3 ms·

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 sympt

by 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
  > 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. Still more expensive than 6 miles fully underground line with 10 stations, and 1/3 mile of under river tunnel in very permeable sand soil. > 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. Yes, that's what I meant when I said that it's only so slow because money is scarce. If the construction was cheaper, the shenanigans you describe wouldn't be necessary. > (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.) Sure, but 54% to 45% vote is hardly a large margin. > 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, (...) And yet you drop lines like: > 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. That's simply a nasty ad hominem strawman. I'm mad, because I'm complaining that this project in particular, and Seattle public transit in general is way, way to expensive for what it is? > 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. Again, the debt service costs of ST3 are less than 10% of the cost of the project, and the problem with the very schedule is not lack of money, but rather too high of an expense. This whole thing proves that the taxpayer revolt against public borrowing was very much correct: without it, instead of overpaying by factor of 5x on one project every 20 years, we'd do the same every 4 years. > 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, (...) Again, this excuses why project takes 20 years, but not why it costs 5 times more than what it should. If the costs were reasonable, the schedule would also be shorter.
manacit 7y ago
> 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. It's worth noting that if you look at the cost of ST2's University Link Extension, I believe it was $1.9b overall (with half of that coming from the federal gov) for 3.5 miles of completely underground Link, which would make the cost about ~$540M/mile all in, by my calculations. This is, at least, as complex as a "subway", no? I don't want to come off as attacking you personally, but I don't think saying that the cost of the University Link expansion should have been "5-8x less than $200M/mi" is reasonable. I'm no expert, but I would love to see a cost breakdown of both projects - land acquisition, construction, cost of debt services etc. There's surely some complex work to be done in tunneling under the Montlake Cut, I would be land costs more to acquire in Seattle, etc. In addition, ST is bound by some really weird debt cap rules that mean they literally can't borrow money in the most advantageous way, which definitely increases the cost. > 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. Sure. Looking at Sound Transit's numbers, they estimate that ST3 costs the typical adult $170 annually: https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/st3-plan-would-cost-typical-adult-169-annually-or-14-month https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news.... If you have a more expensive house, or a more expensive car, it's bound to cost you more. This seems appropriate to me - people with more money paying more than people with less money. As someone who is fortunate to be able to afford to own a home and a nice(r) car, I'm happy to pay a greater share of that pie. Beyond that, it's not like we do a great job of externalizing the car here either, especially when the impact to the environment is taken into account. Do you think that people who only drive should not pay for the transit that takes cars off of the road so that they can afford to? It's not a zero sum game. I don't feel like I'm getting fleeced by the government when I pay my ST-related taxes, and I don't feel like ST is trying to 'take advantage' of me. I'm confused where that mentality comes from, honestly.
- xyzzyz 7y ago

by xyzzyz 7y ago

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
> 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. Still more expensive than 6 miles fully underground line with 10 stations, and 1/3 mile of under river tunnel in very permeable sand soil. > 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. Yes, that's what I meant when I said that it's only so slow because money is scarce. If the construction was cheaper, the shenanigans you describe wouldn't be necessary. > (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.) Sure, but 54% to 45% vote is hardly a large margin. > 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, (...) And yet you drop lines like: > 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. That's simply a nasty ad hominem strawman. I'm mad, because I'm complaining that this project in particular, and Seattle public transit in general is way, way to expensive for what it is? > 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. Again, the debt service costs of ST3 are less than 10% of the cost of the project, and the problem with the very schedule is not lack of money, but rather too high of an expense. This whole thing proves that the taxpayer revolt against public borrowing was very much correct: without it, instead of overpaying by factor of 5x on one project every 20 years, we'd do the same every 4 years. > 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, (...) Again, this excuses why project takes 20 years, but not why it costs 5 times more than what it should. If the costs were reasonable, the schedule would also be shorter.

manacit 7y ago

> 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. It's worth noting that if you look at the cost of ST2's University Link Extension, I believe it was $1.9b overall (with half of that coming from the federal gov) for 3.5 miles of completely underground Link, which would make the cost about ~$540M/mile all in, by my calculations. This is, at least, as complex as a "subway", no? I don't want to come off as attacking you personally, but I don't think saying that the cost of the University Link expansion should have been "5-8x less than $200M/mi" is reasonable. I'm no expert, but I would love to see a cost breakdown of both projects - land acquisition, construction, cost of debt services etc. There's surely some complex work to be done in tunneling under the Montlake Cut, I would be land costs more to acquire in Seattle, etc. In addition, ST is bound by some really weird debt cap rules that mean they literally can't borrow money in the most advantageous way, which definitely increases the cost. > 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. Sure. Looking at Sound Transit's numbers, they estimate that ST3 costs the typical adult $170 annually: https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news-releases/st3-plan-would-cost-typical-adult-169-annually-or-14-month https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/news-events/news.... If you have a more expensive house, or a more expensive car, it's bound to cost you more. This seems appropriate to me - people with more money paying more than people with less money. As someone who is fortunate to be able to afford to own a home and a nice(r) car, I'm happy to pay a greater share of that pie. Beyond that, it's not like we do a great job of externalizing the car here either, especially when the impact to the environment is taken into account. Do you think that people who only drive should not pay for the transit that takes cars off of the road so that they can afford to? It's not a zero sum game. I don't feel like I'm getting fleeced by the government when I pay my ST-related taxes, and I don't feel like ST is trying to 'take advantage' of me. I'm confused where that mentality comes from, honestly.

xyzzyz 7y ago