Remember Patrick? Good old Patrick? Here's a little vintage Patrick:

Sorry to ruin the fun boys, but that $35 million is an old number. From an article in the February 5th Seattle Times:

"President Bill Clinton has committed $35 million in his budget toward the design and construction of Sound Transit's light-rail system, moving the project a bit closer to fruition.

The budget item still must gain congressional approval. Local officials are confident not only that it will pass, but that the project may get more money in the process. "

So there's the already mentioned $35 million.

"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.

-- Patrick (patrick1142@yahoo.com), April 08, 2000.

Patrick, as you will recall, was the individual who indicated that everything was going great with light rail, that anyone who questioned the cost estimates or time schedule for light rail was simply being an alarmist, and oh yes...... that the feds had a billion dollars (in two $500 million increments) that they were just dying to give us to fund light rail. Whatever happened to old Patrick. Did he enjoy a good turkey dinner over the holidays, or is he getting fat just eating Crow?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), December 28, 2000

Answers

Good thing I still check this site now and then. It seems that some things never change. Mark is still an idiot, and he still puts words in my mouth then attacks those words.

First off, I DID NOT say that anyone that questioned the light rail estimates was an alarmist. I distinctly remember mentioning that delays and cost increases are par for ANY transportation construction projects, mass transit OR road. And that pointing out just the mass transit ones is not telling the whole story, ESPECIALLY when someone is trying to advance road construction over mass transit construction.

Second of all, I don't recall if I ever mentioned a billion dollars from the feds, but I do remember stating that I was mistaken when I said that it would be entirely funded by federal funds. But of course we've been over this little issue MANY times over. That $500 million (which you denied would ever happen and then ignored when the recommendation came down) is still on track despite the recent setbacks (and note the opponents have switched from "the Feds should reject this funding" to "ST should reject this funding" to highlight their view of if it will go through).

Are there problems with ST? Yes. Does this mean the end of ST? Hardly. They made some serious errors in judgement, which they have been taken to task with. But they are correctable, and there are enough people out there who want to fix it rather than kill it, including a still very supportive public, that I remain confident that a light rail system will be built. So I REALLY hate to rain on your victory parade, but you might want to hold back. The funding is still solid (which includes all that money that I-745 would have taken), those Times editorials you're gleefully posting most likely aren't written by the same people (most of the editorial board is on strike if you haven't noticed), the I-745 deathblow that you were hoping for turned into an almost 60% rout against it, King County residents actually approved MORE transit solutions, and the other two parts of ST are up and running.

So the question I have is just how fragile of an ego do you have? I mean first of all you try to poke fun at someone for saying things he never said. But then you try to do it to someone who hasn't been around for months, in an obvious attempt to hit someone that won't strike back. Boy I'm telling you, you are SUCH a big man. What's next for you Mark, going to try and push around some 2nd graders?

Thanks for the trip down memory lane. Oh, and speaking about eating crow, how about those I-745 results again!

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

"I remain confident that a light rail system will be built. So I REALLY hate to rain on your victory parade, but you might want to hold back. "
Dream on!

You were confident that it would be on time, on budget, and the feds would pay not only the $500 million dollars ST is HOPING for, but another $500 million that is nowhere in the DOT budget either now or for the next 5 years, too. Your "track" record (pun intended) hasn't been good historically, and is likely no better now. Sound Transit is losing, not gaining support for LINK, and that's obvious to even the ST advocates. The program is in trouble. It's current EIS is unexecutable in terms of either budget or time, and if they change it they will lose the promise of the federal dollars that, in any event, are making up a smaller and smaller share of the total cost as the price grows. Plus, the firewalls that are put in place to keep money collected in one area from being spent in another area means that, more and more, downtown Seattle will be paying for it, and that is turning even the mayor and the city council against it.

"I mean first of all you try to poke fun at someone for saying things he never said."

BS, my friend. There are whole threads in the archives of your mis-statements, available for all to peruse. And we are still waiting for you to tell us where the SECOND $500 million is supposed to come from. Heck, we're still waiting to see if we are going to get the FIRST $500 million. And even int the unlikely event that we got both, it clearly WON'T EVEN COVER THE OVER-RUNS, let alone the cost of LINK.

"But then you try to do it to someone who hasn't been around for months, in an obvious attempt to hit someone that won't strike back."

Not our fault.It's an advocacy forum. You don't show up, your position doesn't get advocated. But I wouldn't fret to much, Patrick. When you HAVE,,/B> showed up, your positions haven't been advocated worht a damn,either!



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

Whoops, fouled up a html tag!

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

Sound Transit's critics take case to airwaves ANTI-LIGHT RAIL: Radio ads lead up to agency's decision on going ahead at higher cost, later finish

David Quigg; The News Tribune

During the remaining seven days until Sound Transit's next big decision on light rail, the agency's critics will spend $50,000 airing two radio ads that demand a new public vote on the planned system.

A group called Sane Transit unveiled the ads Wednesday in Seattle. Their first ad features former Gov. Booth Gardner arguing "Sound Transit has the moral obligation ... to have a vote on (its) changed light rail plans."

The three-county agency announced last month that its planned 21-mile line between Seattle and Sea-Tac would cost $2.6 million instead of $1.9 million, and open in 2009 instead of 2006.

In the wake of those unwelcome revelations, Sound Transit's board will decide Jan. 11 whether to make the formal commitment to light rail needed to lock up $500 million in federal funding.

Giving Sane Transit what it wants would make that decision moot, said Sound Transit board chairman Dave Earling.

"If we announced now we were going to take this out for another vote, it would kill the $500 million," he said.

There are simply too many other cities around the country prepared to take the money if Sound Transit hesitates, he said.

What's more, Sound Transit officials say there is no legal reason for them to hold a new vote. The Sound Transit ballot measure voters in Pierce, King and Snohomish counties passed in 1996 did not set an endpoint on how long the agency can collect taxes.

The Sane Transit ads call this a "legal technicality," but group spokesman Daniel Norton acknowledged there is nothing actually illegal about it. Thus Gardner's stressing of a "moral obligation."

Earling called this one in a long line of "legitimate-sounding" requests from Sane Transit that are anything but. He believes the group has a clear goal with its new ads: killing light rail for good.

But Earling is wrong, said Norton. He said some group members do loathe light rail, but others would support it if Sound Transit proved it was the best value for the region.

The ads suggest the group doesn't believe that could be proved.

Listeners of local talk radio and music stations will hear Gardner opine that "Sound Transit wasted their chance on a light rail system that will not work.

"Their recent plans will not reduce congestion, are too costly and could destroy many of our neighborhoods. There are far better and more cost-effective transit systems than Sound Transit's light rail."

The second Sane Transit ads delivers the message that others share these doubts. It quotes skeptical pronouncements by the editorial boards of area newspapers.

From The Eastside Journal: "If Capitol Hill thought the WTO meeting in Seattle was a problem, wait until they get a look at what Sound Transit has in store for them."

From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "How can we trust (Sound Transit)? Sadly, the answer is we're not sure we can."

Sound Transit officials know recent developments have hurt public trust. They are holding two open houses Jan. 8 and 9 aimed at fixing that.

Ads or no ads, Earling believes three factors - recent polls showing continued public support for light rail, more trustworthy new cost estimates and the strong reputations of the project's new leaders - will lead his fellow board members to commit to light rail and federal funding when they meet next week.

The bulk of Sound Transit's funding comes from local taxes, including a 0.4-cent sales tax and 0.3 percent vehicle license tax.

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

And your solution to the transportation problem in the region is...

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

Once again, a red-herring question from Q.

The issue is whether or not light rail makes sense. Rather than address the issue, in any meaningful way, Q attempts to change the subject.

Well Q. Do you think we ought to go through with LINK (remember, the issue?) and if so, why?

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

All you did was reprint the news article without any comment for or against. If you are asking whether or not light rail makes sense, then it does make sense because it was voted upon and passed by the voters in three counties.

The cost estimates were not accurate. So what? Someone indicated that a third Lake Washington bridge would cost 2 billion dollars. If the people said that they wanted it and it ended up costing 4 billion. It would not change the fact that the bridge was wanted.

Even those members of Sane Transit disagree with what they want. Some just want to stop light rail - period. Some want to be reconvinced that it will still work. Some are against it just because it might adversely affect the value of the homes.

Where are those that wanted something done NOW to help with the transportation problem? Are you one of those that wants to examine everything to the smallest detail before anything is done?

The Blue Ribbon Commission put together by the Republican legislature and Gov. Locke estimated that it would take 50 billion dollars to address the transportation problems in the state. Should the state sit back for the next 20 or 30 or 100 years examining and constantly reexamining that estimate before anything gets done?

We need to get the ball rolling. There is a general direction that most of us can agree upon which is a light rail system linking Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. This does not get us there, but it is a start.

Or are you one of those that would prefer not doing anything at all?

-- Questioning (g_ma2000@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

I will not fall for the second attempt at a strawman debate, but let's look at one issue you just posted:

"We need to get the ball rolling. There is a general direction that most of us can agree upon which is a light rail system linking Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. This does not get us there, but it is a start. "

In fact, there never was a general agreement on this. The RTA proposal passed precisely because it fed each constituency what they wanted, with firewalls in between to make sure that one geographic area's money went ONLY for the projects that were supported in that area. For the details of how this unlikel;y coalition was hammered together, see case study three of this URL Mineta Transportation Institute Report 00-1 Why Campaigns for Local Transportation Funding Initiatives Succeed or Fail: An Analysis of Four Communities and National Data

But more to the point, why would anyone think that light rail between Tacoma, Seattle, and Everett is a good idea? Clearly, the population density along most of that route is insufficient to support light rail. Linear systems are all limited by the ability to get people to the limited number of stations. Even the proposed 21 mile segment will be within walking distance for those people living in the 4 square miles within 1/4 mile of a station. And let's consider speed. Light rail averages 14 MPH. That means that if you wanted to start at the UW and go to Sea-Tac, it will take you an hour and a half from the time you board to the time you get off. Going 14 mph for a LONGER distance isn't going to attract a lot of customers. The commute time is shorter for other modes. And when you consider the added time for intermodal transfers....... people would od as well to walk or bicycle, timewise.

Craig Carson (where is Craig?) did a mathematical model based upon the OLD cost figures that indicated that you could use the construction money to ENDOW a fleet of bus drivers and buses IN PERPETUITY that would run night and day along the route at 200 foot intervals, stopping on demand at bus stops for the money that would be spent for LINK, as opposed to construction of the line and it's 21 stops.

So Q, I think you are wrong when you think there is a majority that think that LINK is worth it. It failed three votes, and succeeded only when a lot of non-light rail things were bundled in with it.

I think that the Sane Transit people have a great idea in having another referendum (fifth) to see if we want to go through with this.

What are the pro-light rail people afraid of?

Why can't we just count the votes?

-- (mark842@hotmail.com), January 04, 2001.

to Questioning: You write: "There is a general direction that most of us can agree upon which is a light rail system linking Tacoma, Seattle and Everett. This does not get us there, but it is a start."

Actually, sounds like most people support a monorail.

Would I take light rail to work, if it stopped in my community and at my workplace in about the same time as now? You bet.

Would I take a bus if it travelled on a dedicated roadway? You bet.

So, a dedicated network of roads for buses and vanpools is just as attractive as light rail.

So, then, which offers more bang for the buck?

Why do you believe light rail is vastly superior to a dedicated network of roads?

Your inability to defend your position suggests your argument is a weak one. It sounds like you are conceding, by default, that a dedicated network of roads provides a better rate of return on the taxpayers' dollars.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 05, 2001.

Matt,

"Would I take light rail to work, if it stopped in my community and at my workplace in about the same time as now? You bet."

One modification to the current light rail plan could be 'skip stop' service. Essentially, it's express service without separate express tracks, except for strategically placed passing tracks. There are sensitivity tests I've seen that show door to door times come close to that of SOV commute times. (No, it's not online. I find this out becuase I ask a LOT of questions at these open houses)

"Would I take a bus if it travelled on a dedicated roadway? You bet."

So, a dedicated network of roads for buses and vanpools is just as attractive as light rail."

This is good for vanpoolers.

"So, then, which offers more bang for the buck?"

However, the question then is, when does it cost more to support a BRT system (drivers/bus maintenance) than a rail system in the same right of way. Would it be cheaper over the long run to just put in the rail system in the first place? It depends on how long you want the system to last before major infrastructure changes. Also, when it's determined that the bus system has reached it's limits, and a rail system is needed, what happens to the dedicated roadways in the meantime?

"Why do you believe light rail is vastly superior to a dedicated network of roads?"

Smaller footprint. The tracks can be placed closer together, and there is no need for a shoulder. If a tunnel is required, ventilation is an issue with a roadway, with a railway it is not(both must meet the same emergency response parameters) . With a roadway, if non- professional drivers are using the lane, it needs to be at least 12' wide to keep the safety margin acceptable. That's why some areas have 'transit only' lanes rather than HOV (on arterials), because there wasn't enough room for 2 more 12' lanes.

Less impervious surface. 1 track is equivalent to 1/2 lane of road surface when it comes to drainage and mitigating runoff.

Ability to handle more capacity way into the future.

( BTW, Questioning replied on the 'Which would you pick?' thread.)

-- Jim Cusick (jc.cusick@gte.net), January 05, 2001.

to Jim Cusick: Well, you seem to be the only person on the threads with anything constructive to say. Although, you haven't convinced me of anything, at least I can understand the basis for support of light rail. But, let me play devil's advocate on what you had to say.

You write: "However, the question then is, when does it cost more to support a BRT system (drivers/bus maintenance) than a rail system in the same right of way. Would it be cheaper over the long run to just put in the rail system in the first place? It depends on how long you want the system to last before major infrastructure changes."

It really depends on cost and rate of return. And, no doubt, the rate of return is going to depend on the density of the population. In any case, roadways will always have an advantge over light rail, because there is greater demand. Roads serve commuters, truckers, ambulances, police cars, traveling salespeople, etc. Light rail primarily only serves commuters. Hence, since the rate of return is based on supply and demand, and the demand for rail is less than that of roads, society will never be able to charge as much for an investment in rail versus an investment in roads.

You also write: "Also, when it's determined that the bus system has reached it's limits, and a rail system is needed, what happens to the dedicated roadways in the meantime?"

Come on, you can't be serious. So, what you're saying is someday we would have buses lined up in the HOV lanes for over 30 miles in length? Get serious. If we "privatize" the HOV lanes, by the time your silly condition came to pass, the dedicated roadways would've more than paid for themselves (unlike light rail). So, it wouldn't matter (from a cost perpsective) what we did with them. But, why would we do anything with them? Under my scenario, the cost to the consumer for using the dedicated roadways would continue to climb in response to demand. Therefore, your scenario is unlikely to occur.

As to the benefits of light rail, you write: "Smaller footprint. The tracks can be placed closer together, and there is no need for a shoulder. If a tunnel is required, ventilation is an issue with a roadway, with a railway it is not(both must meet the same emergency response parameters) . With a roadway, if non- professional drivers are using the lane, it needs to be at least 12' wide to keep the safety margin acceptable. That's why some areas have 'transit only' lanes rather than HOV (on arterials), because there wasn't enough room for 2 more 12' lanes...Less impervious surface. 1 track is equivalent to 1/2 lane of road surface when it comes to drainage and mitigating runoff."

Hey, at least you have something to say. Congratulations! But, even though light rail has a smaller fotprint, it still seems to cost more than roadways. As for mitigating runoff, that is a legitimate point, but it simply affects the final cost numbers for roads versus rail.

A network of roads already exists. Let's simply manage it more efficiently.

Ability to handle more capacity way into the future.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), January 06, 2001.