4 ms·

> 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

> 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...
dlp211 10y ago
So I haven't voted yet, but my two concerns are the additional sales and property taxes and I don't believe that ST3 does enough, in a short enough timespan. Do you have any comments on my 2 concerns?
- seattle_native 10y ago
  Have you calculated out the costs for you? Sound Transit floats a misleading "average $169" figure, but for a property owner it is much higher. Do you want to own a nice car? If you buy a 100k car you are on the hook for $800 extra to Washington's already high vehicle taxes
  - GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
    If you're dropping a hundred thou on a car you can afford to pay a little more in taxes.
  - plandis 10y ago
    I'm not trying to attack you personally but you've stated very misleading things in your above post. If the true reason you don't support light rail is that you own luxury cars that the majority of the population cannot afford and you wouldn't ever take public transit that's fine, but don't lie to make a case.
- Analemma_ 10y ago
  So, I probably don't have a magic bullet argument that will win you over completely. Taxes suck and infrastructure is expensive; there's ultimately no way around that. Here is what I would offer you in the way of persuasion: - Don't forget that ST2 is still in progress and some of the projects (like the Seattle-Bellevue light rail) and their benefits are coming online within the next decade. Not all the ST3 projects will take the full forty years too - the proposed Redmond and Federal Way extensions could be completed within the decade as well. - ST3 does include several new BRT routes which will start up more quickly and ease congestion on the 405. - Congestion imposes hidden costs, especially once it gets to the levels of really bad cities like LA or DC, and we're moving in that direction. People have more economic opportunity when they can reach more of the surrounding area quickly, and better accommodate the population growth that's coming (new employees at, say, Amazon, won't have to all live downtown like they pretty much all do now). - The problems exist now (I mentioned above that commute times have doubled in 5 years. That's an official statistic from somewhere or other but it pretty much tallies with my personal experience, and it's only going up from here) and the alternative proposals are not convincing.

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...

dlp211 10y ago

So I haven't voted yet, but my two concerns are the additional sales and property taxes and I don't believe that ST3 does enough, in a short enough timespan. Do you have any comments on my 2 concerns?

seattle_native 10y ago
Have you calculated out the costs for you? Sound Transit floats a misleading "average $169" figure, but for a property owner it is much higher. Do you want to own a nice car? If you buy a 100k car you are on the hook for $800 extra to Washington's already high vehicle taxes
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  If you're dropping a hundred thou on a car you can afford to pay a little more in taxes.
- plandis 10y ago
  I'm not trying to attack you personally but you've stated very misleading things in your above post. If the true reason you don't support light rail is that you own luxury cars that the majority of the population cannot afford and you wouldn't ever take public transit that's fine, but don't lie to make a case.
Analemma_ 10y ago
So, I probably don't have a magic bullet argument that will win you over completely. Taxes suck and infrastructure is expensive; there's ultimately no way around that. Here is what I would offer you in the way of persuasion: - Don't forget that ST2 is still in progress and some of the projects (like the Seattle-Bellevue light rail) and their benefits are coming online within the next decade. Not all the ST3 projects will take the full forty years too - the proposed Redmond and Federal Way extensions could be completed within the decade as well. - ST3 does include several new BRT routes which will start up more quickly and ease congestion on the 405. - Congestion imposes hidden costs, especially once it gets to the levels of really bad cities like LA or DC, and we're moving in that direction. People have more economic opportunity when they can reach more of the surrounding area quickly, and better accommodate the population growth that's coming (new employees at, say, Amazon, won't have to all live downtown like they pretty much all do now). - The problems exist now (I mentioned above that commute times have doubled in 5 years. That's an official statistic from somewhere or other but it pretty much tallies with my personal experience, and it's only going up from here) and the alternative proposals are not convincing.