3 ms·

> 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 c

> 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
> 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? No, because it only added 2 stations, and that's where the real cost is. Tunelling is relatively cheap, it's the underground station construction that's adding real expense. The 6 mile Warsaw line has 10 stations on it. Typical cost of subway construction in the US is on the order of $800M-1B/mile. > 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. Indeed, but I didn't say that. That $500M/mi figure I gave was for ST3, most of which will be above grade. Of course light rail construction in the US will have different costs than light rail construction in Poland, but the difference here is too extreme to excuse it by talking about cost of living differences. > There's surely some complex work to be done in tunneling under the Montlake Cut, Surely not as complex as 10 times longer tunnel under Vistula River. > 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. By less than 10%. It's all in ST reports. > 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. This only seems appropriate to anyone in the context of taxation. If grocery stores charged you more for food just because you make more money, you'd most likely be outraged. > 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. Which is why I recommend charging for congestion. This automatically makes mass[1] transit more attractive. > 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. Honestly, I don't feel too fleeced by local government either -- this is rather my complaint for federal government. However, just because I can afford something doesn't mean that it's a good decision to spend money on it. I make this kind of cost-value analysis everyday in my life with my after tax money, and I don't see why I should be silent when the government spends my before-tax money on stupidly expensive projects of little value. [1] - mass, but not necessarily public transit, that really depends on average passenger load per bus.

xyzzyz 7y ago

> 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? No, because it only added 2 stations, and that's where the real cost is. Tunelling is relatively cheap, it's the underground station construction that's adding real expense. The 6 mile Warsaw line has 10 stations on it. Typical cost of subway construction in the US is on the order of $800M-1B/mile. > 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. Indeed, but I didn't say that. That $500M/mi figure I gave was for ST3, most of which will be above grade. Of course light rail construction in the US will have different costs than light rail construction in Poland, but the difference here is too extreme to excuse it by talking about cost of living differences. > There's surely some complex work to be done in tunneling under the Montlake Cut, Surely not as complex as 10 times longer tunnel under Vistula River. > 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. By less than 10%. It's all in ST reports. > 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. This only seems appropriate to anyone in the context of taxation. If grocery stores charged you more for food just because you make more money, you'd most likely be outraged. > 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. Which is why I recommend charging for congestion. This automatically makes mass[1] transit more attractive. > 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. Honestly, I don't feel too fleeced by local government either -- this is rather my complaint for federal government. However, just because I can afford something doesn't mean that it's a good decision to spend money on it. I make this kind of cost-value analysis everyday in my life with my after tax money, and I don't see why I should be silent when the government spends my before-tax money on stupidly expensive projects of little value. [1] - mass, but not necessarily public transit, that really depends on average passenger load per bus.