31 ms·

I'm guessing you live in Ballard, which I do think ST3 hasn't prioritized getting done quickly enough. I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting

I'm guessing you live in Ballard, which I do think ST3 hasn't prioritized getting done quickly enough. I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting Ballard <> Downtown done sooner than 2035, that is a perfectly valid complaint. With that said, I also think you're not being fair to ST3 - it's a regional program, and it's paid by everyone in the ST region. Long before 2035 there will be a host of improvements[1], including more BRT and other deliverables: Link to Redmond, West Seattle, etc. Sound Transit has consistently delivered projects on-time, and outside of an increased land acquisition cost, has been relatively on-budget[2]. I don't want to debate on a fact-by-fact basis, but I'll say that you're off on the percentage of Seattle that takes transit to work: it's north of 20%[3] (from what I can see), and bucking a nationwide trend of that falling in other cities. Seattle is, IMO, doing the right thing to work through the massive influx of population it's gotten. I only wish it was started 20 years ago (or more!) and could be done faster. Personally, I am more than happy to pay the increased vehicle registration tax, sales tax and property tax. I purchased a house close to the light rail explicitly because I wanted to have convenient transit access, and I see the benefit of how these tax dollars were spent every day. Even if you don't directly ride the Link, it's taking traffic off the road and making commutes easier. I think transit _options_ are an extremely important quality of life item that creates a more dynamic and healthier city. They're just that though - options. I own a car, and I use it for trips that don't make sense to do any other way (e.g. going Skiing). That doesn't mean I want a world where nobody drives, but a world where people have multiple choices for personal mobility. [1]: https://st32.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Document%20Library%20Featured/June_2016/2016_0610_Factsheet_project%20phasing.pdf https://st32.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/Document%20... [2]: https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/12171636/ahead-of-schedule-under-budget-sound-transit-expansion https://www.masstransitmag.com/rail/article/12171636/ahead-o... [3]: https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/09/28/census-reports-steady-growth-in-local-transit-use-walking/ https://seattletransitblog.com/2019/09/28/census-reports-ste...)

xyzzyz 7y ago
I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting Ballard <> Downtown done sooner than 2035, that is a perfectly valid complaint. This is only the symptom of the real problem, which is way too high cost of building. Light rail construction costs are planned to be around ~$500M/mile. In comparison, whole subway line in my home town of Warsaw, finished in 2014, built 6 miles of underground subway for ~$200M/mile. Considering that subway typically costs 5-8 times more than light rail per mile, $500M/mile is simply insane. The cost, and not construction schedule, is the real problem. The construction schedule is so slow precisely because money is scarce. If we could build light rail for $50M/mile instead of $500M/mile, the project would make way more sense, and would also most likely be more than halfway done by now. On the other hand, since the money is scarce, not only we know that we won't get the project finished by 2035, but it also means that won't get anything more than ST3 by 2035. I think transit _options_ are an extremely important quality of life item that creates a more dynamic and healthier city. They're just that though - options. I own a car, and I use it for trips that don't make sense to do any other way (e.g. going Skiing). That doesn't mean I want a world where nobody drives, but a world where people have multiple choices for personal mobility. I agree. At the same time, I'd like everyone to internalize the cost of the options they choose. That means charging the costs of transit to transit users, and at the same time, charging drivers for congestion they cause.
- techsupporter 7y ago
  Depending on the exact route, West Seattle to Ballard via Downtown will involve one or two tunnels, one regular-height bridge, and possibly one very tall bridge. If we take the "preferred EIS alternative," it's two tall bridges and one long tunnel. Plus all of the station work and the myriad extra stuff that neighborhoods and regional politicians insist on being crammed into light rail expansion. Add on that Sound Transit, unlike most transit agencies, has pretty stout restrictions on its borrowing capability. Sound Transit cannot sell bonds to pay for the entire project, or even most of it, up front, due to a debt cap imposed by the Washington State constitution. So it borrows, builds, pays down with tax revenue, then borrows again, and so on. This form of borrowing incurs more interest expense and requires a much longer timeframe for construction because the money simply isn't available and isn't available efficiently. (Also, the voters of the Sound Transit tax district have consistently voted in favor of these tax increases over the past 21 years, so it isn't like we didn't have a say in the spending.) Here's where I'll editorialize for a little bit, and I am sorry if this sounds like I'm personally attacking you. I promise I'm not, but I do get a little frustrated: All of this is endlessly debated, particularly in transit advocacy circles. Sound Transit isn't operating like this because someone woke up and thought "well, better do a shit job and spend 15 years building because fuck the taxpayers." We got where we are through a series of decisions made over the course of sixty years--dating back to the original votes on Forward Thrust and the freeway revolt and an earlier taxpayer revolt against public borrowing--and now we live with those consequences. It's not fair or reasonable to point to a country with a cost of living half of Puget Sound's and a wildly different tax and public agency system. For one big example, I checked and the bulk of the Warsaw Metro's M1 €230 million expansion was financed in one big block by a consortium of investment banks and the Polish central government. The M2 €1 billion expansion is half-funded solely by the EIB. We don't have the benefit of those public banks in Washington. The closest we get is Federal Transit Agency funding from the US federal government in the other Washington, but even that is usually a third to just under half of a project's cost (and is often in the form of loans, not direct grants, that further reduce borrowing capacity). Local borrowing, a piece at a time, from tax revenue makes up the rest. We'd love to discuss all of this with you instead of you just being mad that you feel like you're being screwed by a bunch of freeloading transit riders. Expansion map: https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/west-seattle-ballard-link-extensions https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/west-seattle-b... M2 funding source article: https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/warsaw-receives-eib-funding-for-metro-extension/ https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/warsaw-receives-eib-funding-fo...

xyzzyz 7y ago

I would love to see Seattle kick more money into getting Ballard <> Downtown done sooner than 2035, that is a perfectly valid complaint. This is only the symptom of the real problem, which is way too high cost of building. Light rail construction costs are planned to be around ~$500M/mile. In comparison, whole subway line in my home town of Warsaw, finished in 2014, built 6 miles of underground subway for ~$200M/mile. Considering that subway typically costs 5-8 times more than light rail per mile, $500M/mile is simply insane. The cost, and not construction schedule, is the real problem. The construction schedule is so slow precisely because money is scarce. If we could build light rail for $50M/mile instead of $500M/mile, the project would make way more sense, and would also most likely be more than halfway done by now. On the other hand, since the money is scarce, not only we know that we won't get the project finished by 2035, but it also means that won't get anything more than ST3 by 2035. I think transit _options_ are an extremely important quality of life item that creates a more dynamic and healthier city. They're just that though - options. I own a car, and I use it for trips that don't make sense to do any other way (e.g. going Skiing). That doesn't mean I want a world where nobody drives, but a world where people have multiple choices for personal mobility. I agree. At the same time, I'd like everyone to internalize the cost of the options they choose. That means charging the costs of transit to transit users, and at the same time, charging drivers for congestion they cause.

techsupporter 7y ago
Depending on the exact route, West Seattle to Ballard via Downtown will involve one or two tunnels, one regular-height bridge, and possibly one very tall bridge. If we take the "preferred EIS alternative," it's two tall bridges and one long tunnel. Plus all of the station work and the myriad extra stuff that neighborhoods and regional politicians insist on being crammed into light rail expansion. Add on that Sound Transit, unlike most transit agencies, has pretty stout restrictions on its borrowing capability. Sound Transit cannot sell bonds to pay for the entire project, or even most of it, up front, due to a debt cap imposed by the Washington State constitution. So it borrows, builds, pays down with tax revenue, then borrows again, and so on. This form of borrowing incurs more interest expense and requires a much longer timeframe for construction because the money simply isn't available and isn't available efficiently. (Also, the voters of the Sound Transit tax district have consistently voted in favor of these tax increases over the past 21 years, so it isn't like we didn't have a say in the spending.) Here's where I'll editorialize for a little bit, and I am sorry if this sounds like I'm personally attacking you. I promise I'm not, but I do get a little frustrated: All of this is endlessly debated, particularly in transit advocacy circles. Sound Transit isn't operating like this because someone woke up and thought "well, better do a shit job and spend 15 years building because fuck the taxpayers." We got where we are through a series of decisions made over the course of sixty years--dating back to the original votes on Forward Thrust and the freeway revolt and an earlier taxpayer revolt against public borrowing--and now we live with those consequences. It's not fair or reasonable to point to a country with a cost of living half of Puget Sound's and a wildly different tax and public agency system. For one big example, I checked and the bulk of the Warsaw Metro's M1 €230 million expansion was financed in one big block by a consortium of investment banks and the Polish central government. The M2 €1 billion expansion is half-funded solely by the EIB. We don't have the benefit of those public banks in Washington. The closest we get is Federal Transit Agency funding from the US federal government in the other Washington, but even that is usually a third to just under half of a project's cost (and is often in the form of loans, not direct grants, that further reduce borrowing capacity). Local borrowing, a piece at a time, from tax revenue makes up the rest. We'd love to discuss all of this with you instead of you just being mad that you feel like you're being screwed by a bunch of freeloading transit riders. Expansion map: https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/west-seattle-ballard-link-extensions https://www.soundtransit.org/system-expansion/west-seattle-b... M2 funding source article: https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/warsaw-receives-eib-funding-for-metro-extension/ https://www.railwaypro.com/wp/warsaw-receives-eib-funding-fo...