Michael Ennis at the Washington Policy Center (he's the transportation director) brought to my attention these excerpts from the Sound Move plan that was adopted on May 31, 1996:

Future phases
Voter approval requirement
The RTA Board recognizes its authority to fund Sound Move's future operations, maintenance and debt service as well as any future phase capital program through a continuation of the local taxes initially authorized by the voters. However, in its commitment to public accountability, the RTA Board pledges that any second phase capital program which continues local taxes for financing will require approval by a vote of those citizens within the RTA District.
Sales tax rate rollback
Should voter approval for a future phase capital program not be forthcoming, the RTA Board will initiate two steps to roll
back the rate of sales tax collected by the RTA.
First, the RTA will first initiate an accelerated pay off schedule for any outstanding bonds. Second, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay the accelerated schedule for debt service on outstanding bonds, system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement, and agency cost.
a. Once all debt is retired, the RTA will implement a tax rollback to a level necessary to pay for system operations and maintenance, fare integration, capital replacement and agency administration.
b. Financial policies review
These Financial Policies will apply to future capital programs. They will be reviewed for applicability prior to any submittal
of a future capital program to the RTA District voters.

"I would not only say that Sound Transit must keep their promise, but since this language was part of the plan that was passed by voters, Sound Transit may be legally obligated to abide," Ennis wrote today in an e-mail to me.

So, as Sound Transit heads toward another ballot measure, I suppose it's fair to ask "How many defeats does it take to indicate that voter approval is not forthcoming?" Proposition 1's defeat was Strike One. Is this a Three Strikes situation?

This next block of type also comes from the 1996 plan:

[More:]

The assumptions used to project costs and revenues for Sound Move are consciously conservative. The assumptions have been carefully analyzed to provide a cushion in case there are adverse changes in one or more of the revenue or expense projections. Experience shows that if one assumption changes, other key indicators would likely change in a similar manner. For example, if inflation were to escalate projected costs, interest rates and earnings and tax revenues would also be higher than plan projections. The RTA, however, has adopted several strategies within its financial polices to reduce the impact of any imbalance between planned expenditures and available revenues.

Right. Even so, those "consciously conservative" assumptions weren't enough to keep the project from doubling in price and falling years behind schedule. This is what Sound Transit was fighting when Proposition 1 was on the ballot, and what the agency will face again when they put another measure on the ballot.