From the King County home page Metro

Aug. 30, 2000 
County and city officials ask Sound Transit for financial data

Councilmembers from King County, Seattle and suburban cities are taking the lead in asking for the financial details on the tunneling work for the new rail system being built by Sound Transit.

"The construction of the Link light rail line will be among the most complex and costly public works projects in the history of our state," said County Councilmember Maggi Fimia, chair of the Regional Transit Committee. "The public and its elected officials have an abiding interest in projects of this nature and can only make informed decisions about them if they possess complete and accurate information."

Bids for the project were recently opened, but the information has not been made public because Sound Transit is in negotiations to award the bid. Fimia said it appears that the low bid is over what Sound Transit has budgeted. That worries the county and cities, because Sound Transit will have to assume more financial risk, reduce project size, or go after other money earmarked for traditional transit.

A letter was sent to Dave Earling and Bob White, the chairman and executive director, of Sound Transit on Monday asking for all bid and proposal documents submitted to the agency by Modern Transit Constructors and Puget Link Construction. The letter was signed by: Fimia; county councilmembers Rob McKenna, David Irons and Kent Pullen; Seattle city councilmembers Nick Licata and Peter Steinbrueck; Normandy Park City Councilmember Guy Spencer; and Sammamish City Councilmember Don Gerend.

"This is about open government and the peoples right to know," said Pullen.

Licata, of the Seattle City Council, said there are too many unanswered questions right now.

"We must have an affordable and effective transit system," said Licata. "Given the projected huge cost overruns and the drop in ridership its time to ask ourselves, Is that what we are getting with Sound Transit's Link light rail system? We need to look at their books and answer that question. Otherwise, we could be spending billions digging holes instead of alleviating the traffic congestion that is choking our city."

Concerned about rumored cost overruns, the elected officials are asking Sound Transit to abide by the common practice of other transit agencies in the region.

"Metro Transit has long had the policy of disclosing information regarding bids and proposals once a final staff decision has been taken," said McKenna, one of the county councilmembers on the Sound Transit Board. "Given that Modern Transit Constructors has been designated the contractor-elect, we are asking Sound Transit to act in that tradition, and release the request-for-proposal, and all bid and proposal documents related to Link light rail tunneling as soon as practically feasible."

Suburban city councilmembers are concerned that Sound Transits soaring costs could diminish the funding for the regular bus transit that the region is so dependent upon.

"Colossal projects risking billions of tax dollars must be open to public scrutiny," said Sammamishs Gerend. "Large cost overruns on the Link project could damage Eastside transit programs for years to come."

For Normandy Parks Spencer, the question is whether or not the voters are getting what they asked when they approved the Sound Transit initiative at the polls.

"Sound Transit is withholding information on the tunnel bids which may result in far higher overruns," said Spencer. "With the elimination of four of the planned 17 rail stations, the voters are getting less than they bargained for and paying at least 40 percent more than they bargained for."

You have to ask yourself the question; When longtime transit ADVOCATES are starting to get concerned over the cost over-runs, doesn't the extent of the over-runs need to be made public?
Will this system become a cancer that will suck all other transit resources dry, even the more cost-effective bus routes?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), August 31, 2000

Answers

People should be concerned that the bids may be over what has been budgeted. Yes, cost overruns need to be made public. But the definition of an overrun should be when incurred costs exceed the budget. Since it is only bids and not incurred costs, then it is not an overrun.

To some it may just be semantics, but it is important because of the legality of disclosing bids. Overruns - Yes; Bids - Questionable.

As to whether Sound Transit will suck other resources dry, their funding sources are separate. It should not be a concern.

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), August 31, 2000.

"As to whether Sound Transit will suck other resources dry, their funding sources are separate. It should not be a concern. "

They directly compete against one another for transit dollars. Look what happened with the Red Line in LA. It should be a great concern.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), August 31, 2000.

>>Will this system become a cancer that will suck all other transit resources dry, even the more cost-effective bus routes?<<

Let me get this straight, suddenly you're concerned about sucking transit resources dry? If so, then you certainly should be opposed to 745. Are you?

Especially considering all 745 does is suck money collected from King County and redistribute it around the rest of the state, further exacerbating the subsidization of the rest of the state by those of us who live in King County.

>>They directly compete against one another for transit dollars.<<

If you're talking about state dollars, maybe. If you're talking about local funding, you're totally wrong.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 01, 2000.

"If you're talking about state dollars, maybe. If you're talking about local funding, you're totally wrong. "

Only if you believelocal taxpayers constitute a bottomless pit of money from which the ruling bureaucrats can mine at their whim, without much concern for the taxpayers keeping any of THEIR OWN MONEY. But then, that's pretty much the attitude you've always shown on this forum, BB.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 01, 2000.

to Mark: You ask: "Will this system become a cancer that will suck all other transit resources dry, even the more cost-effective bus routes?"

Well, perhaps society is merely replacing one cancer with another.

Recent articles in the paper reveal that diesel-powered buses are a significant source of air pollution as well as disproportionately contributing to the greenhouse effect.

Therefore, anything society does to reduce the use of diesel fuel is a POSITIVE development.

Have you taken the bus? Which would you prefer, bus or light rail? Diesel buses suck! We'll all breathe a lot easier when the diesel buses are gone. Light rail a cancer? More like a benign tumor compared to diesel.

The real tragedy with Sound Transit is that the people of Seattle have expressed a preference for a monorail, but their wishes are being ignored.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), September 01, 2000.

" Only if you believe local taxpayers constitute a bottomless pit of money from which the ruling bureaucrats can mine at their whim, without much concern for the taxpayers keeping any of THEIR OWN MONEY. "

This brings up an interesting point. After I-695 passed, trips in this household that normally used transit, changed to auto trips. This was because CT's response was to suspend weekend service to realize the most savings.

Now, should one draw the conclusion that I was being forced to pay gas tax? Interestingly in an interview with Dory Monson, Wendell Cox even proposed that the gas tax should be eliminated. Secondly, is drawing the conclusion that I have chosen one mode over another (based on the fact that now my VMT has gone up) a valid one?

Sound Move is project that had a generally defined anticipated result, that the voters in the region voted to tax themselves to achieve. However, I don't know of any opportunities I have to vote on specific road projects and the tax monies used to fund them.

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), September 01, 2000.

Why don't all of you ask the question...why does the state of Washington need more gov't employees per capita than the entire country of Russia? That is...for every 4 private sector earners, you pay the very generous wage of 1 gov't. employee.

You might find your answer...in the CAFR.

-- A question for you all... (cdeitchman@solar.stanford.edu), September 01, 2000.

>>Only if you believelocal taxpayers constitute a bottomless pit of money from which the ruling bureaucrats can mine at their whim, without much concern for the taxpayers keeping any of THEIR OWN MONEY.<<

Translation: BB's right about the local funding, so I'd better throw out some non-factual hyperbole to distract everybody and hope they don't notice the real issue.

>>But then, that's pretty much the attitude you've always shown on this forum, BB.<<

Whatever.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 02, 2000.

BB- Do you REALLY believe that taxes don't compete with one another? In Tacoma, we just went through an elaborate ____ dance over how much to put on the ballot for schools and other funding. No body wanted to see multiple items on the ballot that would drive the tax rate a whole lot higher than the expiring taxes. The public schools were strong-armed (or at least jaw-boned) to get their levy down, to create more "headspace" for revenue increases for the city.
"Translation: BB's right about the local funding, so I'd better throw out some non-factual hyperbole to distract everybody and hope they don't notice the real issue. " Actually, no hyperbole. Just reporting what I see going on by the local politicoes.

And WHEN you are right, I'll be the first to acknowledge it.
Let's not everyone hold their breaths waiting, however.......

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 04, 2000.

>>Do you REALLY believe that taxes don't compete with one another?<<

In some circumstances, yes. But your assertion wasn't that "taxes" compete with each other -- it was much more specific than that.

To claim that Sound Transit and the other mass transit agencies in its service area (Metro, CT, PT) are competing for local funds is dead wrong. They have separate funding streams. There's no competition for local funding between the various agencies.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000.

Spoken like a true bureaucrat, BB. Quibble quibble quibble. Fortunately, even some of your fellow bureaucrats know better.

Community group seeks an independent audit of light-rail plan 



Wednesday, September 6, 2000



By CHRIS McGANN
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER 








A group of more than 50 elected officials, prominent community 
leaders and activists is calling for an independent audit of Sound 
Transit's Link light-rail project.



Members of the group, which includes former Gov. Booth Gardner and 
civic leader Dorothy Bullitt, say they are concerned that cost -
overruns and complications related to the 4.5-mile tunnel under 
Capitol Hill and Portage Bay could force the agency to mortgage 
future light rail or rob other transportation projects to pay for 
just that section of the line.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000.

And others have similar opinions.

King County Council 
member Maggie Fimia, a bus commuter herself from Shoreline, has been 
gathering support for an alternative Metro-only plan. "I can defend 
Metro," says Fimia. "But I don't want to have to defend these other 
projects. Too many people who know about [the light rail plan] say 
it's going to be a disaster." 

From the Seattle Weekly Seattle WEEKLY

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000.

We'll try that again.

Seattle Weekly

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 07, 2000.

>>Spoken like a true bureaucrat, BB. Quibble quibble quibble. Fortunately, even some of your fellow bureaucrats know better.<<

Typical. When you're wrong and called on it, make up facts about the person who caught you, then throw out unrelated claims. This new audit stuff has nothing to do with local funding streams for the various transit agencies, of course.

Fact is that Sound Transit, Metro, Pierce Transit, and Community Transit have separate VOTER APPROVED local funding streams, and whatever problems Sound Transit may end up having won't have an impact on those other funding streams.

At least you're always good for a laugh.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 08, 2000.

Since even your fellow transit advocates are now asserting that funding Light Rail will be detrimental to getting funding for Metro, regardless of your precious separate funding streams, it would appear the joke is on you, BB.
Or perhaps more accurately, you and your philosophy ARE the joke.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 10, 2000.

QUOTE FROM BB THE BUREAUCRAT: "To claim that Sound Transit and the other mass transit agencies in its service area (Metro, CT, PT) are competing for local funds is dead wrong. They have separate funding streams. There's no competition for local funding between the various agencies."

From today's PI

No light-rail tax issue on ballot 
County OKs Metro funding plan, but rejects Sound Transit 

Tuesday, September 12, 2000

By LARRY LANGE
SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER 





Sound Transit won't be part of a King County transportation tax 
increase to appear on the November ballot, the County Council decided 
yesterday.

Though agreeing to ask voters to bump up the county sales tax by 0.2 
percent to maintain Metro bus service, the council rejected attempts 
to include money for light rail.

Council members voted 7-6 to ask county voters to approve the 0.2 
percent increase, which would cost a typical family of four about $40 
per year in added sales taxes, officials estimated.

If approved, the increase would allow the county to restore more than 
500,000 hours of bus service, including 135,000 hours cut after 
passage of Initiative 695. The initiative wiped out the state motor-
vehicle excise tax, cutting $110 million in Metro's operating budget.

Yesterday's vote was a victory for Metro, but a defeat for Sound 
Transit and County Executive Ron Sims, who had proposed a 0.3 percent 
sales tax increase for buses and to provide $440 million to help 
Sound Transit extend its LINK light rail to Northgate and to 
Southcenter.

Gee BB, you need to enlighten these poor reporters, King County Council members, Ron Sims, and all the rest of the world that these items don't compete with each other, "they've got sepate funding streams."

What a bureaucratic buffoon!

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 12, 2000.

Mark, Mark, Mark...you are hilarious. First of all, I'm not a bureaucrat, and your continued use of the term cracks me up. Your assumption that anyone who disagrees with you is a certain type of person signifies a weak argument.

>>Gee BB, you need to enlighten these poor reporters, King County Council members, Ron Sims, and all the rest of the world that these items don't compete with each other, "they've got sepate funding streams."<<

Let me lay it out for you, so even you will understand. Metro, Community Transit, and Pierce Transit are funded by sales taxes and fares in King, Snohomish, and Pierce County, respectively. This voter approved funding is ENTIRELY SEPARATE from Sound Transit's voter approved funding covering certain areas of those three counties, and whatever problems Sound Transit has will not impact currently existing funding for Metro, CT, and PT.

This new ballot issue for Metro that will be on November's ballot is another clear indication that Metro and Sound Transit WILL NOT be competing for funding, as all of the money raised by this increase will only go to Metro. There was a proposal by Sims to put forth a ballot measure that would see Metro and ST competing for funding, but it died.

What's clear is that the King County Council could have chosen to cause Metro and Sound Transit to compete with each other for funding by referring Sims' plan to the ballot, but they chose not to. So as it has been since ST passed, Metro will continue to have its own funding streams, without competition from ST.

-- BB (bbquax@hotmail.com), September 12, 2000.

"What's clear is that the King County Council could have chosen to cause Metro and Sound Transit to compete with each other for funding by referring Sims' plan to the ballot, but they chose not to." So I take it what is clear is that Sim's proposal clearly WOULD have made them directly compete for the same money.

"So as it has been since ST passed, Metro will continue to have its own funding streams, without competition from ST. "Except that all taxes INHERENTLY compete for the same fund of taxpayer dollars, unless of course you believe that taxpayers dollars are a bottomless pit, and taxpayers don't consider their EXISTING tax load before deciding whether or not to support additional tax proposals. Of course they'd have to be awfully DUMB not to, but then many bureaucrats do indeed believe that the rubes are just there for the plucking.

Did you just major in quibbling wherever you went to school, or are you so lost in your universe of "funding streams" that you truly can't see what is obvious to everyone?


-- (mark842@hotmail.com), September 12, 2000.

Cost overruns and competition for funding of civic projects is as common as overstaffed and overpaid government agencies. Despite what voter-approved funds are to be used or where the funds originate from, all agencies compete for the same revenue.

During the Initiative-695 debates last year, every opposing politician stated many government agencies would lose funding with the elimination of one "revenue stream", the Motor Vehicle Excise Tax. At the time, agencies were threatening drastic cuts in services and programs with the loss of this one revenue stream. Strangely, no staff reductions or cost efficiency programs were ever announced to deal with the possible loss of this revenue stream.

According to this discussion, government agencies all receive funding from separate revenue streams, and that no competition for funding between agencies exists; one agency project does not impact funding for projects from other agencies. This is pure fiction.

Keep in mind who told you this tale in the first place. The same people who said a new baseball stadium in Seattle would not cost taxpayers a cent. The same people who purchase multimillion-dollar computer systems only to find the systems don't work and that more resources will be necessary. The same people who say there are not enough funds for basic school infrastructure yet pay their part-time school board members six figure salaries. The same people who claim they need to pay these high salaries to remain "competitive" in the workplace. Using these examples it appears both the personnel and salaries are competitive only within government, as in who can perform the worst and get paid the highest salary.

-- James Andrews (jimfive@hotmail.com), September 13, 2000.

Critics keep railing at Sound Transit


by The Associated Press and Seattle Times staff

Sound Transit's light-rail project will be getting a hard look 
tonight at a forum in the King County Courthouse, but Sound Transit 
won't be there to have its say. 

The forum was announced by the leaders of Sane Transit, a group 
formed over the summer that wants an audit of the rail project before 
federal funds are accepted. 

The forum will be held in the Snoqualmie Room on the fourth floor of 
the King County Courthouse, 516 Third Ave., Seattle. There will be a 
panel discussion from 5-7 p.m. and a question-and-answer session from 
7-9 p.m. 

Bob White and Dave Earling, executive director and chairman, 
respectively, of Sound Transit, were invited. In a letter turning 
down the invitation, they said it was appropriate to engage in public 
discussions about the relative merits of light rail, "but not when it 
is clear that the forum is intended simply as a rally of light-rail 
opponents . . ." 

In 1996, voters in King, Snohomish and Pierce counties approved the 
$3.9 billion Regional Transit Authority, now called Sound Transit, to 
build a system including a 21-mile light-rail line from SeaTac 
through central Seattle to the University District. Construction is 
scheduled to begin next spring. 

White and Earling promised there would be "extensive opportunities 
for active engagement by the public in reviewing the light-rail 
construction budget after a proposed agreement is reached with a 
contractor. All background documents related to the construction 
budget will be released for public review at that time." 

Sound Transit has refused the demand for another audit, saying it has 
been repeatedly audited. It defends the light-rail project and points 
to a funding recommendation announced yesterday in Washington, D.C., 
as an indication that "the feds consider this one of the premier mass-
transit projects in the nation." 

House and Senate negotiators reached agreement yesterday on a bill 
that provides $57 million next year for Sound Transit. The money 
would be the first installment in a $500 million long-term funding 
agreement Congress is reviewing. 

If Congress approves the transportation bill and President Clinton 
signs it, the government will have approved $159 million over the 
past four years for the project. In all, Puget Sound-area officials 
want the federal government to contribute about $1 billion for the 10-
year project, which is expected to cost about $3.9 billion in 1995 
dollars. 

"Washington's senators, Republican Slade Gorton and Democrat Patty Murray, served on the transportation-bill conference committee. Murray said the money includes $50 million for light rail, $5 million for commuter rail and $2 million for buses." Gee- Didn't Patrick say that we'd be getting some SECOND pot of money, and that the Feds were just falling all over themselves to give us $500 million. Here, with the state having more representatives on the committee than any other state, we are getting less than $40 million a year.

Guess what, ladies and gentlemen.
On a $4 Billion project the annual cost growth (even if it were well managed, and it's not) would be 3-4%.

So the federal government has been "giving us" $40 million a year in CURRENT year dollars while the price has been going up AT LEAST $120 million a year in current year dollars. And idiots like Patrick think this is a good deal.


-- (henrik@harbornet.com), October 05, 2000.