Why governance reform for local transit would not work
A governor's commission suggests fixing our transportation problems by changing the governing board to a directly elected body, as in Portland. A skeptic says such a reform would be slow, reduce accountability, and probably make our transportation planning worse.
Fifteen months ago, a group appointed by Gov. Chris Gregoire called the Regional Transportation Commission (RTC) submitted its conclusions for a proposed makeover of the Puget Sound transportation agencies. The RTC's 112-page public report produced eight major findings, the essence of which is that the Puget Sound region is experiencing a severe strain in transportation caused by a lack of money, coordination, and prioritization.
These findings are well-documented and mostly undisputed. Who would argue that a $62 billion shortfall in funding is not a serious problem? More debatable is the recommendation by the RTC to solve this problem with a newly created 15-member agency that would plan, prioritize, and fund all modes of regional transportation in the four-county region (King, Kitsap, Pierce, and Snohomish counties). How a change in governance would close the $62 billion funding gap has yet to be explained.
The issue of a directly elected board vs. a federated board structure (as we now have) is the centerpiece of the RTC recommendations. What problem does this solve? And will it introduce other problems? Count me a skeptic.
The supporters say that a directly elected board allows the voters to "get at" their board members during an election, tossing them out if they fail to perform well. By contrast, with the current federated board, a voter might dislike the way, say, a Pierce County councilmember is performing on the Sound Transit board but love the way she or he is serving Pierce County.
However, there are lots of problems with this proposed cure. The districts would be huge (about 235,000 citizens in each one). Some fear that the elected directors would become like the Port of Seattle, a rubber-stamp arm of business and labor that leaves the public in the dark and draws little media or voter attention. A recent audit by the state's auditor provided evidence of this fear with the Port of Seattle. The devastating audit was made more difficult by port employees who were uncooperative with the state auditor. The problems raised in the audit have led to an investigation by the FBI.
Sound Transit, on the other hand, has been audited on a regular basis over the 15 years of its existence. Each time, the results were a clean audit. Such an audit is a strong accountability measure that provides much clearer oversight than an election every six years, and it certainly doesn't require a directly elected board of directors to achieve this accountability.
The call for governance reform is an old story around here. Whenever there are problems with agencies in Washington state, the idea of changing governance seems to surface quickly thereafter. When Sound Transit experienced a large cost overrun and accompanying loss of public confidence, pressure was applied to the Legislature to make the board of directors directly elected. Many critics said the only way for Sound Transit to regain public confidence was to have a revote of the project.
Instead, Sound Transit managed to regroup, find new leadership, and recover the confidence of the public with neither a public revote nor a directly elected board of directors. The continuing call for a directly elected board seems to be more of a remnant of that troubled time that is no longer relevant to an agency that has reformed itself.
Likewise, when the Seattle Monorail Project experienced a budget shortfall and loss of public confidence, critics again demanded a directly elected board. Similarly, after the 2004 election problems related to the Washington state governor's election, there was a call by critics to make the King County elections director elected directly by the public instead of appointed by the King County executive. The decision to move forward with a directly elected position in the elections department was made by the voters via initiative, and it will take years to complete. The complexities of restructuring transportation planning in Puget Sound would be similarly complex and long-drawn out.
Huge changes to transportation governance could slow the progress under way and paralyze transportation planning for years.
Even if we embarked on this complicated reform of governance, would directly elected officials be more accountable? I'm far from convinced, for several reasons. In practice, key positions in government are appointed as well as directly elected. Seattle City Light, for instance, is run by a director who is appointed by the Seattle City Council. The public has no direct role other than through public comment. Yet this seems to provide adequate results, and the public seems perfectly happy with this type of accountability. Few people have any idea who runs Seattle City Light, yet the agency keeps the electricity flowing to customers 24 hours a day.
In many ways, a federated board of elected officials (the present system for Sound Transit) allows the public to hold these officials accountable much better than if they were directly elected, since there are two points of accountability for every board member.
Comments:
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 6:50 a.m. inappropriate
Things Never Change: The folks who are unhappy with the direction of any particular organization always call for a change in the form of governance. A year or so ago the Seattle Times editorial board and Don Nielsen were calling for an appointed Seattle School Board, to bring professionalism and business experience to the board and silence uppity minority viewpoints. Now of course it is time for the "people" to control Sound Transit. Out with the appointed rascals from County Governments and in with the novices elected from huge districts a la Seattle Monorail board. It is always so.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 7:28 a.m. inappropriate
There's More: It is impossible to create a directly elected government in the four county region without the government being controlled by politicians from King County: one man, one vote. This is America.
Lobbyists for big special interests (like the state's corporate lobby) often complain they can't "get to" Sound Transit board members. People need to remember that those big money interests, including some of the state's most wealthy people, are the prime proponents of a new directly elected regional government. They obviously want to buy a government they can't buy now.
The regional scheme promoted by John Stanton, Norm Rice, and now Dino Rossi, is deeply flawed. In addition to the flaws noted above:
- the proposal guts transit funding by allowing transit-only taxes to be used for roads, but doesn't touch road-only taxes and allow them to be used on transit
- the proposal pretends to eliminate pork but sets up new elected officials from new districts whose chief job will be to bring the bacon home to their districts. While Stanton and Rice say they want to end sub-area equity and create a government that will prioritize according to what has the most system impact, they create a government structure that does the opposite and creates a regional pork-fest.
- the proposal creates a new layer of government not less government. Stanton and Rice always note that there are many dozens of cities in the region who have some role in transportation, implying that they have a solution. They don't. There would not be any less government under their proposal. It is generally not a good idea in government to establish expectations you can't meet.
- the proposal is a sideshow, not a solution. Someone needs to add up the time it'll take to elect a big new board, house them, elect them, staff them. It will eat years organizing. Meanwhile the state legislature will do nothing. These regional schemes are a way for Olympia to pass the buck to others for road systems in urban regions. Rossi flip-flopped on this issue yesterday. He criticized current powers in Olympia who are promoting a policy of having locals pay for road projects the state has always been responsible for. Then he proposed a new layer of regional government that's just like current flawed pass-the-buck-to-locals policy.
- the proposal is incomplete. It ignores ferries, for instance, yet insists that people in ferry dependent Kitsap County join up. This is a supremely stupid oversight at a time when the ferry system faces a funding crisis but it represents the arrogance of the Medina-based egocentric thought process that is the dominate force of the Stanton-Rice-Rossi proposal.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 7:45 a.m. inappropriate
RE: There's More: I don't see how you get from "we should elect the board" to "Medina-based egocentric thought process," but then, I don't really follow the thought of "your taxes you pay for roads should be shifted to non-road projects because I'm smarter than you."
Wait. THAT'S kind of elitist, too. How can I make it snarky and compare it to some city that thinks it's better than the rest of us?
Oh, I know.
"Taking money I pay for general road taxes and using it to fund Seattle-centric public transportation that does NOT include roads is the height of Seattle-centered hypocrisy."
Yeah. That has a nice ring. Snarky and self-righteous. I think I have that tone just about right.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 9:44 a.m. inappropriate
Sound Transit is a Financial Hellhole: This Richard Borkowski is out to lunch.
There is a leadership vacuum at Sound Transit and it is causing massive damages. That local government is fiscally incontinent. It is out of control. ST is a public works financial debacle of world-class proportions.
ST's entire Phase I spending estimate shown in its 2005 "financial plan" was $6,629,000,000. That figure comes from the "Sources & Uses Summary" table in that document (it is on ST's website). What has happened to that Phase I spending estimate of $6.6 billion between 2005 and now? It's been a meltdown of Chernobyl proportions.
In the SEC filing ST used to sell $450 million in new bonds in November 2007, ST gave us a new Phase I spending estimate: over $12,000,000,000.
Here's how that document breaks it down:
--------
Tax Revenues: $6,925,000,000
Federal Grants: $1,821,000,000
Bonds: $2,398,000,000
Fares/Operating Revenues: $431,000,000
Local Grants/Interest Earnings: $567,000,000
Total: $12,143,000,000
Sounder Commuter Rail: $1,268,000,000
ST Express Bus: $785,000,000
Link Light Rail: $4,175,000,000
Transit Operations: $2,712,000,000
System-wide Activities: $533,000,000
Debt Service: $1,218,000,000
Contributions to Reserves: $1,450,000,000
Total: $12,143,000,000
-------
You can see that yourselves by going to this site and searching for the official statement of the "Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority."
Over the past three years ST's own projected Phase I costs soared by $5.5 billion. About $1.7 billion of that is attributable to projected capital expenses for added projects. The rest? Well, let's put it this way - if ST conducted its operations in a remotely transparent or accountable way, we'd know. The situation could be far worse than that; five months have passed since that SEC filing was made.
Anyone got updated spending plans information? Of course not - ST's spending plans and tax collection plans are a black box, and nobody there will discuss what it is up to in those areas.
Somebody want to try explaining how "Transit Operations" for ST's tiny little bus and train system possibly could cost $2.7 billion over the Phase I build-out period? That is WAY out of line.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 9:46 a.m. inappropriate
ST is Violating the Local Law Voters Approved in 1996: So what's the problem at ST? In short, the board and management are following an unofficial - but very real - policy of completely disregarding the financing plan terms that are in the local law votes approved in 1996. It is institutionalized unlawful conduct, designed to harm taxpayers.
The voters in 1996 imposed a specific financing plan in the measure they approved. Some of the key provisions the voters in 1996 imposed on ST are set out in this thread on the P-I's website.
ST feels free to violate those legal terms limiting how much tax ST can collect and spend in each subarea during the Phase I construction period (and after). ST is spending far more tax revenue in each subarea during the construction period than the voters approved in 1996 (see the figures in Appendix A of Sound Move, incorporated by reference into Resolution 75). ST has been ignoring the subarea budgeting requirements of the local law completely, and it is not accelerating the payoff of the outstanding debt as is required in the wake of the ST2 defeat (see what Appendix B of Sound Move says about the mandatory tax rate rollback).
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 9:47 a.m. inappropriate
Straw Men: Richard raises a lot of good points. However, with the monorail, the voters could send a signal via both their vote for a board member, and their vote in favor of shutting the project down when it turned out to be very different than they'd been promised.
Will voters vote to close a $62 Billion gap when they don't have these opportunities? I don't think so.
What I would dread though about direct elections is another round of fund raising that would go with it. Running an election to reach 235K voters isn't cheap. There are already a lot of requests from electeds for contributions.
The second issue is land use planning. This is where the appointed board drawn from city and county positions makes a lot of sense.
--
While we're at it, maybe it is time to broaden the boundaries of Sound Transit. Last year during the election cycle, it was really striking how little of Snohomish COunty actually pays into Sound Transit, and also how there are a lot of areas in South King and Pierce that are inside the Urban Growth Boundary, but are not in the SOund Transit taxing district. I bet a significant part of the ridership on SOunder is not actually paying taxes.
==
To close, I think one thing that has helped SOund Transit reform over the past few years is the realization they were going to have ask voters for a very large amount of money. Will they still be as good if they get a huge tax increase, and no possibility of a voter initiative in case the board starts making dumb decisions?
For that matter, it is worth asking how the board members are appointed. When Rob McKenna raised tough questions, he was not reappointed. THis still really bothers me.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 9:51 a.m. inappropriate
The Auditors Facilitate ST's Unlawful Conduct: Borkowski tries to make a big deal about how ST has gone through audits. Those audits come back "clean" because they fail to examine whether ST is complying with the local law financing plan terms voters imposed on that local government.
The SAO's I-900 performance audit report from 2007, and the SAO's annual accountability audit reports, show this obvious problem with what Brian Sonntag and his auditors do. Those reports say what the audit scopes were, and those scopes exclude examinations of whether or not ST is acting lawfully under the law voters approved in 1996.
On page 9 of the I-900 performance audit report, the firm the SAO hired describes what it had been retained to examine: As part of our audit, we examined compliance with applicable state statutes and department rules and regulations as they pertained to the specific objectives of the performance audit. That firm got paid $450,000 to not examine whether or not ST was complying with the financing plan limitations voters imposed on ST. Instead, it got paid almost half a million dollars to examine an irrelevant issue relating to "what voters were told."
"What voters were told" never has been the subject of any audit, anywhere in America, before this for one simple reason: it is completely irrelevant as a matter of law. Campaign supporters are allowed to lie through their teeth to voters, and it is perfectly legal for them to do so.
When the SAO conducts its annual accountability audits of ST the same unofficial standard operating procedure pertains: never examine whether ST is complying with the local law. Sonntag and his staff deliberately exclude from those annual audits examinations of ST's operations with respect to all the taxing and spending limits set out in the financing plan terms of ST's local enabling legislation.
The most recent SAO accountability audit report of ST (covering 2006) contains a scope definition that states: We performed audit procedures to determine whether the Authority complied with state laws and regulations and its own policies and procedures. It is the 1996 local law - not state laws, and not ST's internal procedures - that ST is violating.
The SAO must want to cover up ST's unlawful conduct. There is no other possible explanation for the SAO's repeated, ongoing failures to examine whether or not ST is complying with the financing plan terms in the local law the voters imposed on that local government in 1996. The SAO examines whether every other local government in the state complies with local laws. The only reason those auditors would not do that in ST's case is because they know the extent of ST's unlawful conduct and they don't want to flag it.
The misstatements of fact and numerous misleading assertions in the State Auditor's Office's recent audit reports of ST are described in this thread on the P-I's website.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 10:03 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Straw Men: one thing that has helped SOund Transit reform over the past few years is the realization they were going to have ask voters for a very large amount of money.
Sound Transit hasn't reformed in any way over the past few years. The situation there has gotten far worse recently.
ST has been massively violating the terms of the law voters imposed on it in 1996. How does that suggest to you something is reformed?
The Phase I construction period projected expenses have increased by $5.5 billion in the last three years. NONE of that is attributable to capital cost price inflation. Management is completely out of control. Amuse us - try explaining this growing fiasco that is harming us.
What "reforms" are you talking about? My guess is that they are a complete figment of your imagination.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 10:05 a.m. inappropriate
Regional Governance: I've been following regional governance since the late 1980's - I organized a forum on the UW Campus for KC 2000. While the UW people I met at that event were great, my opinion of the typical 'reform' process has dimmed. Unfortunately these same folks also have many more friends at the UW, certainly more than me.
UW Daily Op-Ed on Regional Governance
The problem is that many of the reformers are actually the problem - smart enough to make the political moves, but still not able to do a good job.
My proposed solution was a single elected executive for our transit agency, retaining 'district' representation via the established appointment system - albeit giving the executive some power in that process as well. Warnings about duplicating the problems at the port are well taken - certainly Sound Transit and the Port of Seattle have much more in common than the reformers claim.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 2:35 p.m. inappropriate
(I am in fact strongly pro-transit but not in favor of light rail because it is a system inappropriate to Seattle's topography and transportation patterns and far more costly by any measure than bus rapid transit or normal bus service).
Borkowski's organization used to receive subsidies from Sound Transit. Does it still? Is it subsidized by business or labor interests deriving revenue from light rail?
The argument made by Borkowski, against an elected regional transportation body, is the same one made by Sound Transit on the same issue. Sound Transit does so because it does not believe an elected body would necessarily rubber-stamp light rail extensions as the appointed one has.
Borkowski should express his opinions. But he also should let us know, up front, where his supposedly independent organization gets its funding.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 5:35 p.m. inappropriate
If Sound Transit had in fact given money to PMT, this would be public record and there would be publicly available documentation. Does Mr Van Dyk have this documentation? I have never seen it and I have never been contacted by him to fact check his statement. That's unfortunate, especially for someone who has his history of working with public policy. Public policy should be about the issues and a lively discussion of facts and opinions rather than myths and gossip.
Richard Borkowski
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 8 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Straw Men: You raise a good point about what's really different. Maybe a better way to express my thought is "the need to get more funding has resulted in efforts to portray Sound Transit as a reformed agency."
I agree that Sound Transit's finances and topics like sub area equity are not well understood or easy to follow. I do believe the State Auditor has a performance audit coming up on Sound Transit. I would suggest writing him with your concerns and hopefully they can be incorporated into the scoping document. If you have a group of people, get the person who's in charge of the audit to come and speak to them.
http://www.sao.wa.gov/PerformanceAudit/Planned_audits.htm
Efficiency and economy of Sound Transit's operations and effectiveness of financial planning. The audit will follow up on the findings and recommendations in our first performance audit of Sound Transit: Sound Transit Link Light Rail.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 9 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Comment by Ted Van Dyk: Yikes. Ted Van Dyk continues on his anti-rail rampage. I think the main reason he's so against it is because he's 80 years old, and is stuck back in the 20th century, car-head mentality. Ancient ideas from an ancient man.
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 9:57 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Straw Men: What are you talking about?!? Sound Transit has only received good to great audits for this decade.
Check this link for proof!
Posted Wed, Apr 16, 9:57 p.m. inappropriate
Argue the facts, Ted!: Ted Van Dyk weighs in on the Sound Transit issue, not by debating the facts, but by questioning the integrity of the author. As Mr. Borkowski showed in his response, Van Dyk's allegations were untrue. I find this quick resort to personal attack disappointing, especially from one who purports to still carry the torch Kennedy/Johnson era.
Van Dyk has long championed governance reform and more buses as an alternative to rail. So why slander instead of debate? Maybe because the bus plans put forth in this region generally serve as trojan horses for those who want to build more roads. Maybe because the people of this region would reject these pro-bus arguments if they were argued honestly. Who can say what lurks in the heart of Ted Van Dyk?
But look at the facts: Our highway system is a mess, and bottlenecks along I-5, across Lake Washington, and, yes, even on stretches of I-405 cannot be expanded much, if at all. Buses on those systems will simply sit there along with all the cars. Buses fail to create any new people-moving capacity. And what about tolls? Yeah, right-- this region is still seeing efforts to try to kill HOV lanes. A publicly accepted tolling system is years if not decades away.
The allure of light rail it two-fold: it adds people-moving capacity where we can't add it any other way, and it creates a way to get around that people like a heck of a lot more than buses. So more people will ride it.
Oh, as for the governance issue? My objections are pragmatic. I share Borkowski's belief that it is being pursued as a tool by those who don't want light rail-- a clear minority in the region-- but who are smart enough to know they need camouflage. Hopefully the rest of us are smart enough to see through the smoke and mirrors.
Second, a convoluted governance exercise will just add time (and therefore money) to the fix this region needs. We all need to get after this problem now!
Posted Thu, Apr 17, 5:17 a.m. inappropriate
It seems apparent that, one way or another, Borkowski is tied to interests tied to Sound Transit light rail. Borkowski's communications, over a several-year period, have parroted Sound Transit's. He has taken the Sound Transit line that anyone opposing light rail thus opposes transit---which is ridiculous. He also parrots, almost word for word, what Sound Transit has been saying about the bipartisan Rice-Stanton recommendations for a new, directly elected regional transportation body.
Now, to the substance of the transportation issue.
I have followed transportation policy over many years and, for a time, ran a White House task force on transportation policy. Any serious assessment of transportation options in a given metropolitan area would examine the comparative costs and benefits of all such options. The basic question: What systems would move the most goods and people in the region to their desired destinations for the least amount of public money?
Light rail is a technology most suited to areas such as Chicago, topographically flat, where commuters move from homes to their workplaces, and back, along high-density corridors. It is not suited to places such as Seattle, where commuting patterns are more diffuse, and where tunneling and water crossings are necessary. An existing bus system---or its cousin, bus rapid transit, which runs in dedicated lanes---can be expanded and modified to go to multiple residential and workplace destinations. It does not have to be preceded by property takings, acquisition of rights of way, laying of rail, construction of stations and, as in Seattle, boring and tunneling which are environmentally destructive and huge consumers of energy.
Seattle's "starter" light rail system, as noted by an analyst above, is many billions over its promised costs, many years beyond its promised construction schedule, and with many of its promised stations already cancelled out. The station with the highest prospective ridership, First Hill, has been cancelled because of engineering difficulties and because of budgetary constraints.
The starter system, in the south end, is projected to get more than three quarters of its ridership from people already using public transit buses.
Yet, with this record, Sound Transit proposed through Proposition 1 to impose the largest local tax increase in United States history on King, Pierce and Snohomish County citizens to extend the system through the three counties.
Sound Transit, and the contractors, unions, law firms, engineers, consultants and others eating at its light rail trough, continue to press against all experience and evidence for this option rather than using the same resources to provide cost-effective bus service which also is within Sound Transit's purview.
The present debate about regional transportation governance is not, as Borkowski and others assert, about shifting around bureacratic boxes. It is about getting accountability and responsibility into regional transportation decisionmaking. It is, at heart, about finding a way to break the death grip attachment of Sound Transit's present appointed board to cost-ineffective light rail.
The Rice-Stanton commission's proposal would offer a chance to the region for balanced, sensible transportation options. If the elected body did not produce them, we could vote them out of office. Voters can block Sound Transit's cost-ineffective proposals only by rejecting one transportation ballot measure after another.
Posted Thu, Apr 17, 10:25 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Ted Van Dyk response: You mention Chicago. I looked up a typical train line schedule. THey offer express trains.
http://metrarail.com/Sched/cnw_w/cnwwwki.shtml
One of the great frustrations of light rail is that it is will have to stop at every station, there are no ways to run an express train without stopping at every station. For people who want to come from the south end, say Federal Way (assuming the line gets built that far), it would mean stopping at every single station en route. Each stop adds to the travel time, and at some point, it is a lot faster to be on an express bus. From 320th in Federal Way to the International District station would mean 12 or 13 stops for a distance that's just about 20 miles. At some point, people would rather have a faster express bus than a slower train.
Another comment: one of the big debate items seems to be who is this light rail system intended for: people who can walk to the station, presumably from new transit oriented development, or park and rides for people who get there via a bus or their own car? The Sierra Club transportation committee seems to be arguing against park and rides. However, the percentage of total commuters who will be living in any new developments is going to be quite small unless the new developments are much bigger than what we're seeing so far. Without park and rides or shuttle bus service that picks people up, the percentage of people who can benefit from light rail is going to be quite low.
The question from this article remains: what is the best way for public opinion to be represented in transportation planning? There's no opportunity for an initiative or for a newcomer who has innovative ideas to run for office on that platform.
If the Monorail were governed in the same way Sound Transit were, then Seattle taxpayers would not have had the opportunity to express their opinion that they were misled, and the opportunity to cut their losses. So how can that happen with Sound Transit in the event there's another impending meltdown the way there was with the monorail?
Or maybe this meltdown is already occurring, per comments above about Sound Transit's finances and the way that it should be planning for accelerated payment of its debt because Prop 1 failed?
A final comment: does anyone know how many park and rides have spaces available for the morning commute? When I commuted from Federal Way to Seattle 8 years ago, the 348th one was always full by 7:15 am. I bet now it is full even sooner. A part of transportation planning should be looking at present unmet demand and being realistic about what it will cost to meet it. That was most definitely not a part of the recent Sound Transit survey. This would make an excellent platform for a candidate running for the Sound Transit Board, but unfortunately that can't happen because of the governance structure.
Posted Thu, Apr 17, 1:26 p.m. inappropriate
Why fix what's not broken?: Sound Transit had some bumps early on. Don't most new organizations? They seem to be doing better now as the audits indicate.
My concern is the ability or willingness to change and try new things. While everyone would love to have light rail and Sound Transit has declared it is a light rail agency, I wonder if a more gradual approach would get us to where we want to be. For example, instead of starting with light rail, we could start with electric buses and streetcars. Once demand increases - and the density to pay for it - then the systems can be upgraded to light rail standards.
Tacoma has had a starter streetcar line for about 10 years now and is poised to start expanding it. Other cities should consider starter streetcar lines too.
Posted Thu, Apr 17, 8:43 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Comment by Ted Van Dyk: I am the former president of People for Modern Transit, and served in that role just prior to Richard Borkowski. I can also assert that at no time during my affiliation did PMT receive any funds from Sound Transit (then known as the RTA, Regional Transit Authority).
I've long been disappointed with Mr. Van Dyk's playing loose with the facts, on transit issues. He should've done some basic fact-checking with a phonecall or two, but no, it's easier to just sit at his keyboard and let his fingers run. Perhaps that's what got him booted from the op-ed page at the P-I.
When Crosscut came along, I had hopes it would adhere to some higher journalistic standards. Didn't I read something to that affect when you started up? What happened?
Posted Thu, Apr 17, 9:08 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Ted Van Dyk response: Yes, light rail trains typically stop at every station. Dwell times can range from 10 to 20 seconds -- much less than a typical bus stop. About 2 dozen modern light rail lines have been built in North America in the last 25 years, and I've seen no reports of riders suffering from the "frustrations" suggested by Mr. Jenner.
Perhaps it's because the rail transit provides new right-of-way that doesn't have to be shared with cars and other traffic -- new ROW that is not subject to traffic congestion, that provides reliable travel times day in and day out. Yes, there are a few bus routes that offer fast travel times on HOV lanes, but they are only as reliable as the HOV lane. One fender-bender, on the wrong side of the freeway, and that HOV lane is gone, and the bus schedule goes out the window.
Oh, and don't overlook Mr. Rossi and Mr. Eyman -- they want to limit HOV lanes to weekday "rush hours" only. No HOV lanes at any other times, no matter how jammed the highway gets. The State Auditor and the State Department of Transportation have both reported that "rush hour" can be an all-day event, on several local highways. But for Rossi and Eyman, bus riders can just sit.
How do riders get to Link light rail stations? If Mr. Jenner were a transit rider, he wouldn't be asking that question. Light rail stations are located in population centers and areas that are expected to grow in population and density. Lots of people can and will walk to the stations, and those numbers are expected to grow over time. All stations include bike racks, and bike riders will be able to take their bikes onto the trains, if they wish. King County Metro is revamping its local and express bus routes to serve the light rail stations, to allow them to function as feeders to the rail (trunk) line. And some stations (such as Tukwila) will include park-and-ride lots. Rider access to the trains is not an issue, and I expect Link will be subjected to more riders than anticipated, rather than fewer.
Posted Sat, Apr 19, 12:04 p.m. inappropriate
Governance reform is a bad deal: Sound Transit has been performing reasonably well. It has been building ramps for buses to access freeways. It's on time and on budget (granted, the 2001 budget, not the 1996 budget) to complete the first section of light rail to Sea-Tac. Its Sounder service has been serving many people in Pierce and South King County well.
Sound Transit has passed all of the many audits it has had by the state auditor, the federal government and others with flying colors. It's gotten excellent rates on its bonds on Wall Street.
Ted Van Dyk is wrong as usual on transportation. First, Sound Transit and Metro and other bus agencies already are doing bus rapid transit. That's what's happening on Highway 99, for example, and also on Lake City Way. So it's not an EITHER light rail OR bus rapid transit choice. We need both.
We need light rail along our busiest regional corridors (I-5 and I-90) because bus rapid transit depends upon existing highway HOV lanes, which are crowded at rush hour and which people like Dino Rossi keep wanting to let solo drivers take over. The good thing about light rail is that it creates new right-of-way for transit that does not have to be shared with the single occupancy vehicle. Light rail is also more efficient to operate than buses are because it can add cars without adding drivers and because it doesn't use rubber tires.
Light rail is a proven technology that has been happily and successfully used by scores of cities like Seattle around the world. The very thing that Ted Van Dyk cites as a reason to eschew light rail -- this region's difficult geology -- is also a reason to embrace it. Seattle can no more easily add bus lanes than it can develop light rail corridors. That's why it is critical to use all transportation corridors we have extremely efficiently.
Back to governance reform. It is being pushed by those who want access to transit dollars for road-building. Just look at Dino Rossi's transportation plan: "Let's take Sound Transit dollars and spend them on roads!"
The idea that directly electing the board will be an improvement is wrong for the reasons Richard Borkowski gives. Let me add a few others.
First, the political campaigns of a directly elected board will attract campaign donations from all of the companies that sell to the agency. Hardly a healthy situation.
Second, the current system of having the Sound Transit board made up of elected city council members, county council members and county executives encourages cooperation and coordination between Sound Transit and the many cities and towns it travels through. Take that away and you will really see costs escalate as each area tries to hold up transit projects for maximum "mitigation" consideration it can extract and sees no reason to cooperate to get the projects built as quickly and efficiently as possible.
We already have a regional planning agency -- the Puget Sound Regional Council. Why not beef it up a little bit if more coordination and prioritizing are desired?
Posted Sat, Apr 19, 3:49 p.m. inappropriate
'Pave' king co with rail tracks: to make light rail ANYWHERE near a reasonable alternative for people, that's what will have to happen - oh, I forgot, were not in the business of paving anymore .
Besides, where would we ever get the right of ways ?
You rail idiots are either (1) construction based or (2) union supported or (3) already on the grift of govt pencil pushers !
Build transportation that 90 percent of the population use RIGHT NOW, everyday ! Build / Improve our road networks and modernize them for truck segregation and bus transit.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 11:27 a.m. inappropriate
Still Researching Ted?: This is the fifth day Ted. Are you still looking for evidence that Borkowski is on the take from Sound Transit? It is time to start preparing your apology.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 12:35 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Comment by Ted Van Dyk: People for Modern Transit was founded in conjunction with a respected Bellevue based engineering firm as part of their effort to obtain Sound Transit work. I attended a couple of their meetings - not my style, but not bad folks either.
There are certainly a whole heck of a lot worse. I think the firm has done okay, though they didn't win in the first round. I have no idea what the group is these days but attributing them as a close supporters of Sound Transit is credible.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 12:40 p.m. inappropriate
R (P?) on Beacon Hill: If my memory, and extrapolation skills are working correctly, you would be Mr. P., yes?
Check out my blog sometime, My Blog
See ya around.
-Douglas Tooley
South Tacoma
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 12:45 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Ted Van Dyk response: FWIW, as I recall 'R on Beacon Hill' had some sort of Sound Transit Job while heading PMT. PMT has definitely had in-kind support from engineering firm(s), couldn't say for sure about cash, but it would be a pretty safe bet, for investigatory purposes.
Chuck has my email if you want any more specific recollections.
-Doug
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 12:51 p.m. inappropriate
On budget: Bus ramps are a good thing, I agree. They are expensive, yes, but when one considers the efficiencies they add to the existing network (not the least of which is the traffic slowing effect of a bus moving from the left lane to the exit) they make a lot of sense.
That idea was Bob White's, the, IMO, scapegoated, first director. Though we do have strong financial leadership now, we don't have an agency that can grasp the economics of the system at a conceptual level. I can't speak to the details of Mr. White's leadership, but it is highly likely that he was not responsible for the budget problems that existed - much more likely legal staff influencing lower level budget and contract folks.
BTW, first cost overrun for Sound Transit was the bus ramp just north of Alderwood Mall - in Bob Drewel's area, now executive director of the PSRC, though I fail to see how he is even remotely qualified for that. His constituents were certainly smart enough to get rid of him.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 12:54 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Still Researching Ted? - White Lies: There is a connection. My recollection isn't strong enough to make specific allegations, but it is there. And there isn't anything illegal about that, just so long as the truth is out there.
Which apparently none of the PMT supporters are willing to give us.
That, IMO, is worthy of an apology also.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 4:12 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Ted Van Dyk response: When attributing (above) certain positions re: HOV lanes and bus riders to Mr. Rossi and Mr. Eyman, Mr R P on Beacon Hill should follow the same standard he employs to denigrate Mr. Van Dyke's comments, to wit: ."He should've done some basic fact-checking with a phonecall or two, but no, it's easier to just sit at his keyboard and let his fingers run" (I suppose only pro-rail advocates can throw mud to impugn the credentials and views of others, eh?)
Now, as regards whether Richard Borkowski and/or his pro-ST organization, People for Modern Transit, have received funds directly (or indirectly) from ST dollars, Mr. Borkowski avers this is not the case. Yet he does not respond to the question posed by Mr. Van Dyke: "Borkowski's organization used to receive subsidies from Sound Transit. Does it still? Is it subsidized by business or labor interests deriving revenue from light rail?(...) he also should let us know, up front, where his supposedly independent organization gets its funding." Hence, this matter remains open. Any response, Richard?
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 4:32 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Governance reform is a bad deal: .
hoohah thinks "having the Sound Transit board made up of elected city council members, county council members and county executives encourages cooperation and coordination between Sound Transit and the many cities and towns it travels through."
Yeah, right. Saying it's so doesn't make it so, hoohah.
Indeed, ST's history is replete with evidence that the reverse is true, as scope-creep has lead to many planned light-rail stations being abandoned, substantial cost-overruns on Sounder and same with REx. This was a result of backroom "bargaining" among all those city council, county council members and county executives sitting on the ST board.
Separating these local electeds from a new ST board will force ST to focus on its sole mission rather than placating the demands of individual board members. (Ask yourself whether extending light rail down the Pacific Highway all the way to Federal Way -and possibly on to Tacoma- makes any real sense, given the need (and time) to stop at every station, milk-run style, all that distance. Yet, until the loss of Prop. 1, extending light rail there was part of the plan. Same argument could be made for why light rail across Lake Washington is still considered 'viable'. Yeah, sure -- it's only viable if there's a humongous enough pot of money burning a hole in ST's pocket.)
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 6:15 p.m. inappropriate
Evidence please: Doug, the responsibility falls on the accusers, not on People for Modern Transit, re the statement that the organization took money from Sound Transit, or its predecessor RTA. Proving the negative can be a bit difficult, won't you admit?
Let's see the evidence, please. That's not too much to ask. And if the accusers, Mr. Van Dyk and sundry, continue to come up empty-handed, then it's they who owe apologies.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 6:21 p.m. inappropriate
Citations provided: Happy to provide the cites, Tom, re my statements above about Mr. Rossi and Mr. Eyman.
See page 13 of Mr. Rossi's transportation plan where he calls for opening HOV lanes to all traffic during non-rush hours. Also see Sec. 2 of Initiative 985, Mr. Eyman's latest, where he would by law force all HOV lanes open to all traffic except during rush hours.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 6:26 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Ted Van Dyk response: Happy to provide the cites, Tom, re my statements above about Mr. Rossi and Mr. Eyman.
Please see page 13 of Mr. Rossi's transportation plan where he calls for opening HOV lanes to all traffic during non-rush hours. Also see Sec. 2 of Initiative 985, Mr. Eyman's latest, where he would by law force all HOV lanes open to all traffic except during rush hours.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 6:33 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Ted Van Dyk response: Where does this stuff come from?
Yes I "headed" PMT during the late 1990's, and Mr. Borkowski became president when the group reorganized in 2000. Yes, I went to work for Sound Transit in 2001. There was no overlap, Doug.
I could suggest again a little factchecking, but this discussion has become typical blogchatter where we all know such standards do not apply.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 6:56 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Citations provided: So, you chide them when they're both engaged in putting themselves -and their proposals- up for a vote? Isn't that how public decisions tend to get made? Or do you think they're just 'horning in' on ST's turf? (no pun intended) and btw: are you still employed at ST? If so, in what capacity?
Why do you believe opening HOV lanes in non-rush hours equates to your claim that "for Rossi and Eyman, bus riders can just sit"? This might just be 'the cat's meow' for a 6-lane 520. Otherwise, an 8-lane bridge appears to be a battle many on the Eastside seem willing fight to the death.
Posted Mon, Apr 21, 8:20 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Citations provided: If traffic congestion was limited to 3 hours on weekday mornings and 3 hours on weekday afternoons, then nobody would care about opening HOV lanes during the rest of the time. But we know that's not the case. When buses and carpools can't get through, during non-peak times, because the HOV lane is jammed up with trucks and SOVs, it's accurate to suggest that their passengers "can just sit" and wait.
In the case of Mr. Rossi, it's apparently a matter of principal. In a radio interview on KUOW, he said (and yes, I listened to the tape): "Picking people and rewarding them for what you believe or others believe is the proper way to commute, I don't believe is the right method." Sounds to me like he doesn't believe in HOV preferences, but you are welcome to your interpretation.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 6:10 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Citations provided: You may be missing the financial aspect of the point Rossi expresses.
How affordable -indeed sustainable- is any strategy/policy of "rewarding people" for what is deemed the "proper way to commute"? When a disproportionately large shares of the region's (or state's) transportation investment dollars are devoted to services that serve a disproportionately small share of people, isn't that -or shouldn't that be- an appropriate concern of elected officials?
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 6:54 a.m. inappropriate
RE: On budget: Bus/HOV ramps are put in where present and/or future traffic justifies the expense. Bob Drewel stepped down as Snohomish County Executive due to term limits in their county charter. He was a highly respected public official when he left.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 7:02 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Governance reform is a bad deal: It's amusing to hear you rant about scope creep, Tom. The term is usually applied as scope expansion, yet you say it's lead to abandonment of light rail stations (which ones?). And the anti-rail organizations you worked with when you lived here, CETA, Sane, etc. were actively promoting scope creep in Tukwila by supporting a lengthy track deviation to Southcenter Mall.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 7:13 a.m. inappropriate
RE: Citations provided: HOV lanes which Rossi disdains carry disproportionately more people each day than do the SOV lanes beside them. How sustainable is a policy that ignores that efficiency and instead lets that lane jam up with congestion like the general purpose lanes beside it?
The dollars spent on HOV lanes serve more travelers, not fewer, than dollars spent on regular freeway lanes, and that should weigh on elected officials in the choices them make.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 2:48 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Ted Van Dyk response: I would have to question Mr. Van Dyke's premise. He states, "The basic question: What systems would move the most goods and people in the region to their desired destinations for the least amount of public money?" To me, that seems to be a narrow view of one of the major components of transportation infrastructure. One major consequence of transportation systems is to shape development patterns (in either a desirable or undesirable fashion). Transportation systems determine winners and losers in the real estate game, housing affordability, quality of life, and economic opportunity for everyone in the region. I would re-frame the question:
"What systems best reflect our values and priorities in terms of land use, economic development, social and environmental equity, while providing the best return (all things considered) for the public investment"
Transportation infrastructure is a regional governance as well as an engineering/transportation planning issue. If one looks only at dollars/rider/mile traveled in the 5 year planning horizon, the big picture is completely obscured. Our future is far too important to be left to transit planners.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 4:58 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Citations provided: My comments re: disproportionality were intended on a MACRO (e.g. systems) level. You raise a MICRO comparison (e.g. side-by-side of an apple to an orange) in the hope of refuting my macro disproportionality claim. But it doesn't; the figures are clear on this (see, for example, Prop 1).
Nonetheless, your micro comparison *can* be useful, as long as you ensure you don't mix the fruit and 'queer' the analysis. For instance, your micro comparison would support the economy, effectiveness and equity (i.e. potential geographic coverage) of bus transit on intelligently-utilized HOV lanes over ST's rail wet-dream. I daresay that a macro analysis would do the same.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 5:19 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Governance reform is a bad deal: Tukwila, if memory serves me, was/is a designated Urban Center under King County's Comprehensive Plan. Under Puget Sound Regional Council's (PSRC) Vision 20/20 regional plan, High-Capacity Transit (HCT) was intended to inter-connect these Urban Centers as the region's future dense employment & residential areas. (Southcenter, like Northgate, would be such areas.)
But this aim was quickly undermined. When ST decided, for budgetary reasons, to 'go south' to the airport rather than north to the University, they managed to advance a line that connected downtown (one Urban Center) to NO OTHER URBAN CENTER. So please consider my view of Tukwila vis-a-vis ST as one that is consistent with the objectives of the Growth Management Act.
The list of light rail stations lost is Royal Brougham and S. Boeing Road, and could also be said to include Convention Center, First Hill and University District. But claiming those would be inconsistent with your preferred term of 'scope expansion'. Maybe its more accurate to say they're the victims of scope contraction.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 10:51 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Governance reform is a bad deal: Indeed, Southcenter is a designated Urban Center, but one with one free parking spot for every employee and every shopper (except for a few days at Christmastime); in other words, not a priority for the first light rail line. But more importantly, Southcenter was not in the Sound Move plan voted on by voters; that plan said we build the line to Sea-Tac Airport. To add Southcenter would've been a costly diversion, or Scope Creep. And I'll say again, it's so amusing that you decry scope creep when its Sound Transit's responsibility, but you celebrate it when it's your doing (or attempted doing).
Royal Brougham Station is lost? Oh, that's right, you moved 2000 miles away and don't know what's going on -- the station is finished and awaiting the start of service next year. A few years ago, we renamed it Stadium Station. It's very nice; sized to handle crowds at Qwest and Safeco fields.
Posted Tue, Apr 22, 11:54 p.m. inappropriate
RE: Governance reform is a bad deal: I'm not sure CETA or SANE were trying to get light rail to go to Tukwila. I do know the Tukwila City council was asked about route alternatives. They expressed their opinion that connecting light rail to the eastern edge of the Southcenter area, where Sounder stops, would be very helpful for creating a transportation hub. You'd have easy transfers from Sounder to light rail, from light rail to Sounder, and from buses coming up from Kent, Auburn etc to provide a transfer point.
Instead, there are two stations in South King County: 154th and Seatac. What percentage of the total South County Sound Move tax revenue has been directed to those two stations? Could you post a link to subarea finances over the past 12 years?
These stations will have significant value to people from Seattle who are flying to/from Seatac, or who are working at Seatac.
The benefit for residents of South King residents all depends on where you live or whether you ride a bus and then transfer. For many people it will be faster to just stay on the bus and go into Seattle, as opposed to taking a bus to the rail station then transferring. Time will tell on this one.
Posted Fri, Apr 25, 3:15 p.m. inappropriate
New evidence of need for transportation governance reform: If the submission to voters of Proposition 1 (slaughtered in the fall election 56 to 44 after five years of serious bureaucratic work including focus groups and poll after poll) wasn't evidence enough that we need some kind of transportation governance reform in our region, there is new fresh evidence from just yesterday, April 24th.
The Sound Transit Board meeting available in a video recording available for streaming into your computer here is Exhibit 1.
Instead of firming up the half-baked plan under discussion since January, two half-baked plans were tentatively advanced with the critical decision of whether to ask for a tax hike in November punted until July.
This from the crew that decisively determined to build light rail on the I-90 bridge in summer 2006 before total people-moving capacity analysis was done. It still hasn't been done.
Exhibit 2 is the Vision 2040 strategy for population distribution (and locations of urban train stations) approved at the Puget Sound Regional Council General Assembly yesterday, and amply criticized by Doug MacDonald in a Crosscut essay yesterday.
He's worth reading closely. MacDonald knows numbers, having set up the most comprehensive state government agency performance accountability system in America.
MacDonald documents population distribution going in the wrong direction for Vision 2040 to work, yet a PSRC leader of that multi-year planning effort is quoted in the Seattle Times this morning April 25 saying "we are headed in the right direction."
To be fair, the ray of hope seen yesterday from our present system is the new PSRC report on the dramatic improvement potential (more revenue, less congestion) of pay-by-the mile road user fees instead of pay-by-the-gallon. Bringing financial incentives to the details of daily movement is a system that in the time horizon of regional transportation planning "visions" can change everything.
But we also have a third piece of evidence that things are broken coming next Wednesday in the Reality Check exercise. Serious, busy people will be moving plastic blocks and bits of colored yarn on a big map to reach consensus on land use arrangements and train routes for three decades hence. If you happen to be participating, see if the blocks tip over when you pile them all up near future train stations.
In conclusion, the case against transportation governance reform is liking all of the above just the way it's going. Or if you think an organizational shake up won't change anything.
Posted Sun, May 4, 8:56 p.m. inappropriate
I have never received a dime from ST. PMT has never received a dime from ST. Do we have some members who work for contractors? Why yes, as if that would be any surprise. PMT is after all, a PRO-transit coalition.
PMT is not a pro-ST organization. It is a pro-transit organization. We have done battle with ST on a number of issues. One of the most visible was the 545 'BRT' route that we tried to get routed over Capitol Hill. It's funny how Ted Van Dyk or John Niles were totally non-supportive of such a route that would have served the densest urban center in the state.
It's funny how there seems to be such intense interest in seeing who supports our low-budget grassroots coalition. In short, the members do, at modest levels, which is all we've ever needed. The whole issue of PMT funding is so 'Reverend Wright-ish'. Is that what's coming next? Is someone going to film my pastor and put it up on YouTube? Is that how bad people hate light rail?
So there's my response Tom. Matter closed.
Richard Borkowski
From TH post:
Now, as regards whether Richard Borkowski and/or his pro-ST organization, People for Modern Transit, have received funds directly (or indirectly) from ST dollars, Mr. Borkowski avers this is not the case. Yet he does not respond to the question posed by Mr. Van Dyke: "Borkowski's organization used to receive subsidies from Sound Transit. Does it still? Is it subsidized by business or labor interests deriving revenue from light rail?(...) he also should let us know, up front, where his supposedly independent organization gets its funding." Hence, this matter remains open. Any response, Richard?