From the South County Journal.

South County Journal

OUR - - VIEW - Transit plan is the great Seattle train robbery
2000-08-11



More than five years ago voters in King, Snohomish and Pierce 
counties overwhelmingly rejected a $6.7 billion measure to 
construct a mass transit system for the tri-county area. Voters, 
while anxious to relieve mounting traffic congestion in the Puget 
Sound area, were turned off by the enormous cost of the project 
and its emphasis on expensive light rail for Seattle.



A year later, voters were presented with a scaled-down 
transportation plan which called for more transit service in the 
suburbs, including commuter rail. The new plan also eliminated 
several segments of the light rail system, including one from the 
University District to Northgate. Voters were told that those 
segments would be part of phase two of the project known as 
Sound Transit and would be put before voters in the tri-county 
area at a later date after the first phase was well under way.



Voters approved the revised $3.9 billion measure in 1996 with 
majority support in King and Snohomish counties.



In the intervening years, Seattle power brokers have been 
aggressively searching for ways to build the Northgate light rail 
line without waiting for the next tri-county vote. It's been an 
intriguing display of raw political power.



When federal funding for the entire Sound Transit project fell far 
short of projections, Seattle leaders lobbied our congressional 
delegation, the Clinton administration, and U.S. Department of 
Transportation for more money, much of it to be earmarked for 
their pet light rail line. Then they went to the state Legislature for 
money, but got less than they had hoped because of the 
turbulence caused by I-695 revenue cuts.



Frustrated with their lack of progress, Seattle leaders now want 
taxpayers in King County to ante up.



Under a plan put forth by County Executive Ron Sims, county 
voters would be asked in November to approve an increase in 
the sales tax to provide $750 million in bonds for a host 
transportation improvements. Among them: new express lanes 
for more bus service, additional Park & Ride lots, and 
synchronization of traffic signals.



The plan has much to offer South County and the Eastside. 
However, Sims' plan includes $320 million for the Northgate light 
rail line. That represents 43 percent of the total cost. Another 
$120 million would go to extend light rail to Southcenter. That's 
something South County needs and this newspaper has 
endorsed. However, that segment also was cut from the first 
Sound Transit proposal rejected by voters.



Nearly 60 percent of the money raised in Sims' plan would be 
used for costly light rail segments rejected by voters in 1995. His 
plan is an end-run around the Sound Transit measure voters did 
approve a year later. For that reason alone, we encourage the 
County Council to reject the measure.



If council members need further justification, they should look no 
further than the funding mechanism Sims proposes. Increasing 
the sales tax by .03 percent in King County puts merchants here 
at a disadvantage against their competitors in Pierce and 
Snohomish counties.



Seattle deserves to wait in line with other jurisdictions that had 
light rail segments pushed back to phase two of the Sound 
Transit project. Putting pet projects on a special fast track is a 
sure way to derail the entire regional transportation plan. 

-- Mark Stilson (mark842@hotmail.com), August 13, 2000

Answers

Screw Transit! Build Roads!

Don't vote for a single transit dollar of ANY sort until they start funding more GP lanes.

Time for a "scorched earth" policy until the would-be social engineers give up trying to control us.

-- (zowie@hotmail.com), August 17, 2000.

Look, everyone against or for these registration fee cuts are not paying attention to the big picture.

First of all, you have to learn rule number one. You cannot trust anything you read in the mainstream news or anything you see on the mainstream TV channels.

The second order of business is to understand the difference between a BUDGET and a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report or CAFR (in smaller operations it can be called a "financial statement") which each and every state, county, city, various districts as outlined as follows must create for analysis:

Fire Districts Irrigation Districts/Commissions Conservation District Transit Insurance Pool Reclamation District Community Colleges Sewer District School District Insurance Group Water District Power Resource Managers Medical Center Stadium Authority Commissioners Association Hospital District Housing Authority Airport District/Authority Transit System/Authority Public Utilities Insurance Association Convention Center Authority Housing Improvement District Communication Center Cities Insurance Authority Counties Insurance Fund Water Resources District Lighting Districts etc., etc., etc.

What these CAFR's and financial statements show is the TOTAL assets of these entities, which almost always are NOT shown on the budget...yep, the budget which is always the document by which these entities use when they present to the public the *shortfalls* whereby they can justify increased taxation. They rarey OR never use the CAFR to substantiate taxation...because the typical total assets of an established entity...be it a city, county, school district, utility authority, state, etc etc... do not present their total net worth to the public for scrutiny.

Is it legal? Unfortunately yes. Is it moral and correct? **** NO!

Do your research and when you come to the same conclusion...I suggest you spend your efforts supporting those individuals who want to change the beneficiary status of these funds from the elitists back to the people.

When you look at the total composite governmental asset base not included in budgets, you are looking at one very rich country. Who owns the country? Remember...government primarily gets it's money through taxing (in many ways) it's citizenry. Go ahead and guess.

If you want to investigate this issue then go to

http://www.cafrman.com/

be prepared to spend a fair amount of time looking into this...information about the state of Washington is there also. Be prepared to understand that Washington has more surpluses than California. That is phenomenal unto itself!!!!!

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), August 20, 2000.

to OR: The website for CAFR is a little bit misleading, since nearly half of the state of Washington's "surplus" comes from the Worker's Compensation Fund. Presumably, the money is for a time when unemployment soars. I'm not sure it would be "fair" to rebate the money to some carpetbagger (i.e., like myself) who happen to recently move to the state.

The better question would be: "Why does the Worker's Compensation Fund have such a huge surplus?". Perhaps, the answer is: "Because the state has low unemployment [DUH!]".

Why does the state of Washington have such a powerful economy? Could it be because of the "investment" in HOV lanes and transit?

To OR, before you support re-distribution of surpluses, please explain why we have the surpluses in the first place. Sounds like the politicians are doing a pretty good job.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@MSN.COM), August 21, 2000.

Matthew, I'm sorry I left out the fact that although I make use of the information on cafrman, I disagree with the philosophy of returning it to the citizenry. All surpluses found in a variety of accounts such as pension funds, toll payment authorities, worker's comp. funds, school district funds, etc etc...the list goes on... should be used to reduce the tax burden of all citizens.

When a surplus is actually deemed extra money not to be used for full pay out of a particular fund (ie...full payment of all vested in a pension fund, the leftover monies being extra) should be used to reduce all forms of taxation thus increase the prosperity base of all. If, after all abatement of taxation occurs AND there is still some leftover, then I would advocate a rebate back to the citizenry.

Please don't fail to understand that when a large sum of money is collected from the public, that money immediately goes to work earning interest and profits, depending upon restrictions of the type of fund it is. This includes bond issues and so forth.

What has happened over the decades and decades of investing monies that have not been paid out are that the fed, all states, counties, cities, school districts, water districts, toll and tax authorities (50,000+ nationwide) have amassed an unbelievable fortune and we as the public (since every single GD penny of it came from the fruits of our labor) should become the beneficiaries of it.

I hope this clarifies the matter for you.

-- OR (orwelliator@biosys.net), August 21, 2000.

Cost climbing for transit tunnel 



Sound Transit says cuts may be made elsewhere if project 
exceeds proposed budget 



08/19/2000



News Tribune staff and wire services ; News Tribune staff writer 
David Quigg and The Associated Press contributed to this report 




Even before a contract is signed, the team chosen to design and 
build a 4 1/2-mile Sound Transit tunnel is already predicting it 
will cost more than the $557 million budgeted, transit officials 
say.



Just how much Modern Transit Constructors expects to spend 
on designing and building the light-rail tunnel from SeaTac to 
Seattle's University District will not be known until a final contract 
is negotiated.



The tunnel is the single most expensive component of the $2 
billion, 22-mile light-rail plan, centerpiece of the regional bus 
and rail system. The light rail is to run from SeaTac to the U 
District, and perhaps as far as Northgate.



The tunnel will be beneath the U District, Lake Washington Ship 
Canal and Capitol Hill.



Sound Transit announced a tentative contract award with Modern 
Transit on Tuesday. Agency officials said rising tunnel costs 
won't stop plans for light rail.



Four years after voters in King, Pierce and Snohomish counties 
approved the three-county transit system, the estimated cost of 
executing the plan has risen from $3.9 billion to $4.4 billion. 
Sound Transit officials say the cost increases are due to 
higher-than-expected real estate prices and debts associated 
with an early sale of bonds at advantageous terms.



Light-rail detractors say the project will cost vastly more than the 
region can afford.



If the contract exceeds the proposed budget, Sound Transit may 
have to run fewer train cars, trim train station costs or make other 
cuts not directly affecting service, said Reid Shockey, chairman 
of the citizen panel overseeing Sound Transit and its board.



One option is to defer some costs until after 2006, when the line 
is scheduled to go into operation, he said.



Three South Sound officials on Sound Transit's board said any 
predictions of doom are premature.



Dave Enslow, a Sumner City Councilman, said Modern Transit's 
bid is not a surprise.



"It would have been a shock if they came in and said, '$500 
million under budget. Where do we sign?'"



He and Pierce County Executive Doug Sutherland stressed that 
negotiations may find legitimate ways to lower costs.



"If you were to say this is the bottom-line bid for the contract, I 
would be really worried," Sutherland said. "But it's not. This is the 
proposal."



Tacoma City Councilman Kevin Phelps acknowledged the high 
stakes surrounding the Seattle transit tunnel. If it's a fiscal flop, 
he noted that voters might balk at funding future transit plans - 
such as linking the Seattle-area light rail with a 1.6-mile line 
planned to open in Tacoma in 2002.



"All of a sudden, we're going to be stuck down here in Tacoma 
with a light rail to nowhere," he said.



To fund the transit system, Sound Transit relies on a 
voter-approved 0.4 percent sales tax and 0.3 percent motor 
vehicle excise tax. It also seeks $1 billion in federal money. 
Bonds and fare revenues are to cover the rest of the 
costs.

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

to OR: I'm not opposed to tax cuts. My favorite would be elimination of the gasoline excise tax.

Thank you for illuminating us on how much money the state really has lying around. And, this may be the tip of the iceberg, since county and regional institutions may have their stashes, as well.

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

Mass transit, car pools on rise as way to commute in Bellevue

by Chris Solomon Seattle Times Eastside bureau You wouldn't guess it by the traffic, but more than two in five trips by people who commute to downtown Bellevue are now by bus, car pool or some method other than driving alone, according to a new study about commuters' habits.

The study, based on polling 2,800 workers who work at the largest downtown companies, as well as 500 employees at smaller businesses, will be officially released next month. It was compiled by Pacific Rim Resources using its own surveys and those done by King County.

About 43 percent of trips to work by downtown's estimated 33,600 workers now are by alternative methods, up from 24 percent four years ago and ahead of the city's 2005 goal, the study says.

About one in four trips are by car pool or van pool, up from about one in six in 1996, according to the study. Commute trips by bus increased to 16 percent from 7 percent.

The city expected an increase, but not such a large one.

"This is a really big deal," said Barbara Ramey, a spokeswoman for the city's Transportation Department, which has worked with businesses to encourage ride-sharing. Several other factors contributed to the jump, Ramey said: an increase in bus service, higher prices for parking and gas, and more demand for parking spots downtown.

The survey also showed that nearly 80 percent of workers downtown telecommuted at least one day in the previous two weeks. That could include people who worked at home in the morning before heading to the office or who took work home, however, said Jonathan Dong, a senior planner for Bellevue. Just 4 percent in 1996 said they ever telecommuted.

"Even though it's high, I don't think it's that far off," Dong said of the statistic, noting how accepted "teleworking" has become.

The survey had an error of plus or minus five percentage points.

While Bellevue's gains are notable, people still drive a lot compared with Seattle's more dense downtown core. More than half of the commutes to downtown Seattle are by bus, and nearly one quarter by car pool, the city said.

Copyright ) 2000 The Seattle Times Company

-- Informed Citizen (ic@ic.com), August 22, 2000.

to Informed Citizen: It's amazing, isn't it? So many of us rideshare, and, yet, the roads are still filled to capacity during rush hour.

Sooner or later, society is going to have to add new capacity, whether it be HOV lanes, toll roads, or additional general purpose lanes.

It's not just the roads that are filled to capacity, either. I've gone to pick up folks at a Park'n'Ride in Gig Harbor, and the lot is full before 5 AM!!! And, yet, the WSDOT wants to build HOV lanes on Hwy 16 without building new Park'n'Rides. Explain the logic of that.

-- Matthew M. Warren (mattinsky@msn.com), August 23, 2000.

To Informed Citizen:

My parents built a new home in Bellevue in the mid 60s. My mother didnt want us kids to miss the first two months of school as the house was not ready to move in. She taxied us every day both ways from West Seattle to Bellevue each morning and afternoon via SR405. I still recall waiting or moving along slowly in trafffic while they were building 405. This was over thirty years ago, when there were just 2 general purpose lanes for traffic. Then in later years, I got to use 405 and wait in traffic as the construction crews revamped sections of the highway. Now, over thirty years later, I would like to see some of my tax dollars go to increasing lane capacity. Im not against buses or carpool lanes, but I have been paying taxes for roads and the example I show you is 405, still two general purpose lanes after all these years and no other north-south main access on the eastside. Its past time to build capacity in addition to rail.

Doug

-- Doug (dgoar14@hotmail.com), August 25, 2000.