Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#41

Post by jlj »

jakewalker wrote: post #34
rakenodiax wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention the massive cost, the overruns to said cost, the construction delays...

The Big Dig in Boston was full of the same overruns, delays, and even corruption. All worth it. It's the best thing the city has ever done, far and away. Fundamentally changed the city and is responsible for incalculable property value and quality of life improvements in the city.

A frustration I have with Seattle local politics is the property taxes. The increase land value from tearing down the viaduct already results in higher assessed values that get paid by the property owners perpetually. Throwing in $100+ million "local improvement district" special assessments is a money grab, or as some have called it a "wealth transfer."

It's like saying everyone within a radius of a new light rail station or interstate on-ramp has to pay a one-time assessment, instead of infrastructure projects being for the common good.

The local improvement districts smell like corporate socialism, and selective taxation. More money for government to spend, more money for developers to receive, and the public don't care because it only affects rich people with waterfront views. Until the next "local improvement district" affects their neighborhood. It's a recipe for corruption and a slippery slope.

Re: How transportation can transform a city – Seattle's double decker tunnel

#42

Post by Steltek »

masonic wrote: post #40
Steltek wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Massachusetts paid for many of it's own interstates before sick a system existed. You could see that in the old Central Artery being way out of compliance with standards. A compelling argument was that other states had their modern highways paid for them by the Federal government long ago while Massachusetts had done it themselves even before then.

I was referring specifically to the Big Dig, as was the parent comment.

Yes. Other states had their highways paid by the Federal government. Massachusetts had originally paid for its highways itself. The balance came due with the Big Dig, cost adjusted for 2000.
Post reply on HN