Alex Fryer says:

Let's be clear here. There are no legitimate questions about the cost of Proposition 1. It is $17.9 billion. The Post-Intelligencer uses $22 billion, including debt service to 2036. The Seattle Times uses $17.9 billion. The Washington Policy Center, a pro-roads think tank that opposes Proposition 1, agrees that it's $17.9 billion. King County Superior Court Judge John Erlick threw out a ballot challenge on Sept. 10 that claimed the price of Proposition 1 was $107 billion. He ruled there was no legal or factual basis for the challenge. Yes, there is someone who claims the measure would cost $107 billion. There are people who claim WMD were found Iraq and global warming is a myth. Look at the numbers. There is fact and there is fiction. $17.9 billion is fact. The rest is fiction.

Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 25 2008 @ 10:42AM

The Dude says:

There goes MacIsaac making up things again. If I say the new trains will be powered by flying elephants, will that make it true. Will that even get me a mention in the news? It is just as based in fact.

Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 25 2008 @ 10:49AM

John Niles says:

Jim MacIsaac's spreadsheet documenting the $107 billion tax collection estimate is seen on the World Wide Web at http://NoToProp1.org by clicking the top link on the right hand side of the page.

Where can voters see Sound Transit's spreadsheet showing a tax roll back 30 years from now?

And what happened to that tax roll back promised in 1996 to occur in ten years if the voters failed to endorse system expansion?

Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 25 2008 @ 12:20PM

J.R. says:

Sorry, Rick, but you don't give any evidence to back MacIsaac's fuzzy math beyond your distrust for government. Your feelings are obviously important to you, but they don't constitute proof.

Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 25 2008 @ 3:05PM

Gerry Larson says:

I don't think Unsound Transit deserves the confidence some supporters give its figures. Their, well, track record is spotty, and it's just common sense not to believe any government agency's projected figures will be valid come 30 years.

Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 25 2008 @ 3:41PM

Alex Fryer is Dog Doo-Doo says:

The reason ST will need to haul in about $45 billion in new taxes if the thing in November is approved has to do with the bond sales and the way the new law it stuck on the ballot would let it stick all the tax revenue it doesn't need to spend into reserve accounts.

Hey Alex, do you think ST would stick about $25 billion into reserve accounts by 2038 if it gets the big-ass new tax authority it wants? Give us your best estimate, and back it up, if you don't mind.

TIA

Posted On: Thursday, Sep. 25 2008 @ 9:25PM

Brian Bundridge says:

I do find it funny how you all believe that ST is the same organization that was formed in 1996. Guess what, they aren't. They learned from their foul ups, they learned from their financial mistakes. This "new" organization is what turned Sound Transit around which is why I now support them vs. what I did in 1996-2000. This is why with the new schedule and budget, Central Link is On-time and Under-Budget by almost $300 million. This was reported by the Seattle PI, Seattle Times and several other newspapers recently.

I will be voting yes for Sound Transit because besides Light Rail, I also use ST Express and Sounder Commuter Rail on a daily basis. You'll normally see me on the MT 158/159 from Kent to the ST 554 from Downtown Seattle to Eastgate Park and Ride and MT 212 from Eastgate to Downtown Seattle/Sounder to Kent.

You can believe what you all want but documents are ALL OVER Sound Transit's website. They are NOT hidden by any means but if you just open your eyes and do some searching besides "oh, it's not on the main page, so I'm gonna pull numbers out of my ass" you are just adding to the regions issues.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 7:58AM

John Jensen says:

Rick, the numbers you support aren't based in reality. Furthermore, the reasoning you to support the $107b number -- "interest" -- has nothing to do with that calculation.

"Interest" is what explains the $22.8b vs. $17.9b. You didn't do your homework. Check out the Stranger or Seattle Transit Blog for more information.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 9:15AM

Rick A says:

You might read it again John: I called the $107b figure more practical than ST's because there's no guarantee the tax will end as ST claims. As for reality, it historically doesn't exist when public agencies are projecting costs (see: $425 million - $1 billion actual -Qwest Field).

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 10:00AM

Ben Schiendelman says:

Rick, I read your post, and it's full of holes.

Sound Transit would have to take the taxes we're issuing bonds on now for University Link, wait until 2038 when they're paid off, and then START building a new project THEN in order to keep using them. There's nothing authorizing that in ST2.

In addition, the state and federal government didn't go over Qwest Field's costs - and you know quite well the requirements for Qwest Field changed during design. The Qwest Field that cost a billion isn't the same as the original design.

In this case, the FTA and independent audits have agreed that Sound Transit's numbers are fine, and a king county judge disagrees that $107 billion is accurate.

So, no, your analysis is bogus.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 10:23AM

RickA says:

Thanks Ben, we disagree. As for Qwest, it had nothing to do with design change (that was Safeco; and Paul Allen paid cost overruns on Qwest). Details here:

http://www.seattleweekly.com/2003-02-12/news/after-further-review/

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 10:39AM

John Jensen says:

Rick, you didn't do your research.

Besides lasting 15 years longer than ST expects, these number also imply a significantly more wealthy population in the Puget Sound than reality (aka the census) allows for. If you think ST will tax for 15 more years than they expect, fine -- say so, get numbers from ST, post an entry.

But if you really think that taxes lasting 15 years longer than expected makes a $22.8b morph into a $107b number, you're wrong. You're wrong because you didn't do your research, you didn't figure out where the $107b number came from, and you're taking a political campaign at face value.

Case in point: $107b implies, from the oppositions own numbers, that Prop. 1 costs $52b even if it doesn't pass. Does that sound like reality or silly-season math to you?

Now that I've done the research for you, you can correct your post. Feel free to email me if you need more information (don't worry I won't be a jerk on email, even if I'm a jerk now).

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 10:49AM

Rick A says:

John, I have complete faith in Sound Transit fulfilling its lack of promise. In 30 years, you can by me a drink.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 10:56AM

Ben Schiendelman says:

We don't disagree - you just seem to be confused. You seem to believe it's somehow relevant to add a dollar paid in 1900 and a dollar paid in 2008, and end up with two dollars.

The number you come up with is meaningless, because median income is no longer two dollars a day.

If you wanted to, you could keep counting operations costs until the year 3000, and it'd be fifty quadrillion dollars. You can make the number as big as you want, but it changes nothing about what people actually pay relative to what they make.

I took this apart in a post earlier today on the Seattle Transit Blog.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 10:56AM

Ben Schiendelman says:

Rick...

You just showed your true colors. I thought so. You don't believe Sound Transit will build anything... because ten years ago, they had to rebuild their schedule.

I guess you haven't noticed, but Sounder carries ten thousand trips a day, and their express buses - running to transit centers and in HOV lanes Sound Transit built - are carrying fifty thousand more. Light rail is essentially built, and opens next year. University Link is so solid the federal government has offered us $800 million to build it.

If that's your definition of failing, I can only imagine you've never had a real job and worked on a real project of any kind. Get your head out of the clouds - Sound Transit delivers.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 11:09AM

Ben Schiendelman says:

Regardless of the rest, thanks for the correction on Qwest Field. :)

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 11:17AM

John Jensen says:

Rick, this is not a matter of opinion.

If Sound Transit were to extend its tax 15 years from what they say -- the same amount of time that the opposition claimed -- the numbers would be vastly lower than the "no" campaign projection. Fifteen additional years of taxes aren't responsible for $85b (or, $107b - $22b) -- it's not possible by anyone's projections. The extended taxation has almost nothing to do with my argument.

Furthermore, you implied that "interest" is responsible for this difference. You were wrong. "Interest," or bond/debt servicing, is responsible for the difference between the $17.9b number and the $22.8b number. Some accountants will include interest, others won't -- effectively, it's the same number. Sound Transit, The Seattle P-I, and The Seattle Times all agree on the cost. In the other corner? The "No" campaign and Rick Anderson.

So why are the "no" campaign's projections wrong -- ignoring the disagreement about the end tax date?

1. They have $52b that they claim is spent regardless of Prop. 1 passing -- and they add this number to the cost of Prop. 1. They peg the cost of expansion, also known as Prop. 1, at $55b (which you can see yourself at the bottom of the P-I article you linked to). Yet they still put out this misleading $107b number, and you go along with it.

2. They say that Seattle's income and spending are much higher than reality.

3. They think that businesses won't pay any sales taxes and consumers will foot the entire bill. This is contradictory to the current tax recipes that ST collects now. They think that if China buys a plane for Boeing, that we pays sales tax on the purchase. No, China does.

So nearly half of the number comes from Sound Move, and the rest is distorted.

Your insistence that this is a political difference or a matter of opinion is shocking. I know the numbers, I've done my homework, I'm in the knitty-gritty -- while you're taking the "no" campaign at face value and have said their projections are more "practical" clearly investing them. Your claim makes me wonder if you even read the P-I piece. You certainly didn't read The Stranger slog entries on the subject or read Seattle Transit Blog entries.

Listen, I've never written like this to someone just for being anti-transit. It's not that you're against Sound Transit the entity, it's that you're using completely wrong numbers to back up your disdain (and convince others to disdain). Rick, you're not on the opposition campaign. You're a reporter -- you are obligated to your readers not to be lazy like this. Just because you think Sound Transit is a terrible organization doesn't mean have to team up with people who run to the politics of misleading numbers, the politics of deceit, and the politics of saying anything to win.

And beyond the opposition, on the number you simply didn't do your research. You know less about the subject than the people commenting in this thread. This post deserves a correction and your trust in MacIssac deserves a second look.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 11:57AM

Ben Schiendelman says:

Wow.

Rick, John never goes off like that at people. Usually he's the one calling me out on the blog for going on the attack too overzealously.

I have to agree with him. You don't seem to understand what the opposition numbers actually mean, and you're lending them credibility, which is incredibly damaging even if it is just some blog.

I want to point out that the way Sound Transit calculates that $69 per year is in line with what the state itself uses. They use the same methodology. The opposition campaign just came up with something to make the numbers look huge and scary.

Stop repeating their lies.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 12:14PM

TransitFan says:

These sound like the same bunch of true believers - the Stranger included - who bought the Monorail's claims, and were all wrong. They want it so bad they really don't want to examine it too closely or cast any doubt. As I recall, it was the Weekly that was right about the Monorail.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 12:41PM

TransitFan says:

These sound like the same bunch of true believers - the Stranger included - who bought the Monorail's claims, and were all wrong. They want it so bad they really don't want to examine it too closely or cast any doubt. As I recall, it was the Weekly that was right about the Monorail.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 12:41PM

Ben Schiendelman says:

TransitFan, the monorail project never did anything but buy some property and make some wildly inaccurate claims.

Sound Transit operates commuter rail, light rail, and express bus service all over the region. Central Link is built and will start operating next year. The monorail didn't even get a contract.

University Link has all the funding it needs - in fact, the federal government agrees it has a sound financial plan, something the monorail never got close to.

Sound Transit's bond rating is better than the vast majority of companies.

Comparing the two is laughable.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 2:11PM

John Jensen says:

TransitFan, I am a true believer -- you're totally right. However, Rick's numbers come from the exact opposite: those who want to see Sound Transit 2 fail and are willing to say anything to make it happen. Perhaps neither group should be trusted, but in that case it's even more important that reporters like Rick do their research before filing stories.

The numbers I'm talking about are open and public. The P-I piece, linked above, talks about ST's methodology and cost figures. To be fair, the "no" campaign's information is relatively open too (and the P-I article helps draw contrasts) -- which is why it's so easy for me to point out the flaws in this numbers.

TransitFan, doesn't it matter that the Weekly use real numbers? Doesn't it matter that they don't give credibility to people who are saying anything -- being dishonest about the cost to scare voters -- to win?

And doesn't it matter that no matter what the plan -- a subway system, a light rail system, a monorail, a bus rapid transit network, extensive HOV/bus lanes -- any plan that isn't "more roads, more roads, more roads" these same folks are going to manipulate the facts and present ridiculous numbers to mislead and scare voters and try to get their way?

Even if you hate ST, the end of killing Sound Transit isn't justified by the means of letting the politics of distortion work. While I have no expectation of getting Rick Anderson to vote yes on Prop. 1 or to otherwise think good of Sound Transit, I have every expectation that local media -- no matter how big or small -- use fact and not fiction to make their point.

Rick Anderson didn't do research before writing this blog entry, and he deserves to get chewed out for it. Instead of reading what we were writing and deciding to finally do his own research, Rick has dismissed the numbers as differences of opinion.

They're not differences of opinion. Rick went with a gut call that something sounded reasonable, but he was wrong. He didn't understand the P-I article he quoted for his piece (he quoted an opposition number from the lede rather than one used elsewhere in the article), he didn't check with other local media, he didn't check with local blogs, he certainly didn't look at Sound Transit documents. He read the lede of a P-I article, took the highest number he found without understanding it and said it sounded more "practical". Rick didn't do his research.

And I'm being a giant jerk to him because he has a responsibility to not casually do things like this. This isn't his Facebook or MySpace page, this is his job -- he's supported to be a reporter and not a campaign mouthpiece -- for either side.

And yeah, I'm not going to get what I want -- Rick's not going to post a correction and probably won't even follow up here, but let's see if the Weekly talks about how practical the $107b figure is again.

Posted On: Friday, Sep. 26 2008 @ 3:17PM