Sound Transit needs the benefit of a doubter

As Sound Transit dreams big dreams of light rail links that will extend from Tacoma to Lynnwood to Redmond, it tries not to dwell on the nightmare of Seattle's recent Alaskan Way Viaduct brouhaha.

"That's had to have had an impact on the public's opinion of government effectiveness," said Ric Ilgenfritz, executive director of Sound Transit's policy planning and public affairs office.

The Sound Transit board, a collection of 18 government officials, meets Thursday to begin putting an ambitious, expensive -- $17 billion in 2006 dollars -- transportation plan before voters in November.

During this Easter season, you want to find something in which to believe.

The once-troubled Sound Transit has transformed itself into a transit equivalent of Hillary Clinton or Duke basketball, a well-oiled operation carrying the aura of inevitability.

Candidly, however, both Sound Transit and its partner, the Regional Transit Investment District, need a St. Thomas the Apostle among its overseers -- a doubter who will insist on proof of public benefits.

"The vision," as Ilgenfritz puts it, is to create a regional, interconnected transportation system that connects major employment centers. The lion's share of the money would go to light rail, notably an extension across Lake Washington.

A minority share, accounted for by the investment district, would tackle major highways bottlenecks, such as access to the U.S. 2 trestle into Everett. And it would build new roads, notably an extension of state Route 167 to the Port of Tacoma, plus the controversial "Cross-Base Highway" across Fort Lewis in southern Pierce County.

The "investments" would "provide additional capacity on a new Evergreen Point Bridge by adding HOV lanes, bicycle lanes and shoulders in each direction," boasts a planning paper used at public meetings.

As a Seattle P-I story pointed out last week, however, planners have not come up with revenue sources to pay for the big-ticket replacement of the overcrowded, dangerous 1960s-era 520 bridge.

A political junkie can predict how the plan will be sold this fall.

Former governors will give finger-wagging, eat-your broccoli advice to voters. Editorialists will trumpet official claims. Ron Sims will preach. The Stranger will screech. Transit advocates will claim the package would cost an average family the equivalent of two lattes a week.

Light rail boosters evoke memories of 1970s-era advocates of nuclear power in their intense belief in the technology.

At one recent liberal bloggers' meeting, David Goldstein of the horsesass.org Web site, looked me in the eye and declared, "We are going to make you like rapid transit."

Still, with a nod to St. Thomas, here are questions the Sound Transit board and investment district planning committee should take up:

Why the disproportionate spending on light rail? A more even division of resources (with delay of light rail across the lake) would provide bucks to replace the 520 bridge.

Why put cost estimates in 2006 dollars, when your plan will extend out at least a decade? Won't these figures look as silly as the famous 1972 Tri-City Herald headline: "$450 Million Nuclear Plant Started" on a reactor that eventually cost $3 billion?

On the other hand, given inflation, can our congested region afford NOT to get going? The 1999 passage of Initiative 695 -- $30 car tabs -- wiped out $500 million in planned Snohomish County road projects. The population, and price tag for roads, have since soared.

What would be the specific benefits of this plan to the working families of the Puget Sound area? Would this plan only overlay the best served transit corridors of the region? Would it provide a quicker commute? Does it give an alternative to commuters not currently served by transit?

What is the assurance the taxpayers will get what is promised them? The 1996 Phase 1 Sound Transit plan was going to cost $3.9 billion in 1995 dollars.

As a sometime Whidbey commuter, I'm still waiting for the promised Sounder stop in Mukilteo.

One question officialdom can't answer: How much are the taxpayers willing to take?

In Seattle's case, the answer is infinite: The monorail gobbled up $183 million in motor vehicle excise taxes and then imploded.

The city just voted for a whopping tax increase for Mayor Greg Nickels' pricey package of street repairs and bike lanes. King County voters upped taxes for better bus service.

Still, the November package would cut deep. It includes a 0.6 of 1 percent sales tax increase (0.5 percent for Sound Transit) plus motor vehicle excise taxes that would total $80 for every $10,000 worth of value on a vehicle.

Once ribbons are cut on new roads, motorists may have to pay again to use them. A toll is likely on at least one Lake Washington bridge. The investment district is looking at systemwide tolling and "congestion pricing" that would raise driving costs during rush hour.

State Transportation Secretary Doug MacDonald is a strong advocate of tolls. "I'm way ahead of the governor in this," he said.

"We can't build enough roads," MacDonald added. "We shouldn't be doing it, anyway. We don't have the money, from any one revenue source, to do it. And we certainly can't keep building roads to do peak capacity."

The vision is there. Our region's political class believes in it. With the ordinary citizen, however, the tithe will be steep.

Do not ask for whom the tolls bell. They sound for thee.