HorsesAss.Org

No doubt the anti-rail folks were disappointed to read the report issued today summarizing the independent performance audit of Sound Transit… though that won’t stop them (or bumper sticker writers like Rick Anderson) from attempting to turn an overwhelmingly positive audit into a PR disaster.

Writing at the Daily Weekly (does anybody actually read the Weekly’s blogs if real bloggers like me don’t link to them?) Anderson characterizes the report as “stinging,” before cutting and pasting a list of bullet points under the headline “New Audit: ST Wasted $5 Mil“. By comparison, Mike Lindblom of the Times (bless their hearts) instantly cuts through the crap:

Though significant, that’s a fraction of the project’s overall budget of $2.4 billion, and Sound Transit maintains the losses are actually lower.

Sound Transit may have “wasted” as much as 0.2% of its budget… not exactly the “Big Dig” scenario critics keep warning about. To put that $5 million in perspective, one of the auditor’s primary recommendations is, surprise, annual performance audits — at a YOE cost of nearly $50 million over 50 years! ($500,000 per audit, 2.5% inflation.) And for some reason, Anderson fails to include in his bullet points the approximately $6.5 million the audit says Sound Transit saved during preliminary ST2 design through its “value engineering studies.” Huh.

Whatever. Here is the audit’s actual conclusion, as summarized at the top of the report:

Sound Transit has faced, and continues to face, challenges in delivering capital construction contracts for the Link Light Rail Project. Through the course of initially planning, designing, and building the system, the agency experienced delays and cost overruns.

Before 2002, the agency experienced a lack of expertise, no established practices or procedures relating to ROW acquisition, environmental, or construction management, and limited management oversight. Gaps in best practice tools and procedures created variability in early project delivery success and resulted in project cost and schedule impacts. The agency essentially started as an inefficient and ineffective organization. As a result, the initial light rail project communicated to voters in 1996 ultimately was modified. Its original length, Central Link, 19.7 miles (19 stations) at $1.7 billon (1995 dollars) with an expected completion date of 2006 became the following:

Segment (Expected Completion)	Miles	Stations	Cost
Initial Segment and Airport Link (2009)	15.6	13	$2.6 billion (Y.O.E.)
University Link (2016)	3.2	2	$1.7 billion (Y.O.E.)

However, in the last five years, Sound Transit has responded to its challenges through improvements in construction planning and management processes and implementation of “best practices.” Indications of diligent review of proposed change orders by Sound Transit Project Controls were also identified. From its inception in 1996, the agency has gradually developed management techniques and construction project controls and procedures.

Sound Transit has improved its structure to manage projects and has standardized guidelines on cost estimating, change and cost management, project management, and risk assessments. Sound Transit has also developed procedures for addressing emerging lessons learned.

Although Sound Transit has made great strides in improving its project delivery practices, opportunities exist that will contribute towards its present culture of continuous improvement.

That’s the unedited summary of the auditor’s conclusion, and it is far from the stinging rebuke Anderson makes it out to be. Of course the report highlights things Sound Transit could do better. That’s the purpose of a performance audit: to help an agency improve its performance. But rather than merely focusing on the agency’s shortcomings, the report actually documents a remarkable turnaround, in which Sound Transit overcame its early management woes to grow into a mature and well-run organization that is largely delivering projects on budget and on time. That’s also the conclusion of state Treasurer Mike Murphy, who in enthusiastically endorsing Proposition 1 yesterday, praised Sound Transit’s cost and revenue projections as conservative, while criticizing opponents’ numbers as “bogus.”

Opponents keep reaching back a decade or more to when Sound Transit, then a start-up agency, initially over-promised the Central Link light rail, but they intentionally ignore the progress that’s been made since then. Still, voters are largely getting the same 19 miles of rail first promised (though with fewer stations, and over a longer construction period,) and without raising any additional taxes. Opponents would like this election to be about Sound Transit’s management problems in the late 1990’s, but Murphy — whose condemnation of the Seattle Monorail’s financing package played a huge role in killing the project — succinctly sums up the real issue facing voters:

“Do you want something to happen or not? If you do, vote yes,” he said. “If you don’t, vote no.”

Indeed, if there is a lesson to be learned from this performance audit, and the parallel histories of both Sound Transit and the Seattle Monorail Project, it is the inherent danger of starting large transportation agencies from scratch… which ironically, is exactly what we’ll eventually be forced to do should voters reject Proposition 1. The pro-rail critics of the roads and transit package have this pie-eyed idea that we can just come back next year or the year after that with a transit-only package, but they ignore two basic realities: a) polls show that neither roads nor transit would pass on their own, and b) there’s no guarantee Sound Transit will even be allowed to bring a package before voters.

There are many in the Legislature and the pro-roads camp who are just itching for Proposition 1 to fail, so that they have an excuse to finally pass “governance reform,” implementing a multi-county, multi-modal transportation agency intended to dilute the influence of pro-rail Seattle voters, and essentially dismantle Sound Transit as an independent agency. Such a “reform,” whatever its merits, would be so disruptive, and introduce so many delays into any effort to pass and implement a project even remotely based on ST2, that Sound Transit would surely lose the bulk of the management and engineering infrastructure it has so painfully constructed over the past five years, and the expertise that goes with it. We would, in essence, be starting from scratch, ignoring yet another one of the audit’s primary conclusions:

Strong management and mature agency skills are not created overnight. It took five years from start-up to the time Sound Transit had its policies, its systems and its management practices fully in place. The Puget Sound region should be careful to preserve and nurture this knowledge base and not to assume that every new program needs a new agency to manage it.

No doubt Proposition 1 is filled with compromises, and I welcome a debate on its costs vs. benefits. But the measure’s opponents reveal themselves to be fundamentally lazy and dishonest in their persistent efforts to slander Sound Transit itself as corrupt and incompetent.

Given the timing, I had grave doubts that this performance audit would be fair and impartial, but I see nothing in this report to suggest that Sound Transit’s management is not dedicated to constantly improving its internal processes, that its ridership, revenue and cost projections should be held suspect, or that the agency itself is not positioned to deliver ST2 largely as promised. Large capital projects are inherently risky, and in that context the report concludes:

The use of the aforementioned “best practices” in conjunction with input from technical and subject matter experts and FTA oversight demonstrate that Sound Transit’s construction planning and management systems are maturing. This should be understood in the context of the complex and high risk contracts that Sound Transit is delivering, where challenges and risks will always be present. Focus, innovation, and due diligence will always be required to avoid surprises on such projects.

A “stinging performance audit”… my ass.

I am so confused. Is this a pro-Romney ad, or an anti-Romney ad? Either way, it’s hilarious.

Week after week I attend the Tuesday night gathering of the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally, and you’d think occasionally some attractive, thirty-somethingish woman looking for a smart, funny guy with proof-of-concept in the parenting department might sidle up to the bar and start hitting on me… but no. I gotta say, blogging is a lousy way to meet women. On the other hand, it’s apparently a great way to meet four-star generals.

There I was the other night, pint of Manny’s in hand, plotting mischief with a couple of politicos, when who should walk up to us but Gen. Wesley Clark, former NATO Supreme Allied Commander — and I gotta say, perhaps the most energetically outspoken politician I’ve ever met. Within seconds we’re talking Iran, and Gen. Clark didn’t mince words. President Bush is preparing to take us to war with Iran, and the Democratic Congress, Clark warned, is unprepared to stop him. Don’t get too cocky about 2008, Clark told us. The Republican plan is to use the war, and the patriotic fervor that seems to swell up around every new military adventure, to kick ass next November, branding us Democrats as weak, indecisive and obstructionist… if not out-and-out traitors.

It’s so crazy, it just might work.

I’ve heard smart people describe the notion of war with Iran as “unimaginable,” an assertion disproved by the conversation itself. It is in fact easy to imagine Bush launching a “preemptive” strike on an Iranian nuclear facility, or provoking (or fabricating) a Gulf of Tonkin-like incident that absolutely demands immediate retaliation. And it is equally easy to imagine the American people, moved by fear, rewarding the war party for its aggression, despite the growing national disgust over our quagmire in Iraq.

Coming from me, it is easy to dismiss such warnings as the paranoid ravings of the “far-left” “nutroots.” Which is why it is so important to have these warnings come from men of Gen. Clark’s stature and expertise. As Gen. Clark told the Seattle P-I’s Joel Connelly, the chicken-hawks planning and promoting a war with Iran have learned nothing from their disaster in Iraq:

“They know nothing about war,” Clark declared. “Almost none among them has ever seen a battlefield. They don’t comprehend the blood, the mangled bodies. They’ve never seen severed body parts. And they are so absolutely sure that you can predict the outcome.”

Of course, I suppose Bush-defenders would dismiss Gen. Clark’s words as those of a “phony soldier.” But Democrats would do well to heed his advice, and prepare for the unimaginable.

UPDATE:
As RonK points out, Gen. Clark was in Seattle on a book tour, so it’s only courtesy to plug the book: “A Time to Lead.”

Thursday morning, Virginia Senator Jim Webb, New York Senator Chuck Schumer, and New York Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney are holding a hearing to discuss our country’s incarceration crisis.

The United States has experienced a sharp increase in its prison population in the past thirty years. From the 1920s to the mid-1970s, the incarceration rate in the United States remained steady at approximately 110 prisoners per 100,000 people. Today, the incarceration rate is 737 inmates per 100,000 residents, comprising 2.1 million persons in federal, state, and local prisons. The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but now has 25 percent of its prisoners. There are approximately 5 million Americans under the supervision of the correctional system, including parole, probation, and other community supervision sanctions.

With such a significant number of the population behind bars, expenditures associated with the prison system have skyrocketed. According to the Urban Institute, “the social and economic costs to the nation are enormous.” With 2.25 million people incarcerated in approximately five thousand prisons and jails, the combined expenditures of local governments, state governments, and the federal government for law enforcement and corrections personnel totals over $200 billion.

The JEC will examine why the United States has such a disproportionate share of the world’s prison population, as well as ways to address this issue that responsibly balance public safety and the high social and economic costs of imprisonment.

One of the witnesses will be Dr. Glenn Loury, an Economics and Social Sciences Professor from Brown University, who recently wrote about the forces behind this trend.

[Nod to David Borden at the Speakeasy]

Professional curmudgeon Ken Schram asks:

So what do you get when you mix arrogance, alcohol and a really savvy lawyer who knows how to stall for time and manipulate the system?

The answer is…You get a Schrammie!

That’s right. Jane Hague may not have earned that BS degree in “Business and Economics,” but she certainly has earned a bobble-head achievement award.

It wasn’t just for being caught drunk driving—even combined with abusing the arresting officer. It wasn’t about falsely claiming she had a college degree—for years. It wasn’t about her inability to properly manage her campaign finances and contributions. It wasn’t about her penchant for blaming others. And, hell, I doubt Ken even knew that, at one time, Jane couldn’t even be bothered to license her dog.

Naaaa…it took more than that. (They don’t just hand out these Schrammies willie-nillie, you know!) It was for successfully delaying the pre-trial hearing until November 28th (after the election) that gave Hague the kind of distinction needed to earn a Schrammie:

So, for playing voters like pawns in some sleazy political chess game; for dragging out the legal process to the point where it doesn’t overtly interfere with political ambition and for being just plain smug about it all, take a bow, Jane, because this “Schrammie” is for you.

(* APPLAUSE TRACK *)

Please join me in congratulating Ms. Hague for her Schramalicious success story.

The good news for Republican King County Councilmember Jane Hague is that she managed to get her drunk-driving hearing postponed until after the November election, avoiding in the weeks leading up to the vote, the potential embarrassment of pleading guilty to, you know, drunk driving. The bad news for Hague is that in doing so, she’s only managed to generate a whole new controversy to keep the bad headlines coming.

When the going gets weird, well, King County Council Democratic candidate Richard Pope keeps it moving right along. He has succeeded in at least temporarily removing the judge who yesterday ruled that Pope’s Republican opponent Jane Hague could delay arguments in her drunk-driving trial until after the November election, Seattle Weekly has learned.

King County District Court Presiding Judge Barbara Linde said this afternoon she has already notified pro tem judge Richard Llewelyn Jones of his removal for failing to report his own criminal background.

The removal could also lead to nullification of Jones’ ruling to delay arguments over Hague’s so-far successful attempt to have blood-alcohol results thrown out. “I’ll leave it up to the two sides to decide” whether the delay stands, Linde says, indicating Hague and prosecutors could end up in court again before the election after all.

If Pope loses (and notice I don’t say “when”,) the two parties should start a bidding war to see who can hire him to do opposition research on the other side. Or, they should have him killed. Man, he’s good.

Join us tonight for a fun-filled evening of politics under the influence at the Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally. We meet at 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.

The topics of conversation will likely include organic natural gardening, delayed justice and whether Jane Hague is really Geddy Lee wearing a blond wig. Tonight’s theme song: Black Water by the Doobie Brothers, of course.

If you find yourself in the Tri-Cities area this evening, check out McCranium for the local Drinking Liberally. Otherwise, check out the Drinking Liberally web site for dates and times of a chapter near you.

Update: General Wesley Clark stopped by this evening.

A memorial service for historian, civic activist and writer Walt Crowley will be held today, 4 to 6 p.m. at the Museum of History & Industry, 2700 24th Ave. E., Seattle.

Between helping a friend move on Sunday and playing goalie in my co-rec soccer game last night, I’ve been doing a lot of standing in the rain recently. And that can only mean one thing. Summer is over and it’s time for the baseball playoffs. Here’s some history behind the four playoff matchups:

National League

Chicago Cubs vs. Arizona Diamondbacks

The Cubs were formed in 1870 as the Chicago White Stockings. Also in 1870, the newly named town of Phoenix purchased a 320 acre lot of land that eventually became the city’s business downtown. The last time the Cubs won the World Series, in 1908, the population of Phoenix was around 10,000. In 1915, the Cubs’ new home, Wrigley Field could hold 18,000 spectators. Today it seats 41,000, much fewer than the population of Phoenix, which thanks to the invention of air conditioning, has 1.5 million people, and its own team.

Philadelphia Phillies vs. Colorado Rockies

The Phillies were formed in 1883 and were originally called the Quakers. At the same time in Denver, a con-artist named “Soapy” Smith was able to corrupt officials in the quickly growing capital of the new state of Colorado with the money he made from his infamous soap scam. When the Phillies won their only ever World Series in 1980, the Colorado Rockies were still a hockey team. The Phillies won the NL East Division title this year for the first second time since 1983, the year after the old Colorado Rockies moved to New Jersey and became the Devils, and 10 years before the baseball Rockies were born.

American League

Boston Red Sox vs. LA Angels of Anaheim

The Red Sox were founded at the beginning of the American League in 1901 as the Boston Americans. At that time, Anaheim was a small farming community. In 1920, Red Sox owner Harry Frazee sold Babe Ruth to the Yankees, allegedly to finance a Broadway play. This action would curse the team for 84 years until they won the World Series in 2004. In 1924, the Ku Klax Klan secretly won 4 of the 5 seats on the city of Anaheim’s Board of Trustees. This action cursed the city of Anaheim for 78 years until 2002, when the Angels won their first World Series. The following year, a Mexican-American named Arte Moreno bought the Angels, changed the name to the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, and began trying to market the team to Hispanic fans. Since that bit of beautiful karma, even Anaheim’s NHL team has been good.

New York Yankees vs. Cleveland Indians

The Yankees and the Indians were both founded at the beginning of the American League in 1901. The Yankees were originally the Baltimore Orioles for two years before the owners were able to move the team to New York. There they were first called the Highlanders because their home field was on a hill. They didn’t become the Yankees until moving to the Polo Grounds in 1913. The Indians also went through a number of name changes. They started as the Cleveland Blues in 1901, but became the Bronchos (1902), the Naps (1903), the Molly McGuires (1909), and finally the Indians in 1911 after the city was allowed to vote on a name. Since then, the success of the Yankees and the Indians baseball teams has pretty much paralleled the fortunes of Yankees and Indians in this country as a whole.

Man, I suck on the radio. My voice is screechy, I pick boring topics, and nobody wants to listen to my relentless, left-wing propaganda. Liberal talk just doesn’t work, and my days at 710-KIRO are surely numbered.

That said, I’ll be filling in for Dave Ross this morning from 9AM to Noon, and will kick off the show with a KIRO exclusive, on-air, caller-driven “debate” between Republican Dan Satterberg and Democrat Bill Sherman, vying for the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. This is your chance to ask your question of the candidates in the premier race this November: 877-710-KIRO.

I haven’t got a chance to read it yet, but I just picked up Who Hates Whom. Looks great. Yay for blogger books. On that random note, here’s your bullshit:

* So, last week there was a march in Washington. Peace is neato. Anyway, the take away from that is that peace groups support murder. Obviously it couldn’t be that conservatives don’t understand that pictures can be manipulated. But remember, the conservatives were there, so they saw banners with their own eyes. And then they beat up a Gold Star father and go to the White House. But don’t worry, because Islamo-Fascism Awareness Week is coming up, and that will present right wingers with a whole new appreciation of make believe pictures.

* Tim Russert thinks that John Edwards’ hair, asking Hillary Clinton about things that will never happen, things that happened in Cleveland in 1978, and all of the candidates’ favorite Bible quotes are more important than the environment. But at least we aren’t racists like the Republican frontrunners.

* David Brooks is actually making me miss Safire. How is that possible?

* Who could have guessed that Fox News were a bunch of hypocrites?

* Lee Bollinger treats dictators differently based on their relationship with the United States. Quite the man of courage.

* The Boner finds it despicable to hide behind children.

Locally:

* Michael Medved doesn’t think slavery is such a big deal. He has 6 reasons and they’re all crazy.

* Littering in the bus tunnel is bullshit, although, I used it on Friday rush hour and didn’t notice anything.

* The Washington Policy Center is upset at the existence of S-Chip and the state minimum wage.

This is an open thread

State Attorney General Rob McKenna argued Washington’s top-two primary before the US Supreme Court today, and Postman’s got a partial transcript up online. I know it’s not a predictor of how the court will rule, but it sure sounds like McKenna is getting his ass kicked — which raises the question: why is McKenna personally arguing this case rather than, you know, a more experienced appeals attorney?

For example, backers of the top-two better hope this isn’t McKenna’s most compelling argument.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: But clearly, it’s just like a trademark case. I mean, they’re claiming their people are going to be confused. They are going to think this person is affiliated with the Democratic or Republican Party when they may, in fact, not be at all.

MR. McKENNA: Mr. Chief Justice, they make that claim without the benefit of any evidence. The Ninth Circuit and the district court and the parties simply assume this will happen…

Well, if you’re looking for evidence to support this scenario, how about this: I hereby declare my intention to challenge Dino Rossi for the Republican nomination… should the top-two primary be reinstated.

Run Goldy, run!

Of course, I’m just some crazy blogger… one of those wacky, out-of-touch, far-left-of-center, internet agitators who threatens to destroy the Democratic Party’s credibility with mainstream Americans. So when we in the “nutroots” argue that Darcy Burner is in a better position to defeat Dave Reichert in 2008 than she was in the so-called “Blue Wave” election of 2006, you can be sure that the inside-the-beltway professionals will run as fast as they can in the opposite direction…

WASHINGTON — Darcy Burner is becoming a hot commodity in D.C.

Burner, the likely 2008 Democratic opponent of U.S. Rep. Dave Reichert, R-Auburn, was one of seven candidates hosted at a special fundraiser by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) at Johnny’s Half Shell, a block from the Capitol.

Wow. Burner is a “hot commodity”… one of the DCCC’s top challengers. Who’d a thunk?

One of the other top-seven Democratic challengers is Dan Maffei, who like Burner, was a first time candidate in 2006, yet came from nowhere to draw within a few points of defeating Republican incumbent Jim Walsh.

Walsh, a former supporter of the war in Iraq, made news last month when he changed his mind and called for redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq, after a two-day trip to Baghdad.

Sitting with Walsh on that trip was Reichert, who did not alter his position. Burner is against the war.

“Burner is against the war.” How many more Americans must die before political expediency forces Reichert to switch positions?

Meanwhile, Reichert finally says something I agree with:

“Republicans should head for the hills.”

Man, I’m looking forward to 2008.

Hmm…

The US Supreme Court rejected Monday a bid by Roman Catholic and Baptist groups to stop offering their employees birth-control benefits as part of their health insurance.

The case hinged on the organizations’ right to place their own beliefs at the center of their employment practices, offering a new battle ground over the age-old state versus religion debate at the start of the court’s new year.

The top court rejected a petition by the groups arguing that by being forced to offer contraception pills and equipment on their employee health-insurance plans, their First Amendment rights to free speech were violated.

The petition sought to overturn a New York state law that mandated that all employees of religious groups must have access to birth-control measures as part of their employer-provided health insurance.

I’m no lawyer, and the court has not published an explanation of its decision, but… if religious organizations have no First Amendment right to deny employees birth control benefits in violation of NY state law, how could a pharmacist claim a similar First Amendment right here in WA? Plan B — “the morning after pill” — is birth control. If a state-licensed pharmacist is required by law to stock and sell this pill, there doesn’t appear to be an inherent First Amendment right to refuse.

Iceland is pulling its troop out of Iraq. That’s right, Iceland, which has long been counted by President Bush as one of the original 36 members of the “Coalition of the Willing,” is bringing home its single “Icelandic Crisis Response Unit” member… a press aide who has been working in Baghdad for the past two years. Iceland has no standing army.

I guess that’s another victory for the terrorists.