3 ms·

> 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 addin

> 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.
- manacit 7y ago
  Is that not exactly what the rezoning and increased construction in Seattle is attempting to do? Sounds like you’re frustrated because you’ve been outvoted - it is no more your place than anybody else’s who lives/works here. You can move with your feet as much as any other privileged tech worker in this country. I don’t think this conversation is going much farther, but I appreciate that it’s been even keel. I hope you find what you’re looking for somewhere!

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.

manacit 7y ago
Is that not exactly what the rezoning and increased construction in Seattle is attempting to do? Sounds like you’re frustrated because you’ve been outvoted - it is no more your place than anybody else’s who lives/works here. You can move with your feet as much as any other privileged tech worker in this country. I don’t think this conversation is going much farther, but I appreciate that it’s been even keel. I hope you find what you’re looking for somewhere!