Seems like I've heard some of this before:

At the ship canal 

Another misleading claim is that light rail can replace 12 lanes of 
freeway, but this is a theory assuming fully packed trains. The 
reality (based on close analysis of actual projected rail ridership 
and freeway statistics) is that a single light rail track won't even 
move as many people in 2010 as a single lane on I-5 does 
today. Measured at the ship canal (where rail looks best) the 
respective volumes are 20,000 persons daily for a rail track 
versus 29,300 for a freeway lane. Averaged along the entire 
route, rail will carry less than half what a corresponding lane pair 
on I-5 now carries. 

Sometimes, when pressed, officials that know admit light rail 
won't help traffic congestion but retort that light rail offers an 
alternative. Of course that's true, but only for a small percentage 
of the population who live, work and shop along the proposed 
route. A 21-mile rail line can't serve anywhere near the number of 
trip origins and destinations reached by our 15,000 miles of 
roads and freeways. In fact, only two-hundredths of one percent 
of the urbanized area would be within walking distance 
(one-quarter mile) of a light rail station. So virtually everyone will 
need to drive or take a bus to reach a rail station. 

Seattle Times Editorial

So where are Patrick and the other light rail defenders?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), December 25, 2000

Answers

Migosh! He's doing them for the PI too.

After 
all this, can we trust Sound Transit? 


Tuesday, December 26, 2000

By FRED QUARNSTROM
GUEST COLUMNIST 



Sound Transit admits its light rail project is $2 billion over 
budget. This did not just happen. This was not just discovered by 
the recently departed director, Paul Bay. Where was the Board of 
Sound Transit? Less than a year ago a King County councilman, 
future mayor candidate Greg Nickels, came to three meetings in 
Southeast Seattle and told us all was well, on track, on line and 
on budget.

Now, he is critical of Sound Transit. The mayor and his 
representatives have come to many of these same meetings to 
assure us. County Executive Ron Sims has told us the same. 
Sound Transit has been less than truthful from its 
inception.

PI editorial

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), December 25, 2000.

Golly gee!! That "editorial" in the Times is from a guy who works for SaneTransit, the lead oppostion group. That "editorial" in the PI is from a guy on the Save Our Valley group.

I'm sorry, you weren't seriously trying to pass these off as the views of each newspaper were you?

Actually, there have been several light rail defense columns published in both the Times and PI over the last few weeks, but apparently most people here have the sense not to try and pass them off the way you do. Like I said, some things never change.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), December 28, 2000.

"I'm sorry,"
You needn't tell us that, Patrick. We've known that you were a pretty sorry character for some time now.

"you weren't seriously trying to pass these off as the views of each newspaper were you? "
Actually, yes! They are giving far more play to opponents than ever before, and havecome out against it in their own editorials, or haven't you been paying attention Patty me lad?

Thursday, December 14, 2000, 12:00 a.m. Pacific Editorial Halt Sound Transit's ever more costly plans One billion dollars. That's how much Sound Transit's light rail project has gone up in price. Taxpayers from Everett to Tacoma are expected to pay. When Sound Transit board members meet today they should pull the plug on current plans and begin a serious examination of alternatives, including an all-bus system. The costs reported yesterday didn't just go up all at once. The agency brought in two new executives who wanted to know what they start with. It was time to own up to obligations accepted but never listed on financial statements. By Sound Transit's new estimate, digging a tunnel from downtown Seattle under Capitol Hill to the University District will cost an extra $171 million. That is not all. Add $385 million more for other tunnels, tracks and stations; $82 million more to move people who are in the way; and $96 million more to pay off big institutions like the University of Washington and King County (for the bus tunnel). Much of these costs are to make light rail more palatable in a built-up city. There was also $117 million more in overhead, mainly to pay staff for three more years, because it will take that much longer to build it. Throughout the region, more and more people were becoming skeptical of building light rail at the old price. It did not move enough people for the money. It did too little--almost nothing, in fact--to alleviate road congestion. It would be very expensive. Light rail was supposed to be the backbone of a system that also includes regional buses. That concept is now very much in doubt. Sound Transit's directors need to compare the repriced light rail with an all-bus alternative on a backbone of dedicated road lanes. They cannot solve the whole problem of mobility; if it is solvable at all, it is by investments in roads, traffic management, congestion pricing, penalties and incentives that go far beyond the purview of a transit agency. But they can help immensely by not committing the region to a plan that will suck up $2.6 billion, the great majority of that provided by local taxpayers. Sound Transit's board is still talking about signing a contract with the federal government, accepting $500 million in federal money, and going ahead with the big dig. The board should think again. The $500 million is a juicy turkey, but they have just figured on eating it twice over. Still time to back down. It will never be easier. Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company

If you can't see that the tide has turned against LINK, you are in an advanced state of denial, even more than Sound Transit was in November when they insisted it was going to be on time and on budget.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), December 29, 2000.

Oh where, oh where, has our Patrick gone,
Oh where, oh where can he be?

Friday, January 05, 2001, 12:00 a.m. Pacific Newest light-rail finances unsettling by Andrew Garber Seattle Times staff reporter Sound Transit's plan to keep the light-rail project afloat requires a lot of things to go right. That became clear yesterday as members of the agency's finance committee went over the plan to cover a $1 billion cost overrun. The agency's new budget is based on a good economy, costs that don't increase faster than inflation and several hundred million dollars in additional federal money. Committee members had their doubts. Greg Nickels, who chairs the committee, echoed the skittishness of several members worried about how the agency will pay for the 21-mile light-rail system stretching from SeaTac to the University District. Sound Transit staff shocked the agency's board of directors last month when it revealed the venture is way over budget and will take three additional years to build. The project is now expected to cost about $3.8 billion, including a reserve fund. The trains are supposed to start running in 2009. Rob McKenna, vice chair of the finance committee, found no comfort in the new numbers. "This is once again a very optimistic plan that doesn't allow for unforeseen cost increases," said McKenna, a longtime light-rail critic and a King County council member. Sound Transit's plan to fill the $1 billion gap includes: Selling surplus real estate, currently valued at $44 million, for $95 million in 2009. The agency owns about 90 pieces of property that it expects to more than double in value. Getting the federal government to provide another $490 million for the project, in addition to what Sound Transit had planned to request. Staff characterized this as a "high risk" item. A catch-all category expected to generate an additional $471 million from areas such as additional interest earnings and more tax revenue. Sound Transit staff cautioned the plan assumes that the costs will not increase faster than inflation, and that the economy doesn't go into a recession. McKenna questioned the assumptions, noting the recent cost overruns show that "all the costs have gone up faster than inflation." He said the project has changed so much since voters approved it in 1996 that it should be put before the public for another vote. That's the position advocated by Sane Transit, a group of business and civic leaders who have complained about the project being over budget. McKenna is a member of the group. Nickels remained firm that no vote is needed. The project was voted on once and that was enough, he said. He would only support a new vote, he said, if the board decides a drastic change is needed. Two sessions are scheduled for people to ask questions about the light-rail project: 4 to 8 p.m. Monday and Tuesday in Sound Transit's Union Station headquarters, 401 S. Jackson St.The Sound Transit board is expected to meet to decide whether to accept $500 million in federal money for the project. Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company

With his arrogance and his ignorance,
Oh where, oh where can he be?

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

     
Sunday, January 07, 2001, 12:00 a.m. Pacific 



Editorial
Stop now, Sound Transit isn't ready








By any reasonable standard, Sound Transit is not ready to commit 
itself to begin construction of a $3.6 billion, 21-mile light rail 
line. 



The agency has recently revealed that its estimates for the line were 
$1 billion too low. It has suspended negotiations with its tunnel 
contractor and is unlikely to reach another agreement in the next six 
months. Its longtime director of light rail has resigned and been 
replaced by a new person. Yet public directors seem eager to accept a 
$500 million federal grant which would commit the agency to build the 
segment from south of downtown to the University District. 



Directors seem to think they had better get that $500 million while 
the Clinton administration is around to give it out, and that it 
would be OK to return it later, if they decide not to build the line. 
But it is dishonest to sign a contract that way, and it is naïve to 
assume that when the money is in their hands, they will voluntarily 
send it back to Washington. They will spend it, they will sign 
contracts, they will sell bonds, and we will all be contractually 
obligated. 



That $500 million may be the most expensive free money the Puget 
Sound area ever gets. The current estimate on light rail is $171 
million per mile, or $1,500 per foot between Sea-Tac and the 
University District. The initial federal grant pays for one-seventh 
of that, according to current estimates. Experience teaches that 
current estimates are too low. 



There may be the thought that if we dig ourselves into a hole - a 
hole beginning near the Paramount Theatre and stopping at a rock wall 
somewhere short of the Roosevelt District - that Washington, D.C., 
may save us with another $500 million, or even more than that. But 
they didn't bail out Los Angeles, and that was a Democratic city in a 
Democratic state asking for help from a Democratic administration. 
What are the chances that Bush's appointees will bail out Seattle? 



Believers in light rail dismiss money concerns as background noise. 
All rail lines are expensive, they say. So what? What's important 
is that the people voted for light rail in 1996. So they did, and 
with support from this page. But they did not approve a blank check. 
It was a project of a certain size, timetable and cost. Tacoma, 
Everett and the suburbs were promised that the taxes they paid would 
be spent in their own districts, not poured into a hole in Seattle. 



The combination of all those promises is impossible to deliver. If 
light rail can be built at all, it will only be by borrowing against 
revenues so far into the future that it is unlikely the line can be 
extended to Northgate - let alone Bellevue - for another 20 years. 
The picture today is much less attractive than the one presented to 
voters. Luckily, the voters set up a board of directors to look after 
their interests. The board is empowered to reassess things. It can 
say, "Stop." It can say, "Let's have another public vote." It has 
wide powers. 



It is time to use those powers. 



To call a halt to light rail and to offer a vote among several 
alternatives does not mean wasting another five years. Many of the 
alternatives to rail, including expanded bus service, can be done 
much more quickly than that. Other things will take time. In any 
case, we shall have to spend money. We shall have to make decisions. 
But we cannot afford to make large, bad decisions. 



The decision is in the next two weeks: to take the $500 million or 
leave it. The smart choice is to leave it. It is not a plum. It is 
bait. 







Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company 
 

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 08, 2001.

"I'm sorry, you weren't seriously trying to pass these off as the views of each newspaper were you? "

I note with wry amusement that the above editorial IS from the Times editorial board, not a guest editorial as Patrick was claiming.

Here's hoping that Patrick will someday be hit by what we in the psych business call "insight," or in his case perhaps merely acute onset of reality.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), January 08, 2001.

Gee- here's ANOTHER editorial that I'm "...seriously trying to pass these off as the views of each newspaper " because, of course,

IT IS

Thursday, January 11, 2001, 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Editorial The rail alternative

Mike Siegel / The Seattle Times Light rail spending could be used to improve the city's bus system or reduce fares to increase use.

Critics of light rail - and this page is now one of them - always face one question: What's your alternative? It's a question that will weigh on the minds of Sound Transit directors this afternoon as they decide whether to go ahead with light rail and accept a $500 million federal grant.

There is an alternative: free rush-hour bus and van service. Proponents, including former governors John Spellman and Booth Gardner, presented the plan yesterday. They call it Ride Free Express.

Former Metro Transit boss Chuck Collins, who is also a supporter, calculates that for the same amount in capital and operating costs as light rail - about $160 million per year - Sound Transit or King County Metro could run 100 more express buses and pay for 4,000 more vans.

Rush-hour buses today run 31 percent empty. The way to fill them, Collins says, is to drop fares to zero. Ramps and signals would be modified to make buses and vans move quicker. With no more fumbling for change, bus riders would get on and off more quickly, making buses run faster.

The vans are the most interesting. The idea is that any group of 10 employees could apply for the use of a free van. These employees would not have to be in downtown Seattle. They could be in Redmond, Bellevue, Tacoma, Everett, Fremont, West Seattle or many other places.

One of the employees would be the driver and would be paid a $4,000 annual bonus. The transit agency would cover the cost of the vans, the fuel, the insurance, the maintenance, plus the bonus.

The cost of all those vans is peanuts compared with light rail. Before its billion-dollar cost overrun, light rail promised to attract a new transit rider at the cost of $18.19 per rider per day. Vans do it for $3.44, proponents say. And vans are flexible. They go where they are wanted. If the whole idea is a failure, buses and vans can be sold. As Gardner said, "You can sell a bus. You can't sell a tunnel." A fleet of 4,000 vans is adapted to that reality.

The trouble with Ride Free Express is that it comes so late. It will show great courage for Sound Transit directors to vote tonight to refuse half a billion dollars in federal money. It would be wise if they did: As Spellman said, "If we are taking $500 million against a $3.6 billion project, and it is a bad project, it is a tragedy."

But if directors take the money, at least they should refrain from spending it until they can seriously compare the performance, costs and risks of light rail with Ride Free Express. Have another election and ask voters which plan they want. Yes, voters approved light rail. But they knew very little about it. And they had no alternative.

Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 11, 2001.

And of course, there is the PI to be heard from:

P-I analysis shows light rail claims may be off-track Thursday, January 11, 2001 By CHRIS McGANN SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER REPORTER As Sound Transit prepared for today's vote on whether to move forward with light rail, agency leaders vowed to come clean, start fresh, and win back public trust and support. Yet much of the agency's public-relations message is still misleading, a Seattle Post-Intelligencer analysis shows. Sound Transit held an open house this week to promote its 21-mile rail project linking SeaTac with Seattle. On billboard-sized displays, the agency ignored an independent poll that showed less popular support for its project than its own poll; used statistically questionable ridership comparisons; misrepresented the federal money at stake; promised more rail service than it may be able to deliver; and exaggerated costs of alternatives.

PI editorial

Well patrick, you STILL think light rail has massive support from Seattle newspapers? Care to give us a URL?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 11, 2001.

Free Busses during "rush hour only" would seem to correct the problem of driver and public safety at the hands of those dangerous "vagrants" the Metro Driver and Matthew were so concerned about.

Vagrants also wouldn't be a problem on the vans....

The only reason I support the idea of "free" is because residents are already paying extra taxes (that THEY approved) for a transportation plan. It only makes sense to give them better value than light rail, at this point. Time for another vote!

As I stated once before, Kitsap Transit has had many years of success with their worker/driver program at the shipyard, they just use big busses. (many of them are near capacity) Ridesharing in one form or another has been used to transport shipyard workers since World War II.

My husband utilized the service whenever possible. He was picked up on the corner of our street and driven to within a hundred yards of his destination. What could be more convenient than that? The service is not reserved for shipyard workers only, and it is also used by active duty navy personel. There has been a decline in ridership over the years due to shift changes by the shipyard making it difficult for many workers to utilize the service.

And Sound Transit recently hired someone who is capable of managing just such a system.

GO ELLEN!

-- Marsha (acorn_nut@msn.com), January 11, 2001.

And the editorials just keep coming and coming, Patrick!

And yes, they are from the editorial boards for the papers!

Sound Transit needs to put on the brakes 2001-01-11 Sound Transit faces big decisions today when it meets in Seattle. * Should it increase the cost for its light-rail project, now $1 billion over budget and three years behind schedule? * Should it accept a $500 million federal grant to help pay for this project? * Should it take six more months to study alternatives to the deep tunnel under Portage Bay and the University District? There's a fourth question that should be asked: Should Sound Transit stop and consider alternatives to its massively expensive light-rail system that is now three years behind schedule before construction even begins. For several weeks now, Sound Transit has been telling people that it wants their advice on light rail. Monday and Tuesday the agency hosted open houses to show off the project and answer questions. But because Sound Transit officials have been steadfast in their commitment to the light-rail plan, any ``advice'' they heard likely was ignored, making a mockery of the so-called public process. More and more, people are questioning this light-rail scheme. Just yesterday, two former governors -- Democrat Booth Gardner and Republican John Spellman -- along with a former Metro Transit director and numerous community leaders came together to urge Sound Transit to slow down. Specifically, the group wants Sound Transit to take a look at adding more buses and vanpools and making rides free as a way of getting people out of their cars. The involvement of Gardner and Spellman is significant. Both enjoyed strong public support while in office and they are from different political parties. What's at stake is getting the best system for the billions that we are going to spend. Light rail -- at least the way it is configured now -- isn't it. . Worse, the first trains now won't be ready to run for another decade. Free buses could start almost immediately and would produce six times the number of new transit riders at the same cost as light rail. Sound Transit insists this shouldn't concern suburban residents since only Seattle tax dollars go to support light rail. However, there is no guarantee that Sound Transit won't raid our wallets as it faces the need for more and more money to bail out this increasingly expensive system. We also wonder how Seattle residents would vote today if given the choice between free buses for all or a light-rail system that most of them will never ride. There may be a role for a new mass transit system here. Other groups are pushing a monorail plan that they say can produce far more miles of transit line for the same price Sound Transit will spend on expensive tunnels. A monorail system also has the advantage of not forcing buses out of the Metro tunnel in Seattle and clogging up those downtown streets. Sound Transit should acknowledge that its plan is flawed and step back and consider alternatives. Throwing more money at a problem doesn't make it better, only more expensive.

It's time for Sound Transit to put on the brakes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- Eastside Journal 1705 132nd Avenue N.E. Bellevue, WA 98005-2251 Phone: 425-455-2222 Fax: 425-635-0602 All materials Copyright © 2001 Horvitz Newspapers, Inc. Any questions? See our contact page.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 11, 2001.

to Marsha & Mark: I don't mind society trying some kind of experiment akin to Ride Free Express. But, I remain skeptical that it will work.

I can easily come up with the names of ten people who are "interested in vanpooling", and under Ride Free Express, I would get a free van (plus $4000/yr). But the reality is that most of the people won't actually use the service.

Likewise, the Sound Transit buses that are currently full, could easily become half-full. Why? Because when people pay $100/month for bus service, they feel compelled to use it, in order to get their money's worth. When you make it free, people will more easily rationalize why they should drive in to work on a particular day.

But, if there was some way of trying out the idea in an experimental fashion, then, by all means, society should check it out.

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

Sunday, February 04, 2001, 04:24 p.m. Pacific

Editorial Another half-million, easy come, easy go

What is federal money worth? The $500 million promised to Sound Transit was worth enough, it seems, for all but one director to set aside their critical judgment. But if it had been $500 million taxed from their constituents, would they have been more careful in how they spent it?

To ask this question is to answer it.

With federal money, the care and skill comes in the getting of it. Sound Transit (to pick on that agency again) announces that it will double its spending on lobbyists in Washington, paying an extra $550,000 to make sure no Scrooge steps on the hose running from the Treasury.

Sound Transit is dropping another half-million into the system in order to milk it. Like the direct-mail fund-raisers who spend 50 cents to raise a dollar, taxes paid here are wagered in an effort to snag a greater pot of taxes paid to Washington.

People here don't think of it as a wager. It's "leveraging." It's being efficient. It's an investment. Thus government chews through the citizen's wealth lobbying, negotiating and dealing with itself.

From the viewpoint of a single agency, such cynicism may have the color of self-preservation. The object becomes getting the money, which itself is justification for paying to get the money. Few worry about the wise use of the $500 million, or of additional fruits available for harvest in Washington. It is free, like apples from a tree nobody owns.

Copyright © 2001 The Seattle Times Company

-- (matk842@hotmail.com), February 05, 2001.