3 ms·

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

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.

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.