3 ms·
> 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 g
by 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.
- manacit 7y ago> 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 Which is why that viaduct tunnel with no underground station was so inexpensive :). Broadly: I'm not arguing that it's cheaper to build a subway in other parts of the world, that's absolutely true. A lot of ST3 cost is forecast in 2040 dollars, which slightly inflates the cost. Of course, even if you bring that back to 2020 dollars, take away the 10% for debt cap wonkiness, you still end up paying more than you would in many other countries, this has been true here, in NY, LA, SF and everywhere else in the USA. I'd love to see that fixed! But in the interim, I'd rather use progressive taxation to fund quality of life improvements for everyone in the area - even folks that don't directly take the light rail will some benefit. I don't think it's fair to compare taxation to grocery store shopping, either - that's a strawman much like comparing a household budget to the national debt doesn't make sense in reality. It's fair to say we'll fundamentally disagree on that, and that's ok! I'd love to see a congestion charge as well - passing more of the real cost of using a car would go a long way to exposing that the normal way of life in the USA comes with a lot of hidden costs, and I hope would shift the balance to public transit. I would love to be able to couple that with a more efficient construction cost as well - unfortunately, I don't have the answer to that.
- xyzzyz 7y ago> Which is why that viaduct tunnel with no underground station was so inexpensive :) It is six times as large as each of University Link tunnels, and in fact was largest tunnel bored by a TBM in the world. But yes, it’s high cost was also a travesty. This place cannot get anything done cheaply. > But in the interim, I'd rather use progressive taxation to fund quality of life improvements for everyone in the area - even folks that don't directly take the light rail will some benefit. I’d rather not, but since I don’t have much choice, I’d rather have government project clear higher bar than “some benefit”. It’s easy to get “some benefit”, the question is whether benefit is commensurable to the cost, and when it comes to Seattle, the answer is usually “no”. > I don't think it's fair to compare taxation to grocery store shopping, either - that's a strawman much like comparing a household budget to the national debt doesn't make sense in reality. I think it’s very fair, and you don’t like it because taxation is a clear loser here. > I'd love to see a congestion charge as well - passing more of the real cost of using a car would go a long way to exposing that the normal way of life in the USA comes with a lot of hidden costs, and I hope would shift the balance to public transit. I would love to be able to couple that with a more efficient construction cost as well - unfortunately, I don't have the answer to that. Indeed, I’d love people to be able to build more dense places, so that people who like them can move there, instead of remaking my place in their image at my expense.