You might be noticing this morning that both papers have jumped quickly on the news that the FTA has asked Sound Transit to add additional money to the U Link contingency fund.
I want to point out how positive it is that the FTA then turned around and offered us nearly half of what they wanted added to the budget. They’re saying “This is the most cost effective light rail project in the country” (I’m paraphrasing, but it is) – and they want to ensure that we have enough money to cover any cost increases.
What I don’t appreciate is this spin from the two local papers. The cost of the light rail tunnel hasn’t changed a penny. The contingency funds available in case the cost does change have been increased. $128 million in unspent project reserves are soon to be released from Central Link – but that doesn’t look bad, especially when that’s greater than what Sound Transit needs to add to contingency funds for U Link, and it points out that Sound Transit’s planning is solid. Why write about that?
Another little jab from the P-I – claiming that the ST2 plan doesn’t offer immediate service? Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. Bus service increases would go online almost immediately – I suspect that’s what got Reardon on board. Sounder service increases would happen in just a few years. This package balances the now with the later. Good planning just doesn’t make for sensational reporting.
Update: It’s been pointed out to me that the $128 million we have left over from Central Link was requested by the FTA in nearly exactly the same situation in 2003. So it’s even more interesting that it went unmentioned in today’s Times and P-I articles. I want Jane Hadley back.
As a co-worker once said, “The P-I isn’t a ‘reputable paper’, AJ. It’s a tabloid.”
She went on to get a consensus out of our office saying that yeah, the Times is far more reputable and is far more trusted.
I don’t worry about them swaying public opinion all that much.
The Times, however– they’re a bit iffy. They’ve been flagging lately but I still think they have more clout on things like this than they should have. I’m surprised they haven’t said things like “Sound Transit is bringing back their plans from last year’s failed 30 BILLION DOLLAR proposition 1 that FAILED!”
I saw that too. The only explanation I can think of it that they think their readers are negative toward transit, which I cannot imagine is really the case. I gave a call to the Times author and left a message about why the headline didn’t say “FTA provides funds as tunnel cost rises” or something. Give them a call, they need to know what their market thinks.
I think the P-I has better reporting than the Times, personally.
The P-I story has a bad headline, but I don’t think its contents are biased. If I missed something, please point it out to me!
Wow, I just read the Times piece and it was much shorter but also much more balanced. I think the P-I did a good job talking about the Beacon Hill tunnel, but the Times did a better job of stressing that the UW tunnel isn’t over-budget.
According to the Times poll thus far 59% to 38% in favor of voting for ST2.1 if it were to make the ballot this year.
61 to 36 at this point. Interesting.
Quick question from the Times article:
“Reardon said Seattle officials earlier expected Snohomish County to underwrite rail construction from the Seattle city limits to Mountlake Terrace — leaving little cash for Snohomish County needs. But the new deal uses Snohomish County money only from Shoreline north.”
Isn’t paying from Shoreline to Snohomish county exactly the same as Seattle city limits to Mountlake Terrace?
I think that the deal he didn’t like did both – Snohomish County limits down to Seattle city limits. The new deal only has Snohomish paying as far south as Shoreline – which makes sense, because users of that track will be 95% Snohomish County residents.
Make time for the Times, and increase your intelligence by reading the Post-Intelligencer!
Haha. I don’t read either unless linked to them at this point.