7 ms·

This article completely fails to mention how much of this initiative is mired in corruption and inefficiency. A portion of ST3 is to pay for ST2 and ST1, which

This article completely fails to mention how much of this initiative is mired in corruption and inefficiency. A portion of ST3 is to pay for ST2 and ST1, which both went over budget. In those cases, union and industry donated massive amounts to work on the initiative to get even bigger contracts after. It is projected that ST3 will carry less than 3% of the local traffic capacityou, at a huge cost. We need VC thinking here, and more proposals with a clear eye on the ROI. If my city dropped 5.4 billion on buses (a tenth of cost of ST3), we could have much more capacity that could be provisioned in a more dynamic way. That could be ready in a few years. Instead we get rail in 25+ years at a massive cost now. Having spent the last week in DC and been stuck on the Red Line for a trip that took 3x as long as normal, I am not convinced a rail line with it'so single points of failure is the best solution. Transit is cool, but I am firmly of the opinion that this train wreck of an initiative is NOT the way forward and will vote NO.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Analemma_ 10y ago
> A portion of ST3 is to pay for ST2 and ST1, which both went over budget. Completely false. ST2 (which isn't even complete; I'm not sure why you're referring to it in the past tense) is $100 million under budget and 6 months ahead of schedule (source: http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12171636/ahead-of-schedule-under-budget-sound-transit-expansion http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12171636/ahead-of-sche...). > mired in corruption and inefficiency. Again, false. One of the reasons why ST2 is under budget is that Sound Transit got a lower interest rate than they expected on the bonds they issued, specifically because they're one of the best-run, most efficient mass transit agencies in the country (source: http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-events/News-releases/News-release-archive/423-million-bond-issuance-takes-advantage-of-low-interest-rates http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-eve...) > We need VC thinking here, and more proposals with a clear eye on the ROI. Ah, the hallmark of the uninformed public transit opponent. Lots of handwaving with "we need innovation and outside-the-box thinking!" with very few concrete proposals. The ST3 planning process went on for years specifically so people could propose alternative ideas- they weren't taken up because none of them were any good. > If my city dropped 5.4 billion on buses (a tenth of cost of ST3), we could have much more capacity that could be provisioned in a more dynamic way. That could be ready in a few years. Buses where? The roads (both the highways and the surface streets downtown) are already jammed. Nobody is going to take buses if it doesn't offer any decrease in transit time over just taking their car. > Instead we get rail in 25+ years Yup, construction takes time. I will only mention that we could've had this all today if your spiritual forerunners hadn't killed Seattle's transit plans in the 70's and 80's making basically the same arguments you're making now. We can either continue to make their mistakes or try to fix it. > at a massive cost now. No, the cost is spread out over the same multi-decade time span as the construction. Do you know how taxes and bonds work? Behold the usual ST3 opponent: vague proposals that reek of concern trolling, combined with empirical falsehoods. Please vote Yes; Seattle is getting choked to death in traffic and we can't repeat the mistakes of the 80's by doing nothing.
- seattle_native 10y ago
  >> Again, false. One of the reasons why ST2 is under budget is that Sound Transit got a lower interest rate than they expected on the bonds they issued, specifically because they're one of the best-run, most efficient mass transit agencies in the country I don't know how long you have been in the area, but there are reasons they have been one of the most audited agencies in the country (and you don't get audited if people think you are doing things well). Sound Transit has a multi-million dollar marketing budget (we know here that those slick websites don't come cheap!). They memorably somehow spent a million of those dollars to have a party to open a station. Of course their website will only contain positive stuff about them. Of course the various blog posts and editorials from folks connected to the developer, real estate, etc groups will gush over the plan -- they are slated to make a killing on the contracts! I would say a lot of untrue things for a few million dollars. >> Seattle is getting choked to death in traffic and we can't repeat the mistakes of the 80's by doing nothing. Ever heard of the "invisible hand"? If Seattle is really getting choked and inefficient, maybe business will relocate to Everett or Tacoma? Is that necessarily a bad thing? I would love to see the region develop more. That would make a strong economic signal for easy connections to those cities.
  - notyourwork 10y ago
    Business pick locations for a reason. Is Tacoma or Everett able to offer what Tacoma offers? I suspect a lot of the issue here is that Seattle has explosively grown in the last few years because of Amazon. Amazon's growth has spurred other companies growth. The problem compounds and for those who don't get to walk to work there are not many solutions except for >60 min commutes. Downtown living is ever more expensive and this type of transportation seems like it would give Seattle and surrounding an ability to get to and from work without using a car. This sounds positive to me. I don't know enough context about this one but your concerns have made me curious to do more research.
  - oasisbob 10y ago
    Regarding Sound Transit's marketing budget - I have yet to see any critics on this point compare ST's marketing spend with other transit agencies. Pulling a number out of their budget is misleading. They claim their public relations spending is on par with other agencies. As someone who lives in Seattle, this argument against ST3 is old and hollow. http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/06/21/24241690/sound-transit-must-spend-more-on-marketing-its-system http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/06/21/24241690/sound-tr...
barney54 10y ago
DC's Metro should give Seattle pause for building ST3. Metro's ridership is down because the infrastructure costs are so high and the maintence backlog is out of control. Even though the suburbs around DC are some of the richest in the country, Metro has serious funding problems that aren't getting better.
- sightsea 10y ago
  DC Metro is a very particular case: it provides service to two states and DC, none of which agree to pay to maintain it. Sound Transit is a lot easier, being a special regional district of the urbanized metro area. ST is also pretty stringent about maintenance, that's why the insist on no night owl service: they're always checking up on the tracks. Considering how clean the trains remain 7 years into service, I trust them.
sightsea 10y ago
We get Issaquah-Kirkland rail in 23notplus years, and everything else quite a bit before that. Tacoma and West Seattle in 13 years. Ballard in 18. Downtown Redmond and Federal Way in 7. Everett in 19. Big bus improvements rolling out in just a couple years.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Analemma_ 10y ago

> A portion of ST3 is to pay for ST2 and ST1, which both went over budget. Completely false. ST2 (which isn't even complete; I'm not sure why you're referring to it in the past tense) is $100 million under budget and 6 months ahead of schedule (source: http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12171636/ahead-of-schedule-under-budget-sound-transit-expansion http://www.masstransitmag.com/article/12171636/ahead-of-sche...). > mired in corruption and inefficiency. Again, false. One of the reasons why ST2 is under budget is that Sound Transit got a lower interest rate than they expected on the bonds they issued, specifically because they're one of the best-run, most efficient mass transit agencies in the country (source: http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-events/News-releases/News-release-archive/423-million-bond-issuance-takes-advantage-of-low-interest-rates http://www.soundtransit.org/About-Sound-Transit/News-and-eve...) > We need VC thinking here, and more proposals with a clear eye on the ROI. Ah, the hallmark of the uninformed public transit opponent. Lots of handwaving with "we need innovation and outside-the-box thinking!" with very few concrete proposals. The ST3 planning process went on for years specifically so people could propose alternative ideas- they weren't taken up because none of them were any good. > If my city dropped 5.4 billion on buses (a tenth of cost of ST3), we could have much more capacity that could be provisioned in a more dynamic way. That could be ready in a few years. Buses where? The roads (both the highways and the surface streets downtown) are already jammed. Nobody is going to take buses if it doesn't offer any decrease in transit time over just taking their car. > Instead we get rail in 25+ years Yup, construction takes time. I will only mention that we could've had this all today if your spiritual forerunners hadn't killed Seattle's transit plans in the 70's and 80's making basically the same arguments you're making now. We can either continue to make their mistakes or try to fix it. > at a massive cost now. No, the cost is spread out over the same multi-decade time span as the construction. Do you know how taxes and bonds work? Behold the usual ST3 opponent: vague proposals that reek of concern trolling, combined with empirical falsehoods. Please vote Yes; Seattle is getting choked to death in traffic and we can't repeat the mistakes of the 80's by doing nothing.

seattle_native 10y ago
>> Again, false. One of the reasons why ST2 is under budget is that Sound Transit got a lower interest rate than they expected on the bonds they issued, specifically because they're one of the best-run, most efficient mass transit agencies in the country I don't know how long you have been in the area, but there are reasons they have been one of the most audited agencies in the country (and you don't get audited if people think you are doing things well). Sound Transit has a multi-million dollar marketing budget (we know here that those slick websites don't come cheap!). They memorably somehow spent a million of those dollars to have a party to open a station. Of course their website will only contain positive stuff about them. Of course the various blog posts and editorials from folks connected to the developer, real estate, etc groups will gush over the plan -- they are slated to make a killing on the contracts! I would say a lot of untrue things for a few million dollars. >> Seattle is getting choked to death in traffic and we can't repeat the mistakes of the 80's by doing nothing. Ever heard of the "invisible hand"? If Seattle is really getting choked and inefficient, maybe business will relocate to Everett or Tacoma? Is that necessarily a bad thing? I would love to see the region develop more. That would make a strong economic signal for easy connections to those cities.
- notyourwork 10y ago
  Business pick locations for a reason. Is Tacoma or Everett able to offer what Tacoma offers? I suspect a lot of the issue here is that Seattle has explosively grown in the last few years because of Amazon. Amazon's growth has spurred other companies growth. The problem compounds and for those who don't get to walk to work there are not many solutions except for >60 min commutes. Downtown living is ever more expensive and this type of transportation seems like it would give Seattle and surrounding an ability to get to and from work without using a car. This sounds positive to me. I don't know enough context about this one but your concerns have made me curious to do more research.
- oasisbob 10y ago
  Regarding Sound Transit's marketing budget - I have yet to see any critics on this point compare ST's marketing spend with other transit agencies. Pulling a number out of their budget is misleading. They claim their public relations spending is on par with other agencies. As someone who lives in Seattle, this argument against ST3 is old and hollow. http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/06/21/24241690/sound-transit-must-spend-more-on-marketing-its-system http://www.thestranger.com/slog/2016/06/21/24241690/sound-tr...

barney54 10y ago

DC's Metro should give Seattle pause for building ST3. Metro's ridership is down because the infrastructure costs are so high and the maintence backlog is out of control. Even though the suburbs around DC are some of the richest in the country, Metro has serious funding problems that aren't getting better.

sightsea 10y ago
DC Metro is a very particular case: it provides service to two states and DC, none of which agree to pay to maintain it. Sound Transit is a lot easier, being a special regional district of the urbanized metro area. ST is also pretty stringent about maintenance, that's why the insist on no night owl service: they're always checking up on the tracks. Considering how clean the trains remain 7 years into service, I trust them.

sightsea 10y ago

We get Issaquah-Kirkland rail in 23notplus years, and everything else quite a bit before that. Tacoma and West Seattle in 13 years. Ballard in 18. Downtown Redmond and Federal Way in 7. Everett in 19. Big bus improvements rolling out in just a couple years.