In an article in the Seattle Times, reporter Will Mari quotes various contenders for the 41st district seats.

Read their views (links to their websites are provided) on Sound Transit’s Prop 1 (ST2) tax proposal for 2008, and other ideas on transportation improvements that would provide congestion relief for the eastside, such as bus rapid transit (BRT), and the future use of the BNSF rail corridor.

Here’s a few excerpts from the Times article:

“(Steve) Litzow, 46, a Mercer Island city councilman, faces Democrat Marcie Maxwell, 53, in a tight race. The House seat became open when Democratic Rep. Fred Jarrett decided to run for state Senate.”

“The big issue on people’s minds is the economy, despite the area’s comparative wealth, and voters will not be marching in lock-step, (Steve) Litzow argues.

“Mercer Island residents depend on I-90, and most of the district’s voters live on or near I-405. As a result, transportation joins education as the most important issues on voters’ minds….”

“Litzow opposes Proposition 1, the proposed sales-tax increase that would extend light rail north, south and east. Instead, he wants bus-rapid transit combined with light rail running north-south along the former BNSF Railway line on the Eastside.”

Here is a link to Litzow’s proposals for transportation improvements on the Eastside (scroll down halfway):  Reduce Traffic Congestion: http://stevelitzow.com/index.php?p=30

“His opponent, (Marcie) Maxwell, is a Renton Realtor and member of the Renton School Board. She’s more on the fence regarding Prop. 1, but is concerned about the emphasis on light rail.

“On the Eastside, we need to have the convenience and the routes” to make mass transit more of an option for commuters, she said.”

Maxwell’s statement would seem to support the flexibility of bus rapid transit corridors.

Here is a link to her position on transportation:

Reducing Traffic Congestion:  http://www.marciemaxwell.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=13&Itemid=27

Fred Jarrett (D) is running for State Senate.

Here is a link to his website: http://vote4fred.org/default.aspx

From the Times:

“State Senate switcheroo”

“In the Senate race, Fred Jarrett is running as a Democrat for the first time.”

“Jarrett is in favor of Prop. 1. While not perfect, “it doesn’t matter to me whether the transit has rubber wheels or tracks,” he said.”

His opponent for State Senate is Bob Baker.Here is a link to his views on transportation:

“Are your transportation tax dollars getting you to work faster OR are they focused instead on government efforts at social engineering? “ http://www.voteforbaker.com/issues.shtml

From the Times article on Bob Baker:

“The 21-year Navy veteran, “Top Gun” graduate and Alaska Airlines pilot spent a career on the F-14 Tomcat as a test pilot. He also worked at the Pentagon, a job that included testifying before congressional committees and convincing admirals and generals to fund appropriation projects.

Like Jarrett, he said he shares a disdain for waste, and backs State Auditor Brian Sonntag’s use of performance audits to look for savings in state agencies….”

“An opponent of Prop. 1, (Bob) Baker favors bus-rapid transit instead of an east-west rail line.

“By Sound Transit’s own analysis, it won’t relieve traffic congestion,” he said.

As far as his district in concerned, he said it’s “not so much that it’s moved Democratic, but we have a lot of independents a, as people weigh their options.”

Joe Turner over at the TNT has a post about how Light rail isn't always cheaper to operate than buses. Most supporters claim that light rail, once built, is cheaper to operate than a traditional bus service. Turner draws from an explanation from John Niles, a local transportation consultant and a recent WPC Policy Brief, The Facts on Light Rail. In the study, we conducted a comparative analysis of the six existing light rail systems on the West Coast that have been operating for at least ten years. The cities ...

41st District is realigning Seattle Times, United States - 4 hours ago "By Sound Transit's own analysis, it won't relieve traffic congestion," he said. As far as his district in concerned, he said it's "not so much that it's ...

The News Tribune’s Joe Turner quotes Transportation Choices Coalition’s Bill LaBorde, No to Prop 1’s Mark Baerwaldt, and Phil Talmadge, a former state senator and Supreme Court justice, in an article on Sound Transit’s Proposition 1:

“Light rail is key, said Bill LaBorde, policy director for the Transportation Choices Coalition, a transit and environmental advocacy group.”

Remember, Transportation Choices Coalition recently was in the news over questions regarding the transfer of funds from Sound Transit. State Auditor Brian Sonntag will investigate. See the links here:

1.Team 7 Investigation Sparks State Audit of Sound Transit

2.Sound Transit Giving is Questioned

3. Washington Policy Center:“Sound Transit Officials Give Public Money to Special Interest Groups”

The News Tribune reports:

“It’s the only hope for a major expansion of transportation capacity in the region,” LaBorde said last week. “We’re pretty much done with our freeway network.”

Congestion Relief:

At the very best projections, The Reporter Newspaper’s John Carlson reports that:

“But Prop. 1, even when built out in the next 20 years or so, would not reduce congestion. Sound Transit’s OWN NUMBERS prove it. They estimate that by the year 2030, when everything in the Sound Transit system is built out, that one half of one percent of the region’s daily trips will be taken on expanded light rail or commuter rail … and that most of those trips will be taken by people who are already taking the bus.

Keep in mind that about 3 percent of daily trips today are made on transit. If Prop. 1 is approved, after tens of billions of dollars are spent, there would still be under 4 percent of the trips taken on transit – a smaller proportion of transit usage than we had in the ’70s.

Even Sound Transit admits that Prop 1 would leave us with WORSE congestion, and diminished “throughput” for moving goods (and produce from Eastern Washington) around the region .

“But Phil Talmadge, a former state senator and Supreme Court justice, said Sound Transit’s plan is too focused on downtown Seattle, the agency’s board is not to be trusted and light rail is the wrong mode of transportation. Talmadge helped write the opposition statement to Proposition 1 that appears in voter guides.”

“Eighty-five percent of this proposition is an investment in light rail,” Talmadge said last week. “It’s a crappy investment. It costs too much. It’s too slow to put on-line and it doesn’t handle very much traffic.”

“To a large extent, everybody pays for Seattle’s light rail,” said Mark Baerwaldt, treasurer for the No To Proposition 1 campaign. “It sucks up all the transportation dollars in the region, and they have not proven they can perform. They are 10 years behind schedule and a billion dollars over budget.”

“Sound Transit spokesman Geoff Patrick said the 0.5 percent sales tax increase is expected to be rolled back by 2038.”

However, according to what Bellevue City Councilman Don Davidson said at the Neighbors for Responsible Transportation Forum (NRT) on Oct. 4th, there is no legal requirement for Sound Transit to “roll back” taxes if they choose not to at a later date.

“Talmadge said the fact that Sound Transit’s board decided to put another proposal on the ballot after the first one was defeated by a 56-44 margin in all three counties borders on arrogance.”

“They’re hoping that people are not going to pay a lot of attention to it,” Talmadge said. “They don’t want people to look at this particular proposition with any degree of scrutiny. They basically hope to hide out behind all the prop wash” of the presidential and gubernatorial races higher up the ballot, he said.”

That's what John Niles, a transportation consultant, tells me in the e-mail below. Niles declares that he is a volunteer advisor to the campaign that is opposing Proposition 1, the $17.9 billion ballot measure for Sound Transit. I offer up Niles' observations and a couple of attachments for your perusal because I don't have time to go investigate how much Portland, Denver and all those other cities spend on their light rail vs. buses. Here are a couple pdf's that Niles sent. One is a spreadsheet, the other is the Washington Policy Center's take ...

Here are a few highlights from some compelling arguments put forth by Eastside Rail Now at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion…”In fact, the plan could even increase congestion in some areas, such as the I-90 corridor.”

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.…”The most urgent need for rail transit on the Eastside by far is in the I-405 corridor (which would also be vastly cheaper than the I-90 corridor).”

4. It would downgrade some existing bus service. For example, several bus routes between Seattle and the Eastside would likely be eliminated or cut back in attempt to induce their riders to switch to the light rail line.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge. “Rail transit has never before been attempted on a floating bridge…”

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility. Constructing a rail line on the I-90 floating bridge would reduce the freight capacity of the region’s most important east-west road freight corridor.

14.   It is enormously expensive, despite only marginal benefits.  …”Furthermore, these are only the direct monetary costs — not included are a variety of other costs, including the opportunity costs, that is, the loss to the region from not using the same funds for more effective projects, such as lower cost rail lines with better routes.”

And here’s the kicker:

16.   It would preclude the region from taking on more worthy projects for decades. The region would become legally locked into this massive and unprecedented tax increase and its poorly planned projects for many years. Tax capacity would be exhausted for decades, and all flexibility to reduce taxes or to replace the Proposition 1 projects with more effective projects, including those that might become necessary due to changing circumstances, would be lost. 

It’s the Opportunity Cost, folks… see the link here

See their website at: http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

Here is the first 10:

1.   It would do little to reduce traffic congestion.

2.   It would provide little environmental benefit.

3.   Poor choices were made on selecting the rail routes.

4.   It would downgrade some existing bus service.

5.   It would result in wasteful construction of duplicative facilities.

6.   The start of rail operations would be too slow.

7.   It is mainly a transit system for Seattle.

8.   Serious technical problems remain regarding use of the I-90 floating bridge.

9.   It would have an adverse effect on freight mobility.

10.   So-called “bus rapid transit” may not be effective.

Read all “29 Reasons to Vote No”  at : http://www.eastsiderailnow.org/proposition_1_redo.html

I-985 saves taxpayers (Sims has to agree) Seattle Post Intelligencer - 13 hours ago We agree that Proposition 1, Sound Transit's gargantuan $18-$107 billion tax, is no different than last year's failed scheme to cover up Phase I ...

As the projected $3.2 billion general fund budget deficit continues to loom over the upcoming legislative session, let us not forget about the projected revenue slowdown in the state's transportation budget. The Office of Financial Management recently released its quarterly revenue forecast for the transportation budget. It shows that over the next 16 year construction horizon, (an important time frame for the Nickel and TPA gas tax projects) transportation revenues are $1.352 billion lower than projected from the baseline, which was updated during the 2008 legislative session. And this does not yet include the labor and ...

For years now, people who oppose building or expanding roads have insisted that all we need to do is make better use of existing roads. Sure enough, along comes Initiative 985 to do just that. And who’s leading the opposition? The anti-roads coalition.