funds on roadways, just because of the DEMOGRAPHICS?

Gee questioning, much as I'd like to discuss this topic, this is a Sound Transit thread, and old Patrick gets real bent out of shape if you try to change the subject ;->

Mark

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 21, 2000.

Patrick- You were skewered on your own quote. All the revisionist history in the world isn't going to help. The other threads are still posted, and everyone can go back and see just exactly what you posted and exactly what has changed in your statements.

All the "chaff and flares" (as Craig used to say)in the world isn't going to help. The quote is yours, and you know it, and it fairly states the claims you were making.



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 21, 2000.

Yes, people should feel free to review the thread, since it does show that you were quite certain that the $500 million wouldn't exist, and I've already explained how your tactics of chaff and flares has been deployed to try to cover up that error.

But for my part, I have acknowledged the cost increase. Does this doom, or even cast a serious cloud on the project? Absolutely not. In fact, as perhaps Mark may realize, the establishment of the full funding agreement signals the federal government's commitment to helping fund this project through completion. Costs have risen, and will almost certainly continue to do so (like is very common with road construction projects), but there can be very little concern now that this project will be canceled due to a lack of funding.

And I don't really care if people try to change the subject (actually I think Questioning was responding to something you already said). I'll just point out such attempts at what they are (see chaff and flare comment above). Besides that, it was fairly easy to nip your attempts in the bud, so you can feel free to continue if you'd like. I just thought I'd try to keep it more sporting.

In any event, I'm sensing that the original subject has been talked over enough for everyone reading to draw their own conclusions. If there isn't anything more of substance to discuss, I'll take my leave.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), July 22, 2000.

Good idea, Patrick. Cut and run, now that your arrogant and ignorant assertion that there was "a second pot of money" has been shown for the misinformation it is.

As for the promised $500 million, the years to come will tell about that.

If I had to make a gues, I'd predict that the feds will certainly try to give Unsound Transit enough to get their first minimum operating segment up and running, and then depend on the local saying "we can't waste all the money we've already spent," to try to suck more local funding out of the state and the RTA area. Sure be nice if 745 passes.

If it does (or even comes close), my guess is that the politicians will cave, and not approve any additional money, just as they caved on the MVET as soon as the writing was on the wall.

I guess the only thing of substance left to discuss, is to debate what revisionist history old Patrick will come up with next time.

Thanks for playing Patty me lad!.

If you decide you want to make even more of a fool of yourself, come on back dometime. You're always good for a laugh.



-- (mark842@hotmail.com), July 23, 2000.

One last time:

First pot of money: $39 million awarded this Spring Second pot of money: $500 million award pending

What part of this don't you understand? Simply repeating over and over again that I somehow didn't say this would happen will only fool someone that can't count to 2.

Fact: There has been one federal funding grant for the Link system already granted and one that is about to be awarded.

Fact: When the first grant was awarded, I stated that a second grant of $500 million would be forthcoming.

At no point in this thread have you been able to provide a shred of evidence that contradicts the above two facts. Instead you have provided a mountain of evidence to show that you're incapable of either admitting that I was right and you were wrong or at the very least just quietly accepting it. You've also proved without a shadow of a doubt that you're completely incompetent at working damage control.

I started this thread just to get a quick jab at you and zowie. But putting your idiotic arrogance on parade this last week has been pure gravy. The only thing that would have made this better would have been if zowie would have tried to jump in to bail you out. But I guess he's smarter than you are (note that if you were beating me up so badly, why didn't anyone else decide to get their licks in?) Oh well, it was tons of fun anyway.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), July 25, 2000.

Let's see, Patrick first says this:

"Sound Transit's 21-mile system would connect SeaTac to Northgate 
with a combination of surface and underground rail lines. It would 
cost $1.5 billion. Local governments are hoping to get an agreement 
with the federal government by August for $500 million to finance 
part of the rail system. " And there is the ADDITIONAL $500 million 
that Sound Transit is attempting to get by making the deadline this 
week. Thanks for playing boys. "

He now says this:

First pot of money: $39 million awarded this Spring Second pot 
of money: $500 million award pending 

What part of this don't you understand? Simply repeating over and 
over again that I somehow didn't say this would happen will only fool 
someone that can't count to 2. 

Fact: There has been one federal funding grant for the Link system 
already granted and one that is about to be awarded. 

Fact: When the first grant was awarded, I stated that a second grant 
of $500 million would be forthcoming

I repeated posted the 2001 DOT budget, and he repeatedly said there was a second pot of money out there that would provide a second $500 million.

Any way you look at it, he's a half billion shy, and that's assuming that the $500 million really shows up. Also, where's the UW to Northgate money he was talking about.

So what's the deal, Patty boy, did you mis-speak then, or are you mis-speaking now???
Or are you just too confused to know what you mean??

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), July 27, 2000.

Gee Patrick- Seems like my concerns about Sound Transit are becoming more general while your reassurances that all's well are looking farther and farther off the mark.

Tuesday, September 19, 2000, 10:11 
p.m. Pacific 

O. Casey Corr / Times staff columnist
Are the wheels coming off Sound Transit's light rail?


by O. Casey Corr
Seattle Times editorial columnist
 
The biggest question facing this region did not appear on yesterday's 
ballot. 

What to do about Sound Transit? 

It's increasingly obvious that voters may not get what they approved 
in 1996: a three-county system that includes a light-rail line 
between Sea-Tac and the University District - or Northgate, if more 
money were found. 

Sound Transit's costs have risen by $500 million before a shovel of 
dirt is turned.Costs only begin to describe the problem. We're fast 
approaching the point where Seattle's rail system could pose a threat 
to accounts dedicated for transit service on the Eastside. 

Sound Transit was formed on the promise that problems in one 
community would not create a drain on funds for another. But if the 
overall system gets in trouble in Seattle, all accounts will be used 
to repay bond debt, says a new federal report. 

Supporters will argue that that light rail is worth 12 new freeway 
lanes. But that number vastly overstates what Sound Transit could do 
and vastly understates what a freeway does. 

And as for the argument that we're building the first piece of a 
"system," something that starts dumb (low ridership, high costs, zero 
effect on congestion) stays dumb, especially when the money could go 
to better uses. 

Two weeks ago, the citizens group that oversees Sound Transit's 
performance looked at the agency's expanding commitments and 
concluded: "Sound Transit is approaching the limits of its financing 
capability." Or, in blunt terms: "There simply is no more money." 

A recent federal report said Sound Transit did have enough money, but 
based that opinion on a "stress test" that projected no more than a 
10 percent increase in costs over contingencies - an analysis so kind 
and gentle, it should be listed in this debate as a charitable 
donation. 

Sound Transit has disarmed some critics by holding out hope for 
Northgate in phase one, if another $350 million to $500 million could 
be found. But the big bucks aren't coming. The Legislature said no. 
The King County Council recently rejected a sales tax proposal for 
that purpose. 

Northgate, it's now clear, has been a distraction from Sound 
Transit's more-pressing problem: whether it can build the limited 
system without a bailout. 

The agency won't yet reveal bids for a tunnel from Capitol Hill to 
the U District, but close observers predict the overrun will be 
measured in hundreds of millions of dollars. Then what? 

Mayor Paul Schell, King County Executive Ron Sims and others last 
week tried to keep the Downtown Seattle Association from turning from 
skeptic (so long as Northgate is possible) to outright opponent. That 
would end the happy face we collectively present to the feds. The DSA 
may do something this week. 

An unusual coalition of neighborhood activists, downtowners, 
environmentalists, Republicans and Democrats, former Gov. Booth 
Gardner and a former Metro Transit director recently has called for 
an independent audit of the agency. 

Matt Griffin, a popular figure in the business community who helped 
develop the block around the downtown Nordstrom, takes the bus daily 
and voted for the '96 ballot measure. He worries that the city is 
about to spend five years and billions of dollars on a project that 
leaves downtown traffic worse than before. 

What keeps Sound Transit going, he says, is a perception that no 
alternative exists. But that's where Chuck Collins comes in. 

Collins is a credible person who knows transit. He's a former deputy 
in King County Executive John Spellman's administration, head of 
Metro Transit, member of the Northwest Power Planning Council, head 
of the state's Higher Education Coordinating Board and a friend of 
Gov. Gary Locke. 

Collins says many of the agency's ridership forecasts and technical 
statements are questionable, but even if you accept them, an 
alternative could carry more riders, ease congestion and use less 
money - without tunneling. Next month, he will unveil a detailed 
proposal whose principal features are free service, more buses, more 
aggressive use of HOV lanes - and no tunneling. 

Re-thinking Sound Transit could create the perception that elected 
officials were again ignoring the will of the people, as they did by 
building the baseball stadium and by monkeying around with the 
monorail initiative. So voters would have to agree that the '96 deal 
has significantly changed and a different strategy was needed. 

Sound Transit's cash account, $732 million, is a honey pot for 
powerful economic interests who don't want fresh thinking and who 
would be the last to fear runaway spending. 

Los Angeles and Boston know from recent experience how transit 
tunnels can burn money. We'd be fools to assume it can't happen here. 



Copyright ) 2000 The Seattle Times Company 

 

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 21, 2000.

to Mark: I believe Chuck Collins was the same guy who was recently on the Dori Monson show on KIRO radio. He was advocating free bus rides instead of rail, at an enormous cost, as a means of mitigating congestion. I'm surprised you haven't posted any articles at the disappointing response to the new Sounder train. Apparently, there just aren't that many people from Sumner who work in Seattle.

I sent Dori an e-mail, pointing out that Collins' proposal would gut the existing vanpool program, which annually costs the taxpayer probably less than ten million dollars and removes up to 10,000 cars off the road. Collins, then, is a moron. He is essentially proposing replacing a program costing less than ten million dollars with one costing over a HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS!!!

If we really want to manage congestion, we need to privatize mass transit, starting with an annual fee (a fee based on the weight, age, and fuel type of the vehicle) for the right to use the HOV lanes.

By the way, I'm happy to see the European public has joined MY bandwagon, calling for a repeal of fuel taxes. I didn't realize I had such a significant influence on the rest of the world. Who knew?!!

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 22, 2000.

"I'm surprised you haven't posted any articles at the disappointing response to the new Sounder train. "

Given that most of the stations for it aren't even open, I thought the response was about what I would have expected, although I'd expect a number of people to ride the initial ride who'd never think of commuting on it. But be that as it may, the problem with Sounder is that if they can fill the whole thing for every trip it will still represent a TRIVIAL percentage of the commute traffic, with both the capital costs and the continuing subsidy being HUGE on a per passenger basis. I haven't cranked the numbers, but it wouldn't surprise me if we could do as well giving people free helicopter rides to commute to work. And the total volume is never going anywhere, because the total number of trips are limited by Burlington Northern, the speed is limited to 79mph, and you can only load and unload people so fast (unless you want to lengthen the stations.

So what you wind up with is an "alternative" that is no faster than driving, costs a LOT more, and that can never make a significant difference in volume.


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 2000.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...............

Thursday, September 21, 2000, 09:05 p.m. Pacific 

$1.8 million to be spent on cutting cost on tunnel


by Andrew Garber
Seattle Times staff reporter
A company negotiating with Sound Transit to dig a light-rail tunnel 
will be paid $1.8 million to figure out a cheaper way to do the job. 

The Sound Transit finance committee yesterday approved paying Modern 
Transit Constructors to explore less-expensive ways to dig the 4 1/2 
miles of tunnel from downtown Seattle to the University District. 

Modern Transit was picked last month as the finalist to dig the 
tunnel. Sound Transit said the contractor's initial estimate for the 
project was higher than expected, but details have not been provided. 
The agency had budgeted $557 million for the tunnel. 

"The initial cost proposal came in significantly over what our 
adopted budget is," said Bob White, Sound Transit's executive 
director. "To bring it in line, we have to look at alternative 
designs." 

One option, he said, is for Modern Transit to dig one big tunnel 
instead of two smaller side-by-side tunnels, as was proposed. 

Such a change could save money because it's cheaper to drill one 
tunnel and hollow out underground stations, White said. "(But) if you 
run into a problem (with the drill), you stop tunnel progress 
entirely." 

The tunnel is part of a 21-mile, $2.5 billion, light-rail system 
stretching from SeaTac to the U District. 

"By doing this work at this point in time, we will save taxpayers 
tens of millions of dollars," White said. 

King County Councilman Rob McKenna, who is also a member of the Sound 
Transit board, said the move shows how the agency is scrambling to 
get the cost of the tunnel down. 

McKenna is part of a coalition that says Sound Transit is several 
hundred million dollars over budget and has called for an independent 
audit of the agency. 

Despite his overall concern for the budget, McKenna said he agreed 
with the decision to have Modern Transit look at alternatives. 

White said he expects Modern Transit to complete its analysis in four 
to six weeks. He stressed that Sound Transit intends to stay true to 
what was promised to the public in terms of how the system will 
function. 

"The things we're not looking at (are) things that would change the 
nature of the project, like reducing stations," he said. 

White said that if negotiations with Modern Transit fail, Sound 
Transit would keep the information on alternatives for the tunnel 
design. 

Andrew Garber's phone message number is 206-464-2595. 

Now this is what the program managers call trading money for technical risk. It's a high risk strategy you use when there's no reasonable way to expect that you can do it the way you originally intended, with the money you have.
I notice they are real open, up front, and forthcoming, informing the public about the magnitude of their budget problem..........NOT!


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 22, 2000.

Aren't those the same guys that went WAAAAAYY over budget on the Big Dig in Boston? Asking them for money saving ideas sounds kind of like asking the Titanic captain if he knows an iceberg free route through the North Atlantic.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), September 22, 2000.

Outside experts question Sound Transit tunnel proposal, but 
Nickels defends agency 

Thursday, October 5, 2000

By CHRIS McGANN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER 




It's widely known among contractors that the bids for Sound Transit's 
light-rail tunnel came in at about $800 million and $900 million, 
respectively -- the low bid at least $240 million more than the 
agency budgeted for the project -- an industry expert told elected 
officials last night.

Hugh Cronin, a civil engineer and tunnel contractor who has built 
subways in cities nationwide, said Seattle's project is the hot topic 
in the relatively close-knit group of specialty tunnel contractors.

"At least 100 other people across the country know what these bids 
are," Cronin said after the meeting.

Sound Transit officials for months have said the bids came in higher 
than expected, but have declined to say by how much. They have said 
public disclosure would compromise their ability to negotiate the 
best deal.

Cronin and three other transit experts spoke at a panel discussion 
held by seven city, county and suburban elected officials who are 
critical of Sound Transit's light-rail project.

Central to their criticism is the 4.5-mile tunnel under Capitol Hill 
and Portage Bay, which they say could drive costs too high and 
exhaust limited transit money.

King County Councilman Greg Nickels, a Sound Transit vice chairman 
and the only agency member who spoke at the meeting, called the forum 
a "put-up job" held by "people who want to kill transit." 

He accused the panelists of being highway lobbyists in disguise. 
"This is part of a pretty brutal assault on transit in this state," 
Nickels said.

As someone who makes his living building tunnels, Cronin took 
exception to the allegation.

"I'm not against mass transit. Rail transit is the most efficient way 
to move large numbers of people. Subways in New York, Washington, 
D.C., Boston and San Francisco have extensive rail systems, and they 
are expanding them," Cronin said. "Every major city in the world has 
a subway system."

Cronin said the problem in Seattle is that the agency that taxpayers 
have entrusted to build the system came up with a much different 
estimate from contractors who independently arrived at surprisingly 
similar bids.

"Why should an agency that's being funded by taxpayers withhold that 
information?" Cronin asked.

The other experts cast doubts about the agency's accounting methods, 
ridership projections and cost-to-benefit analysis.

Tom Rubin, former financial officer of the Los Angeles Metropolitan 
Transit Authority, said the 22 federally funded rail projects 
approved since 1990 have overrun projected costs by an average 33.5 
percent. Sound Transit budgeted a 10 percent cost overrun contingency 
for its light-rail tunnel. Rubin also said the average national 
ridership fell short of projections by 17.8 percent.

Councilwoman Maggi Fimia said Sound Transit's attacks on Rubin and 
the other critics were the agency's way of shifting attention from 
the concerns back to the critics. "It's typical of this region, when 
a project is questioned, the question is never answered, but the 
questioner is attacked for being against motherhood and apple pie," 
Fimia said.

"It's unfortunate for them to take such a defensive position and do 
everything but answer our questions."

The group organizing the event wants assurances that the agency has 
enough money to complete the project within budget without damaging 
the existing systems or the ability to deliver service.

The big question is the agency's ability to build a tunnel under 
Capitol Hill and Portage Bay within the $557 million budget.

The tunnel is the most expensive part of the 24-mile line.

Although the agency has received bids from two contractors to design 
and build the tunnel, details of their plans as well as the cost 
estimates have been kept secret during the negotiations.

Agency spokesman Denny Fleenor said in an interview yesterday that 
it's not a matter of whether Sound Transit will make the information 
public, "it's when we will."



----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
P-I reporter Chris McGann can be reached at 206-448-8169 or 
chrismcgann@seattle-pi.com

Gee Patrick- doesn't look all that rosey, does it?

By the way, you ever found that "second pot of money"? Looks like it may be BADLY needed.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), October 05, 2000.