Crosscut writer David Brewster comments in his article: “Sound Transit 2 failure would be a political train wreck”, that:

“several factors have made passage (of ST2) less likely…

…One is the drop in gas prices by about $1 a gallon.

Another is the scary economy, making voters stingy with new taxes.

A third is crowded buses, which make a case for more transit but probably a stronger case for more immediate relief than the long lead time of a rail-heavy proposal. “

Brewster also states:

“Eastsiders are ambivalent (about Prop 1) because the rail line would take away bus and traffic lanes from the Interstate 90 bridge across Lake Washington.”

Representative Fred Jarrett confirmed this long ago, and said that the first thing that would be done after passage of last year’s Prop 1 (or ST2), would be that popular, efficient routes such as the 550 between Seattle and Bellevue would be cut.

Essentially, Sound Transit would exchange a popular, less expensive trip, for a more expensive trip, one heavily subsidized by taxpayers.

Now Larry Lange at the Seattle Times is saying that: “As light rail comes, some buses may go“.

“Anybody living in those neighborhoods should be very interested” in what might happen, Metro service development manager Victor Obeso told Seattle City Council members this week.

The new rail service will duplicate service on at least two bus routes: Route 42 between downtown Seattle and the Rainier View area, and Route 194 between downtown, the airport and Federal Way.

According to Metro, both are examples of routes that could be discontinued along with others such as Routes 7 Express and Routes 32, 34, 35, 39 and 126.

Back to Brewster’s article:

“As for King County Executive Ron Sims, he’s already opposed to Prop 1 (though keeping quiet about it this time), is definitely on the bus side of the bus-rail balance beam, and will push to get some of the Sound Transit taxing authority for quick relief for his overloaded Metro Transit buses.”

Ron Sims seems to think that expanding bus service (possibly with dedicated lanes) would be a more responsive, quicker, less expensive way to move people. More buses to more destinations. Routes to respond to demand-where people need to travel to.

Ron Sims on Sound Transit’s Prop 1 bus plan:

“Sound Transit’s bus capital program is only 2 percent of the total expenditure plan for Sound Transit, Phase 2 (ST2). The estimated $17.8 billion dollars for this plan provides just 60 new buses for the three-county area, half of which will not be in service until after 2015. That adds just an average of 1.3 new buses per year in each of the three counties for the next 15 years…

The region’s bus systems are experiencing unprecedented growth, yet their current revenue sources are exhausted…

Buses across our region are full. Now is not the time to ask voters for a big tax increase tying up 30 years of transit investments for little short-term congestion relief. We can do better. Proposing the wrong plan simply because new voters may flock to the November ballot is still wrong.”

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

In a Seattle Times op-ed published today, the former chief examiner of the Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission, George Kargianis, and former state Supreme Court justice Phil Talmadge assert Sound Transit's proposal to build light rail across Lake Washington to Eastside suburbs via the I-90 floating bridge just doesn't pencil out. We have taken no official position yet on either the Eastside light rail proposal or the larger November, 2007 roads and transit ballot measure of which it is a part. However, our Cascadia Center of Discovery Institute supports system wide, time variable automated highway tolling; taxpayer-friendly design-build ...

State Treasurer Michael Murphy rejects the finance plan for the proposed rebuilding of the Highway 520 bridge and won't bankroll the project unless lawmakers levy tolls on the Interstate 90 crossing as well.