September 6, 2000

Dave Earling, Edmonds Councilmember
Greg Nickels, King County Councilmember
Doug Sutherland, Pierce County Executive
Jack Crawford, Kenmore Deputy Mayor
Ann Davis, Lakewood Councilmember
Bob Drewel, Snohomish County Executive
David Enslow, Sumner Councilmember
Mary Gates, Federal Way Councilmember
Jane Hague, King County Councilmember
Ed Hanson, Everett Mayor
Richard McIver, Seattle Councilmember
Rob McKenna, King County Councilmember
Sid Morrison, WA State DOT
Kevin Phelps, Tacoma Councilmember
Paul Schell, Seattle Mayor
Ron Sims, King County Executive
Cynthia Sullivan, King County Councilmember
Jim White, Kent Mayor

Dear Members of the Board:

We, citizens and elected officials of the metropolitan Seattle area, support improved public transit, and other measures to relieve the congestion choking our communities. Many of us supported the Sound Transit plan approved by voters in 1996 as a critical step toward that goal. But alarming new developments in the Sound Transit Link light rail project have caused each of us to conclude that our region should consider putting this project on hold until it has survived closer scrutiny in the form of an independent audit.

This region needs unity in its drive for federal transit funding. A close look at Sound Transit's light rail program has us deeply concerned; we cannot remain silent in good conscience. Link light rail may have more in common with WPPSS than with our region's nationally heralded bus-transit system. Before we move forward, three questions need definitive answers: What is the real cost of Sound Transit's Link light rail? Who will pay for the currently projected and other cost overruns? Will Link, which in its current phase is a Seattle/North King County project, absorb funds from jurisdictions across our metropolitan area?

Because of our grave concerns, we call on the Sound Transit Board to reconsider signing a "full funding" grant agreement with the federal government. This $500-million agreement will bind the taxpayers of our region to complete the proposed Link light rail line from the University District to Lander Street. It will obligate us to finish this line as proposed, regardless of cost or alternatives. This binding agreement may force us to divert funds away from other important transportation projects, and require us to raise local taxes beyond what the voters approved for Sound Transit.

1. How much will Sound Transit’s Link light rail really cost?

In 1996, the Sound Transit Board told voters that Link light rail would cost $1.67 billion (in 1995 dollars) and extend from the University District to SeaTac Airport. The Board assured voters its cost estimates were "very conservative." Voters relied on that assurance. Since then, the cost of the project has risen, and its value has fallen. A glaring example is the change in the Seattle portion of the Link plan. The current plan omits or defers four of the 17 original Seattle stations.

The Executive Director of Sound Transit concedes that Link light rail is "about $200 million" over budget (Seattle Post-Intelligencer, August 8, 2000). A few days later he affirmed that, in addition, the bids for Link's planned Capitol Hill tunnel are above the sum budgeted. The scale of the excess is secret "for strategic reasons" (Seattle Post Intelligencer August 18, 2000). Since then, the Executive Director said his solution to the high bids is to modify "the roles and responsibilities between the contractor and ST". Translated, this means reduce the risk to the contractor by shifting it to Sound Transit. The March 2000 submission for funding to the federal government placed the cost estimate at $254 million beyond the original estimation; we do not know how much the tunnel bids will add to that cost overrun (all figures are in 1995 dollars).

After careful analysis, Kriss Sjoblom of the Washington Research Council concluded that Sound Transit has incurred additional obligations, including agreements to purchase the downtown tunnel from King County, buy property from the University of Washington, and mitigate impacts on the University, that total $223 million to $232 million more in cost overruns. This would place estimated overruns at nearly a half-billion dollars ($1995). Again, that is before the higher-than-budgeted tunnel bids. But even this figure is optimistic.

Serious questions have arisen concerning the adequacy of Sound Transit's contingency funds and the Beacon Hill tunnel project's budget. An almost-completed study of property acquisition and relocation costs in the Rainier Valley indicates that Sound Transit's estimations are wrong, and that the cost will be no less than $100 million over budget. In addition, Sound Transit has seriously underestimated the costs of relocating the infrastructure of various utilities that will be displaced by construction, and the cost of connecting those utilities. Most troubling is that comparable rail and tunneling projects in Los Angeles have cost substantially more per mile of track than Sound Transit says it will spend. Sound Transit has offered no credible explanations for the disparity.

Link rail is one of the most expensive public works project in greater Seattle's history. Sound Transit's current financial projections are not transparent to the public. The citizens and taxpayers of this region are owed a transparent audit by independent experts, plus an ongoing process of financial review and oversight. If Sound Transit wants the confidence of the public, it must provide them with an open budget process, and clear, understandable and accurate financial information, honest and open.

Once the public knows the full costs, it may decide to proceed. In 1996, the voters felt that $1.67 billion was an acceptable price for Link light rail. If the actual price is $2.5 billion, or $3 billion, for a smaller rail line, they may reconsider that decision.

2. How will we pay for cost overruns?

In 1996, Sound Transit promised to strictly adhere to a principle of "subarea equity": revenue raised in a particular subarea would only be spent on Sound Transit projects in that subarea. Sound Transit promised to put "fire walls" around the revenue from each part of our metropolitan region so future decision makers could never siphon it off to pay for transit amenities elsewhere. Subarea equity was a part of Sound Move as adopted by the voters and is legally enforceable. Now Sound Transit is preparing to sign a federal grant making the entire region fiscally responsible for completing Link's planned rail line from the University District to south of downtown. Sound Transit is telling the federal government that the financial capacity of the entire three-county area is adequate to complete Link, ignoring the fact that Sound Transit's own financial policies require the completion of Link entirely within the fiscal capacity of North and South King County budgets.

According to Sound Transit's own staff, the North King County subarea, which is obligated to pay for most of the phase one Link light rail program, may be unable to do so within its own budget. We question whether Sound Transit can meet its commitments to the citizens of the region with existing tax revenues under the subarea equity policy. If it cannot, the public needs to know how Sound Transit will avoid shifting revenue from other regions or raising taxes. If the board of Sound Transit completes a full funding grant agreement with the federal government, it will impose an awesome obligation on the citizens of the region. If difficulties ensue and cost overruns accumulate, the region will be obliged to continue the project to its completion, regardless of cost, or repay its grant. The region has no adequate contingency plan to pay these costs. The lack of planning could tear our region apart with political recriminations and law suits. This is still another reason to have an open, independent audit before signing a binding federal grant agreement.

3. Will ridership justify the cost?

Sound Transit has claimed the light rail line will generate extensive improvements in "mobility". All these claimed benefits are based on ridership forecasts that in turn depend on a number of assumptions concerning transit service, transfer rates, travel time, etc. As a result, small changes in the underlying assumptions can cause significant errors in the estimated benefits. In the four years since voters approved the Sound Transit plan a number of these underlying assumptions have changed. For instance, I-695 has made owning a car less expensive while at the same time transit agencies have increased bus fares. The increasing doubt about the reliability of assumptions used to estimate ridership is another reason the Sound Transit Board should pause for a reality check.

If we take Sound Transit's forecasts at face value, what does Link do for the region? Many of the people who supported the Sound Transit plan expected it would alleviate traffic congestion on I-5. Buried in the Link environmental impact statement Sound Transit acknowledges "...the light rail system will not result in a significant difference in regional traffic volumes...". In this instance, the change in traffic volume is forecast to be an imperceptible fraction of one percent. The picture for arterials is not any better. Many of the intersections analyzed in the EIS will experience greater traffic congestion as a result of the light rail line. Very few will experience any benefit. In downtown Seattle the buses evicted from the tunnel will add to traffic congestion on the surface streets making bus service slower and less reliable.

A primary justification for Link was a need for increased transit capacity through downtown Seattle. But it has been revealed that the light rail service Sound Transit now proposes to operate will provide less seated capacity in the peak hours than the existing bus service. Today, nearly all bus passengers are comfortably seated, but with light rail service Sound Transit forecasts more than a third of peak hour rail riders will be forced to stand. And because the rail line is so short with few stations, a larger number of passengers will be forced to transfer to buses to complete their trips. The extent to which the rail plan has been scaled back also greatly decreases the bus service hours that were to be freed up by rail.

The ridership figures Sound Transit has published give the impression that Link will greatly improve mobility, but the probable benefits are modest (far and away the majority of transit customers will still be bus riders) and the adverse impacts will be widespread and long-lasting. Isn't it worth taking the time to see if there are alternatives that would yield a greater return on the region's two billion dollar investment?

Call for an Independent Audit

Prior to signing a full funding grant agreement with the federal government for Link light rail, we ask that Sound Transit agree to an independent audit of its cost and ridership estimates, and of its financial capability to implement the Sound Move plan consistent with existing financial policies. This review must examine the financial capacity of Sound Transit at both the regional and the subarea levels, and be conducted in a transparent fashion by an independent expert review. We propose that Sound Transit select one party, citizens independent of Sound Transit select a second party, and that both sides then select a mutually agreed upon third party to chair the process from the American Arbitration Association. That small panel would select an expert, independent consultant, and guide the process. Any of the three parties would have the right to raise questions and have them addressed. To assure objectivity, private citizens will undertake to pay half the cost and Sound Transit the other half. An expeditious time-line should be set so the Link light rail project can be carefully assessed without impeding its progress. We believe three months would be adequate, once the process is in place and the consultant selected. Sound Transit's board should embrace this proposal and move it forward expeditiously.

Los Angeles' recent experience with a rail tunnel and a full-funding grant agreement underlines our concerns: authorities there are under federal court order to restore the bus service curbed, and reduce the bus fares they raised, in order to manage the cost overruns and operating burdens of the rail projects they were obliged to complete because they accepted a federal grant. We fear that the transportation or general budgets of many jurisdictions in our region will end up mortgaged to Sound Transit for a short, multi-billion-dollar rail line that ends up costing nearly $200,000 for each car it takes out of traffic.

This, we believe, is not what voters had in mind.

Booth Gardner, former governor

Rob McKenna, King County Councilmember

Maggi Fimia, King County Councilmember

Kent Pullen, King County Council Member

Jack Barry, Mayor, City of Sammamish

Phil Dyer, Councilmember, City of Sammamish

Don Gerend , Councilmember, City of Sammamish

Kevin Grossman, Councilmember, City of Shoreline

Kathy Huckabay, Councilmember, City of Sammamish

Nick Licata, Councilmember, City of Seattle

Guy Spencer, Councilmember, City of Normandy Park

Peter Steinbrueck, Councilmember, City of Seattle

Norwood Brooks, Former King County Assessor

Jerome M. Johnson, Superior Court Judge (retired)

Tom Albro

Noel Angell, Family Therapist

Mark Baerwaldt

Tim Baker, Former Chair Capitol Hill Community Council

Glover Barnes, Political Activist, Southeast Seattle

Yoram Bauman, Member, Green Party

Christopher T. Bayley, Former King County Prosecuting Attorney

William Beyers, Professor of Geography, University of Washington

Jeff Boone, Founder, Freeway Monorail, UW Graduate

Eric Bremner, Former President King Broadcasting Company

Bobbie Bremner, Public school teacher (retired)

Colleen Browne, Neighborhood Activist, South Seattle

Dorothy Bullitt, Business Consultant, Civic Leader

Emory Bundy, Former Director of Public Affairs, King Broadcasting Company, Citizens for Mobility

John Bundy, President Glacier Fish Company

Angell Byrony, Theater Artisan

Colby Chester, Actor, Environmental Activist

Chuck Collins, Former Director Metro Transit

Frank Coluccio, Business Owner, Coluccio Construction

Maurice Cooper, President, Madison Park Community Council

Robin Denburg, Environmental Organizer

Dan Dingfield, Former Port of Seattle Executive

Alan Durning, Director, Northwest Environmental Watch

Bill Eager, President TDA, Inc

Pat Emerson, President Metropolitan Democratic Club

Dick Falkenbury, Community Activist

Craig Fiebig, Former Microsoft Executive

Dick Fike, Financial Planner

Angela Ford

John Fox, Director, Seattle Displacement Coalition

J. Irwin Goldberg, President/CEO H. E. Goldberg & Co., Inc.

I. Mervin Gorasht, Activist, Capitol Hill Neighborhood

Matt Griffin, Managing Partner, Pine Street

Paulette Gust, Member, Transit Advisory Committee

Rick Hangartner, Activist, Downtown Community

Thomas A. Heller, Activist, North Seattle Neighborhood

Kristina Hill, Professor, UW College of Architecture

& Urban Planning

Alan Honick, President, Salmonweb

Hil Hornung, Former Executive Director, Atlantic County

Transportation Authority

Jarlath Hume, Former Director, Seattle Metro Center YMCA

Kent Kammerer, Neighborhood Activist

Ruth Korkowski, Activist, South Seattle Neighborhood

Ron Lamb, Community Activist, Tukwila

James W. MacIsaac, Consultant, Transportation Planning

& Engineering Consultant

Daniel Malarkey, Executive

William Mallow, President, South Beacon Neighborhood Council

Dawn Mason

Fredrika Merrill, Activist, Beacon Hill Neighborhood

Dell Miller, Attorney

Janet Miller, Child Welfare and Family Policy Researcher

Ron Momoda, Concerned Citizen, SE Seattle

Richard Morrill, Professor of Geography, University of Washington

Daniel Norton, Former Chair, King County Democrats

Folke Nyberg, Professor Emeritus, University of Washington

Don Padelford, Citizens for Mobility

Patricia Paschal, Citizen, SE Seattle

Tara Peattie, Member, Green Party

Alan Rabinowitz

Colin Radford, President, Radford & Company Commercial

Investments

Al Rasmussen

Karl Robins, Activist, Robinson Insurance/SE Seattle

Neighborhood

Evelyne Rozner, Business Consultant

Jerry Schneider, Professor Emeritus, Urban Planning and

Civil Engineering, U of W

J. Peter Sherwin, Monorail Initiative Jet City Enterprises

Robb Stack, Commercial Property Owner

Peter Staten, Architect & Journalist

Steve Gaines, Attorney

Susan Tillitt , Community Activist, Downtown

Joel Tufel, Community Activist, North Seattle

The Rev. Harriet Walden, Activist, Seattle Community

Alice Woldt, Former Chair, King County Democratic Party

Fabiola W. Woods, Community Activist, Southeast Seattle

Cc:

Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, Department of Transportation
Nuria I. Fernandez, Acting Administrator, Federal Transit Administration
Helen Knoll, Director, Region X, Federal Transit Administration
Senator Slade Gorton, U.S. Senate
Senator Patty Murray, U.S. Senate
Representative Norm Dicks, U.S. Representative, 6th District
Representative Jennifer Dunn, U.S. Representative, 8th District
Representative Jay Inslee, U.S. Representative, 1st District
Representative Jim McDermott, U.S. Representative, 7th District
Representative Jack Metcalf, U.S. Representative, 2nd District
Representative Adam Smith, U.S. Representative, 9th District
Senator Sid Snyder, Washington State Senate Majority Leader
Senator James West, Washington State Senate Minority Leader
Representative Clyde Ballard, Washington State Co-Speaker of the House
Representative Frank Chopp, Washington State Co-Speaker of the House
Representative Barbara Lisk, Washington State Co-Majority Leader of the House
Representative Lynn Kessler, Washington State Co-Majority Leader of the House
Bob White, Executive Director, Sound Transit

Thursday, September 7, 2000, 12:00 a.m. Pacific

Sound Transit says no to audit

by Andrew Garber

Seattle Times staff reporter

Sound Transit yesterday rejected demands for a review of its ability

to pay for a 21-mile light-rail system.

A coalition of elected officials, activists, businessmen and community

leaders is calling for an independent audit, contending that Sound

Transit is way over budget. The group yesterday urged the regional

agency to reassess its situation before accepting federal money.

Sound Transit officials said there were no cost overruns and no need

for an audit.

"We're already audited to death," said Dave Earling, chairman of the

Sound Transit board.

He said the request for a review is another attempt by critics to kill

light rail, projected to cost about $2.4 billion [current dollars, or $1.9

billion constant dollars].

"They have simply twisted the truth to suggest a crisis, when in fact

there isn't any," he said.

The two sides held dueling news conferences yesterday to argue the

costs and merits of light rail. The system, approved by voters in

1996, would stretch from SeaTac to Seattle's University District.

The debate over light rail intensified recently after King County

Executive Ron Sims proposed raising the sales tax to pay for

transportation projects, including extension of light rail from the U

District to Northgate.

Metropolitan King County Councilwoman Maggi Fimia, D-Shoreline, has

opposed Sims' proposal and has pushed an alternative plan that would

devote the money to the county's Metro bus system.

Fimia led off the news-media briefing yesterday, backed by a crowd

supporting the call for an audit.

"We want to know how large the bill will be," she said. "Who will end

up paying, and how much will it cost?"

The group proposed a three-member panel, with one person picked by

Sound Transit, another by the coalition and a third person mutually

agreed upon. The panel would then pick a consultant to guide

proceedings.

Fimia's office released a list of more than 80 people calling for an

audit, including former Gov.Booth Gardner, County Councilmen Rob

McKenna and Kent Pullen, Seattle City Councilmen Nick Licata and Peter

Steinbrueck, and Sammamish Mayor Jack Barry.

Fimia and others contend that Sound Transit, the regional transit

authority charged with designing and building the light-rail system,

is more than $500 million over budget. They say the tab could go

higher once the agency starts digging a 4 1/2-mile light-rail tunnel

from downtown to the U District.

Modern Transit Constructors was selected earlier this month as the

finalist to dig the tunnel. Sound Transit has said Modern Transit's

initial estimate for digging the tunnel came in over budget, but

details have not been provided.

Matt Griffin, a member of the coalition and a developer whose projects

include Pacific Place and the downtown Nordstrom store, said there are

too many unknowns. "We don't want to walk the plank without knowing

where we're headed," he said.

The coalition said Sound Transit needed to review its finances before

accepting a half-billion dollars in federal money that would bind

taxpayers to complete the rail line. The federal proposal is expected

to go to Congress soon for review.

Earling said there was no need for an audit of Sound Transit's

finances because the agency had already been audited, both by the

state and Deloitte & Touche, a private firm.

As for cost overruns, there aren't any, he said.

The light-rail budget has increased from $1.6 billion to almost $2

billion, in 1995 dollars, since voters approved the project. The

amount would be equal to $2.4 billion in current dollars.

But the increases were approved by the Sound Transit board for

projects such as extending light rail to Seattle-Tacoma International

Airport, Earling said. The agency, he said, has the needed money.

Reid Shockey, chairman of the agency's citizens oversight panel, said

yesterday he thinks the light-rail system can be built on time and

within the budget, if Sound Transit restrains itself.

The panel plans to release its midyear report on the agency today.

"Our major concern is that the costs of the program keep rising,"

Shockey said in a letter to the board. "If these trends continue,

Sound Transit will not be able to afford to do what was promised."

He urged the agency to "refrain from any further add-ons . . . that

are not affordable."

Earling said the biggest unknown for Sound Transit is whether

contractors may run into problems while digging the tunnel. The agency

has done extensive soil testing, Earling said, but if workers "run

into a giant nest of boulders" not found by tests, "we'd be liable."

Sound Transit has reserves to deal with such problems if they arise,

he said.

Sims, a member of the Sound Transit board, said the request for an

audit is a symptom of political gridlock that has prevented the region

from tackling its transportation problems. Delay could result in Sound

Transit losing the federal money, he said.

"It's time to move forward," he said. "No more delays. Just build it."

Andrew Garber's phone message number is 206-464-2595

By Andrew Garber

Seattle Times staff reporter

Wednesday, September 13, 2000

Recent claims that Sound Transit has blown its budget caused the Federal Transit Administration to recheck its facts.

It came back with the same result: Sound Transit should get $500 million in federal money to help build a light-rail system.

The transit administration sent an agreement to Congress this week, saying that it highly recommended giving Sound Transit the money. Congress has 60 days to review the package.

"You have a very good project here," said Bruce Frame, a spokesman for the transit administration.

Frame said the agency tracks news reports regarding Sound Transit. The agency took note last week when critics claimed Sound Transit was over budget and should reassess its finances before accepting federal money.

"We saw the stories, and we did take a quick look at the statements," Frame said.

The transit administration went back to two firms it had hired to judge Sound Transit's ability to complete the project submitted for federal money. The consultants had reviewed Sound Transit's technical and financial ability to complete the project. Both stood by their findings that Sound Transit could do what it promised, Frame said.

Sound Transit is asking for federal money to help pay for a 7.2-mile segment of the $2.4 billion, 21-mile system. The segment would run through downtown Seattle and includes 4 1/2 miles of tunnel.

Republican and Democratic leaders of our state congressional delegation said yesterday that they expect the transit administration's proposal to get through Congress without trouble.

Sound Transit says the administration's analysis also shows Sound Transit has the ability to complete the entire system of buses, commuter trains and light rail approved by voters in 1996. Sound Transit sees the federal endorsement as a rebuttal to its critics.

Light-rail skeptics don't see it that way.

"A lot of us aren't sure that we have the ability to build (the light-rail project) within our current revenues," said Rob McKenna, a Metropolitan King County councilman and a member of the Sound Transit Board. "We don't know what the tunneling is going to cost. The FTA doesn't know what the tunneling costs are going to be either."

McKenna is part of a coalition that says Sound Transit is several hundred million dollars over budget and has asked for an independent audit of the agency. Sound Transit has declined to cooperate, saying it is audited regularly.

County Councilwoman Maggi Fimia, also a member of the coalition, has said the group will supply documents to the state's congressional delegation that raise doubts about Sound Transit's finances.

The transit administration "can't tell me with assurance that this project is not going to come in way over budget" nor can it say how such overruns would be paid, she said.

Modern Transit Constructors was selected earlier this month as the finalist to dig the tunnel. Sound Transit has said Modern Transit's initial estimate for digging the tunnel came in over budget, but details have not been provided.

Sound Transit said it plans to get the price of digging the tunnel down during negotiations with Modern Transit. The agency said it has enough money set aside to handle any unforeseen problem. The downtown light-rail segment has a $255 million reserve fund.

Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company

To: Andrew Garber and Casey Corr

Re: Seattle Times FTA/DSI report on Sound Transit

September 14, 2000

Andrew, I was of course interested in your article in yesterday's Seattle Times, and conceded at lunch to Casey (having not seen the study referenced) that, yes, the study, and your story, appear to support Sound Transit's contention that everything's okay. They tend to undercut our fears and representations that there are serious, undisclosed overruns, and that an independent audit is needed. That is pretty much how it came across to the reading public.

Now that I've seen the report, "A Financial Capacity Assessment of the Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority," prepared by Diversified Capital, Inc., it is clear that the conclusion that Sound Transit is in good shape is predicated entirely on the core premise of the study, which appears under the heading, "Limitations on Reliability of the Data and Use of the Report":

"Since data provided by Sound Transit were assumed to be accurate, any inherent limitations, errors or irregularities that occurred may not be detected."

The next sentence is the disclaimer, which says, "In addition, projection of any evaluation beyond the period of analysis is not appropriate." Translated: don't blame us when nothing works out as predicted.

This is simply one more good example of why we can't rely on the official process. Had DSI commented a few years ago about whether the downtown tunnel could really accommodate buses and trains, it would have confirmed Sound Transit's representation, since that agency is the sole source of its information. It would have confirmed that you could have trains 540 feet long served by stations 380 feet long, because Sound Transit hadn't yet noticed the discrepancy.

DSI was so aggressive it subjected Sound Transit to its "Stress Case Scenario"-- a brutal, hypothetical cost overrun of 10 percent, which it manages with difficulty to survive (negative cash flows 2001-2008, but recovers in 2009). Excuse me? That "unlikely scenario" fits perfectly with the premise of the study--and reminds me of a satire I once did on KING-TV called, The World of WPPSS, a world of assumptions and thought processes that seemed very strange to those of us outside of it.

DSI's methodology fits Sound Transit's and FTA's purposes, but it fits less comfortably with the awkward fact that the actual (secret) bid for tunnel construction, the largest share of project costs, may be no less than 50 percent over budget. It doesn't fit with a near-completed study of property acquisition and displacement costs in the Rainier Valley, that will conclude that costs will be well beyond double that budgeted by Sound Transit. DSI calculates that the land taken from the University of Washington for stations is free--in spite of the fact that UW is determined, and state law requires, that it be fairly compensated--because that's how Sound Transit represents it. And so forth.

It's not some approximation of reality that's being served here. What is confirmed is what Sound Transit wants us to believe at this stage of the process, and you amplify that confirmation, playing your assigned role in the Sound Transit public education machine. It's only after FTA extends its full funding grant agreement, and we're irrevocably committed, that we get to learn the bitter truth.

We should be taking a more probing look at Sound Transit here--some of us look to the press for to play that role, and someone at the national level should be looking into FTA's modus operandi.

Pardon me, but I think your job in the press is to help us. Not because we're partisans, but because we're trying diligently to learn what is really going on here. And we'd like to know it in a timely way.

Copyright © 2000 The Seattle Times Company

Tuesday, December 12, 2000

Guest columnist

by Emory Bundy

Special to The Times

The Sound Transit board is struggling with its next move, but is handicapping

itself in its eagerness to keep its $500 million federal grant for Link light

rail. It would be better to give that up, take a fresh look, and go back next

year with a defensible plan.

Sound Transit has spent millions of dollars over the past five years saying

and implying that Link light rail is an answer to congestion, a response to

congestion, will fix congestion, zap congestion, provide an alternative to

congestion, bypass congestion, and replace the need for 12 lanes of freeway.

That's the basis for its public support. But, as admitted recently by Sound

Transit's executive director, Link won't solve, or even reduce congestion

(Times, Oct. 5). It's a waste of money.

Link light rail will reduce rush hour vehicle traffic on I-5 by only one car

per 1,000, an indiscernible difference. It will serve only 30,800 of the

region's new daily trips - merely one percent of the 2.9 million new daily

trips to be added between 1996, the year Link was voted in, and 2010, when

it's to be operating at full steam. Sound Transit's claim, that converting

the downtown tunnel from bus to rail will increase its capacity to move

transit patrons through downtown Seattle, is false. Earlier, it claimed that

buses and trains could share the tunnel, which was false, too.

Chuck Collins, former Metro transit director, and a team of experts recently

forged one transit alternative. Their Ride-Free proposal would reform bus

fares, fill empty rush hour seats, expand the bus fleet, improve service, and

expand the home-to-work vanpool fleet by 4,000 vehicles, with incentives

adequate to ensure participation. Their plan promises to take six times more

cars off the road than Link light rail will, in a shorter time, at no greater

cost, with much less risk. It's one example of the kind of hard-headed

initiatives the region needs.

Burgeoning cost spells trouble ahead:

** Sound Transit told voters in 1996 that the $1.67 billion (1995 dollars)

price tag for Link light rail was an "extremely conservative" figure, and it

would "make certain" the project stayed within budget. By 2000, it admitted

the cost had grown to $1.92 billion. The problem is, the known cost of the

project is $2.8 billion ($3.2 billion in current dollars), and probably more.

It greatly exceeds what the region can afford and finance under existing

revenue authority.

** The Capitol Hill tunnel was budgeted for $557 million. The best offer by

the low-bid contractor adds $298 million.

** Independent analyses by Cooper Consulting Company concluded that

right-of-way costs in the Tukwila area are underestimated by $56 million, and

by $144 million in the Rainier Valley corridor.

** The Beacon Hill tunnel will cost at least $67 million more than the budget

provides.

** Infrastructure relocation and installation costs have a shortfall of $40

million or more.

** Sound Transit understates its real costs by another $230 million by

omitting from its budget definitively established obligations, like the

purchase of the downtown bus tunnel, the Rainier Valley Community Investment

Fund, and the agreed University of Washington mitigation costs.

Borrowing, originally budgeted for $1 billion, likely will exceed $2 billion,

which will add $70 million or more annually for debt service on 30-year

bonds.

There's more, a lot more. An annotated list of cost overruns will be posted

at www.sanetransit.org.

And there's another huge risk for the region: In its application for a $500

million federal grant, Sound Transit assured the federal government that,

"there is nothing currently, nor in the near term, that would raise any doubt

about the agency's sound financial condition." That false assurance may be a

ticking time bomb, giving the federal government cause to withdraw its grant

while the project is in mid-stream, as costs burgeon to embarrassing and

unsustainable levels.

The Downtown Seattle Association withdrew its support for the Link light rail

project, unless "the plan is achievable within the present financial

limitations, within the time frame, and without causing financial overruns."

DSA also "called attention to the harm Link will do to the retail core of

Seattle, as hundreds of buses a day will be turned out of the tunnel onto

congested city streets."

On Sept. 6, a group of 88 prominent citizens - including Booth Gardner,

Dorothy Bullitt, Matt Griffin, former King County Assessor Norwood Brooks,

and a dozen elected municipal and county council members - called for an

independent review to get a realistic estimate of the cost of the project.

Within hours, their appeal was summarily and rashly rejected by the Sound

Transit board. Some of them formed Sane Transit, to seek accurate information

and a better alternative.

After its own review, The Seattle Times, in a powerful editorial, withdrew

its long support for the light rail project and joined the call for an

independent audit. The Eastside Journal and Puget Sound Business Journal

added editorials expressing their deepening concerns.

If Sound Transit accepts its federal grant, and starts tunneling, it will

take the first step toward a future like that of Los Angeles, which set out

to build 11 rail lines, but primarily built a huge mountain of debt, greater

operating burdens, and few if any additional transit patrons. For decades,

the resulting debt burden will retard the capacity of the Puget Sound region

to initiate projects that will reduce congestion.

Recently Sound Transit's board placed its federal grant pursuit on hold while

it scrambles to cope with its budget-busting Capitol Hill tunnel bid. It's

also trying to cope with its "subarea equity" constraints - a commitment to

the region's voters that Seattle's taxpayers must pay for Seattle's rail

project. Sound Transit's federal grant application signals the likely

violation of that pledge, by borrowing against the credit of the entire

region without an adequate revenue flow to pay for Link from the subareas it

will serve.

When its board reconvenes Thursday, Sound Transit can plunge ahead into a

troubled future, or it can give up on the federal grant for this year, go

back to the drawing boards, and put together a better plan. It could follow

Chuck Collins' advice, and regard transit projects as major civic investments

that must address cogent criteria like the number of cars removed from the

highways, cost per new rider, risk, and impact on communities. In any case,

it needs a competent plan with costs and benefits that can be honestly

defended.

The federal transit grants program is not going away. Far better to take a

deep breath, delay, apply the lessons learned, and craft a plan that will use

federal and local money to good effect. Central Puget Sound needs a transit

plan that will actually help the region alleviate its immense and growing

congestion challenge, and do it at a cost we can afford.

Emory Bundy is a member of Citizens for Mobility, a group examining

transportation issues.