11 ms·

It did? I’m from Seattle, and the plans for a light rail were perennially stalled since I was a kid. What they’ve built so far is nice, but they’re expanding it

It did? I’m from Seattle, and the plans for a light rail were perennially stalled since I was a kid. What they’ve built so far is nice, but they’re expanding it at a glacial pace. They could build more and faster.

AmpsterMan 4y ago
Point still stands though, as meager as it is. The link is the only major public works project in recent memory that largely succeeded AND under budget
resist_futility 4y ago
1-2+ million a month. I wonder how fast light rail will be when they have as many stops as are planned, will it be just as slow as a bus? https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance... https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps
- socialismisok 4y ago
  They aren't adding new stops in between existing stops. Trains board and deboard WAY faster than busses. And the link has grade separated track most of the way. So it cannot be slowed by traffic. There's no reason to think it would be slower than it is today, which is to say, often faster than a single occupancy vehicle.
socialismisok 4y ago
Yep, we talked about it for a long time, but it did in fact complete on time and under budget. It's expanding slowly because there's a lot of pushback to adding more, which is a bummer. We need like 8x the amount of rail here, at least.
- sfpotter 4y ago
  Could you provide a source clarifying this? I’m not sure where I’d look this information up.
  - quantumwannabe 4y ago
    They’re wrong. The project was delayed several years and was several billion over budget. >The Central Link project was originally planned to open in 2006 and projected to cost $1.9 billion (equivalent to $2.95 billion in 2020 dollars), but the estimates were found to be unrealistic by auditors in November 2000. New executives, hired by Sound Transit to replace previous program directors, presented a revised plan with an opening date pushed back three years to 2009, costing $3.8 billion (equivalent to $5.53 billion in 2020 dollars). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_1_(Sound_Transit)#Budget_issues_and_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_1_(Sound_Transit)#Budget_...
    - socialismisok 4y ago
      From your link, the project completed 117 million under budget. Yes, the initial planners made bad estimates before anyone started working, they were fired and new planners were brought in. Those second planners then properly scooped the initial project and the Ulink extension, both of which were under budget. So no, definitely not wrong.
      - quantumwannabe 4y ago
        The money spent was more than what the voters approved. Making a new estimate that is much higher and spending less than that isn't coming in "under budget".
        socialismisok 4y ago
        Voters approved a $3.91B tax to cover the light rail, minor improvements to bus onramps, and some commuter rail improvements. The initial light rail was given an estimate of 1.8B of that 3.9B that voters approved, and year of expenditure costs were roughly 20% higher then that, but federal studies by the dept of transportation have evaluated the costs and believe that there was a period of unpredictable and unusual inflation. If you control for that, the project would have completed under it's original budget. Additionally, they did come under their revised budget and the Ulink extension has come in under budget too. I guess I don't fault a transit authority for making a 10+ plan that makes reasonable assumptions about inflation given the information they have, and then deliver only slightly above budget after being impacted by said inflation.

AmpsterMan 4y ago

Point still stands though, as meager as it is. The link is the only major public works project in recent memory that largely succeeded AND under budget

resist_futility 4y ago

1-2+ million a month. I wonder how fast light rail will be when they have as many stops as are planned, will it be just as slow as a bus? https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance-tracker/ridership https://www.soundtransit.org/ride-with-us/system-performance... https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps https://www.soundtransit.org/get-to-know-us/maps

socialismisok 4y ago
They aren't adding new stops in between existing stops. Trains board and deboard WAY faster than busses. And the link has grade separated track most of the way. So it cannot be slowed by traffic. There's no reason to think it would be slower than it is today, which is to say, often faster than a single occupancy vehicle.

socialismisok 4y ago

Yep, we talked about it for a long time, but it did in fact complete on time and under budget. It's expanding slowly because there's a lot of pushback to adding more, which is a bummer. We need like 8x the amount of rail here, at least.

sfpotter 4y ago
Could you provide a source clarifying this? I’m not sure where I’d look this information up.
- quantumwannabe 4y ago
  They’re wrong. The project was delayed several years and was several billion over budget. >The Central Link project was originally planned to open in 2006 and projected to cost $1.9 billion (equivalent to $2.95 billion in 2020 dollars), but the estimates were found to be unrealistic by auditors in November 2000. New executives, hired by Sound Transit to replace previous program directors, presented a revised plan with an opening date pushed back three years to 2009, costing $3.8 billion (equivalent to $5.53 billion in 2020 dollars). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_1_(Sound_Transit)#Budget_issues_and_delays https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_1_(Sound_Transit)#Budget_...
  - socialismisok 4y ago
    From your link, the project completed 117 million under budget. Yes, the initial planners made bad estimates before anyone started working, they were fired and new planners were brought in. Those second planners then properly scooped the initial project and the Ulink extension, both of which were under budget. So no, definitely not wrong.
    - quantumwannabe 4y ago
      The money spent was more than what the voters approved. Making a new estimate that is much higher and spending less than that isn't coming in "under budget".
      - socialismisok 4y ago
        Voters approved a $3.91B tax to cover the light rail, minor improvements to bus onramps, and some commuter rail improvements. The initial light rail was given an estimate of 1.8B of that 3.9B that voters approved, and year of expenditure costs were roughly 20% higher then that, but federal studies by the dept of transportation have evaluated the costs and believe that there was a period of unpredictable and unusual inflation. If you control for that, the project would have completed under it's original budget. Additionally, they did come under their revised budget and the Ulink extension has come in under budget too. I guess I don't fault a transit authority for making a 10+ plan that makes reasonable assumptions about inflation given the information they have, and then deliver only slightly above budget after being impacted by said inflation.