Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh good grief, must you be so literal? When I wrote this - "Look at Uber and Lyft. Twenty-first century transit solutions" - did you actually think I was suggesting Uber and Lyft as mass transit alternatives? Really?
Words have meaning. In a thread about transit, when you refer to something as "transit" it is not unreasonable at all to believe that is what you meant. You made other outrageous claims so what was one more?
Quote:
What, exactly, is that obvious benefit? That it's faster? Even on surface streets, I can almost always get to downtown in less time than it takes the train from Seatac. That it serves the growth areas and future development nodes? Well, okay, except it missed South Lake Union, missed Interbay and the waterfront, missed Harbor Island... where else will have it missed by 2030? That it makes for easy intermode switches? Like with our vanity streetcars or paid-for-and-functioning park-and-rides?
It is one line in what will eventually be a system of multiple lines. Or do you just expect there to be one haphazard rail line that went everywhere? Building a rail based transit system takes time. I do agree that the route from SeaTac to downtown is a disappointment.
Quote:
I don't think the benefits are all that obvious, and I really don't think the public benefits outweigh the public costs. But I'll come back to my previous point. If you want to see who's really going to benefit, follow the money. Start with Sisley and his RDA cohorts in Ravenna, then the Tyee Club at Husky Stadium, the Seahawks and Mariners, big hotel corporations, Vulcan, Wright-Runstad, Simon Property Group... I could go on.
Here I go ranting again. Sorry.
I think the benefits are obvious. True grade separated transit with predictable schedules is a huge win. While longer trips like downtown to SeaTac may not have a time improvement, intra-city trips like Capitol Hill-UW or Beacon Hill-Downtown are much faster.
You aren't going to meet the transit needs of a growing metro area like Seattle with just buses. Especially buses that share the same streets as cars. Yes, this costs money but the end result makes the entire region easier to navigate.
I think that Link itself is fantastic. $2.50 is the price of a normal bus ride, so I'm not sure why BATCAT is calling it expensive; that's the standard price of public transit and is far cheaper than owning and maintaining a car. I also disagree entirely with BATCAT calling it a "novelty". Maybe if you don't actually live within walking distance to Link, but for those of us who live in urban centers it's fantastic and will only become more useful once coverage expands. Also, I totall disagree with destroycreate: have you ever actually been to a "real" ghetto? South Seattle is fine and is improving with great Transit Oriented Development every day.
The obvious flaw of Link is coverage, but it's going to drastically improve over the next decade. I think Link will be absolutely phenomenal once it connects to the Eastside as well as Ballard and Northgate.
I agree that Seattle doesn't have the extreme "never set foot in or drive through them" ghettos that some other cities have. But you seem to always be completely downplaying South Seattle as not dangerous at all, and I'm wondering how much time you've actually spent there, aside from driving or riding through, or going to one of the trendy, more gentrified neighborhoods like Columbia City.
I grew up in North Carolina and California, and have spent substantial time in cities with really bad ghettos like Oakland, LA, Richmond, VA, etc. So it's not like I've never been outside of the Northwest or don't understand the extent of what American ghettos can be.
I've worked extensively in the Rainier Valley, Central District, and the TIB area of Tukwila, and there are definitely areas, sections, blocks, that I would describe as not very safe and where I definitely felt like I needed to watch my back walking through, even during the day. I haven't worked in South Tacoma but I've stopped there for gas (around S. 72nd) and it reminded me very much of certain sections of Oakland that I would generally try to avoid.
There's no doubt that Seattle is generally one of the safer big cities in America (although not the safest), but it certainly has its share of sketchy and in some cases even somewhat dangerous sections. I agree that the areas immediately around the light rail stations are fine, but that is absolutely not accurate for all of South Seattle or for other parts of South King County and Pierce County.
There are definitely areas where gangs, drug deals, and violence are out in the open. This video I think shows some of these areas well:
^I acknowledge that there's more crime in South Seattle than in other parts of the city. I would simply never call this area "ghetto" because that is not the case in my understanding of the term.
Gardyloo, please feel free to rant (I do it on these forums all the time). I do agree with your frustration about the actual execution of the Link system in terms of coverage area: we have ONE station in Cap Hill which could honestly use 3-4 stations to adequately service the entire neighborhood, we have NO stations in First Hill which is the epicenter of our region's medical facilities, and we have no stations in or near the Central District which represents a huge population area.
As for Interbay and SLU, SDOT has revealed a study area for the Ballard Expansion that will include a station on Denny/Westlake, LQA, and Interbay. Of course, this means that Link will NOT be connecting Belltown (our region's densest neighborhood), Upper Queen Anne, or Magnolia.
I also agree that the Seattle region in general is an absolute urban planning nightmare to work with: the geographic terrain makes any rail construction exorbitantly expensive and awkward in terms of where we can/can't run a line or add a station. For instance, due to poor soil and grading difficulties, ST determined that First Hill couldn't receive a Link station because it would be too costly.
And don't get me started about the urban planning failure that will be the Broadway Streetcar to nowhere. It won't even be separated from regular traffic which is ridiculous. It will only make Broadway congested, the line ineffective and slow, and will in every way be inferior to a bus.
So on those points I agree with you.
What gets me is that so many people have taken a long, slow drink of the Kool-Aid. Over the past 20 years, a succession of Seattle mayors and councils, King County executives and councils, media talking heads and newspaper publishers, "community leaders" like the HALA board, have fed us a line that we need all this shiny stuff because of all the growth Seattle is, and will continue, to see. It's like all that growth was mandated by God and we're all just supposed to say, "Oh, well, okay, my Lord, thy will be done."
That's not the way it was supposed to work. We went through a brain-numbing five years of growth management planning in the early 90s, set out growth boundaries and population targets, promised on a stack of bibles to obey the Commandment of Concurrency - no growth before the infrastructure and schools are in place - had umpteen Town Hall meetings, published dozens of glossy fliers that went from mailbox to recycling bin in one, adopted the comp plan... and then proceeded to get hypnotized by Sound Transit and the contractors and Jim Ellis' lawyer underlings, not to mention every politician with a re-election budget - to sign on to the choo choo as our transport mode of choice. Some of us with actual city planning and management backgrounds should have spoken louder, but maybe I was hypnotized too, I don't know. I know it didn't help that the only person with a loud voice cr@pping all over the idea at the time was Dori Monson on KIRO - oy, watch out for your allies.
The growth wasn't mandated, it was chosen. A World Class City... wow, how lucky can we be? Look - we have all the cool stuff... cute little streetcars, a shiny light rail line, food trucks. Lots of restaurants serving foam. We went from a city that was supposed to be a "Kids' Place" (remember?) to one where Paul and Jeff and Dick Hedreen said jump and Greg and Mike and now Ed all asked how high. Concurrency? Meh. Who cares that not one school room has been budgeted or built for the output of the fecund throngs of Amazonians marching along Westlake, eyes glued to their phones. Who cares that City Light now has to buy more power than at any time in its history?
To me, the Link system is, at its core, another example of corporate welfare in our fair city. We've moved past Boeing or Paccar; now we're targeting the poor destitute construction companies, the real estate developers, the A/E industry and the lawyers as the real beneficiaries, marketed to us taxpayer/schnooks and wrapped up in a PR bow that makes us think it will result in a better life for the residents of King County.
Yeah, and the Mariners will definitely be in the World Series. Next year.
^I acknowledge that there's more crime in South Seattle than in other parts of the city. I would simply never call this area "ghetto" because that is not the case in my understanding of the term.
That's fine if it doesn't meet your definition of ghetto - I would tend to agree for the most part. (Outside of California, I don't really think there are ghettos in the 11 Western states west of Oklahoma. Even the bad parts of Phoenix and ABQ aren't really ghettos.) All I'm saying is unless you've spent substantial time on the ground in South Seattle, White Center, South Tacoma, Tukwila, etc. I don't think you're qualified to comment on whether or not they have parts that feel somewhat unsafe. I've spent a lot of time there and I'm saying from an objective perspective they do.
Gentrification is happening, as middle class workers look for areas that are more affordable and closer to jobs. At the same time, gangs are trying to hold onto what they see as their "turf". The same transition is happening in Tacoma's Hilltop.
What gets me is that so many people have taken a long, slow drink of the Kool-Aid. Over the past 20 years, a succession of Seattle mayors and councils, King County executives and councils, media talking heads and newspaper publishers, "community leaders" like the HALA board, have fed us a line that we need all this shiny stuff because of all the growth Seattle is, and will continue, to see. It's like all that growth was mandated by God and we're all just supposed to say, "Oh, well, okay, my Lord, thy will be done."
The growth is here. So, what's your alternative? Freeways? BRT? That's the Kool-Aid, it seems to me...
Words have meaning. In a thread about transit, when you refer to something as "transit" it is not unreasonable at all to believe that is what you meant. You made other outrageous claims so what was one more?
Sorry I didn't use shorter, more precise wording. "Transport mode" would have been less misleading. Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteyNice
It is one line in what will eventually be a system of multiple lines. Or do you just expect there to be one haphazard rail line that went everywhere? Building a rail based transit system takes time. I do agree that the route from SeaTac to downtown is a disappointment.
I think the benefits are obvious. True grade separated transit with predictable schedules is a huge win. While longer trips like downtown to SeaTac may not have a time improvement, intra-city trips like Capitol Hill-UW or Beacon Hill-Downtown are much faster.
Have you looked at the ST3 priority list? That is, the ones the voters will be asked to fund next year? With all the at-grade light rail proposals, because they know that the budgets for the grade-separated ones will have a snowball's chance?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeteyNice
You aren't going to meet the transit needs of a growing metro area like Seattle with just buses. Especially buses that share the same streets as cars. Yes, this costs money but the end result makes the entire region easier to navigate.
I disagree, and am waiting to see examples of where retrofitting a light rail system to an existing urban region has resulted in the benefits you describe. Buses - or, to be more precise, since that's a proven weakness of mine - multi-passenger, independently powered, steered vehicles - have much greater flexibility, operate on much shorter headways, require far less fixed, depreciable infrastructure, and can be implemented (and altered) far quicker, than comparable passenger capacity in light rail applications. Yes, some roadway modifications might be needed - bus priority corridors, transponder-controlled signaling, etc., but this is off-the-shelf technology that can be implemented at a tiny cost per boarding or revenue passenger mile compared to rail systems. And yes, buses can share the same streets as cars, and are doing it today.
The growth is here. So, what's your alternative? Freeways? BRT? That's the Kool-Aid, it seems to me...
No, the alternative is to let traffic, be it in cars, trains, or buses (or bikes or Segways, whatever) reach its "congestion equilibrium" point.
People are not water molecules in pipes; they have free will. There exists a point - which varies from person to person, but tends to be very predictable in aggregate - at which people change the paradigm when perceived congestion becomes intolerable. For years there was a "45 minute" contour (like an isobar) - a measure of how long a work commute took - past which the number of people commuting dropped like a rock. That 45-minute "zone" would obviously be dependent on the particular place and the travel mode; 45 minutes in a car on the San Diego Freeway is a very different distance than 45 min. on a SEPTA train in Philly or on a Sound Transit bus coming from Tacoma. But it was uncanny - around the world, when you looked at people for whom their commute went from under 45 min. to more than 45, you consistently saw behavioral change. People would move closer to their work, or switch modes of travel (carpooling in HOV lanes, maybe) or switch jobs. It was unpredictable at the individual level, but statistically quite predictable in aggregate.
When the infrastructure was modified - adding a lane or even a new freeway, or adding a rail line like BART (where this hypothesis was bang on) - there would be a short-term reduction in average travel time. But in the middle term (say 4-5 years) the congestion and travel times would bounce right back to where they were before the changes. More people would move to the "edge" of their own particular 45-minute contour (usually with the assistance of more-than-eager real estate developers) and gradually the "extra" capacity would become saturated.
Take Manhattan. No major highway or rail additions in years, and traffic coming into and out of the city, not to mention within the city, is the same as it was. The mid-town tunnel, the bridges, the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, the subways and the trains, are just as congested as they always were, but New York chugs along unphased. It's a system in equilibrium - people have found a place to live/work, and transport between them, that's tolerable.
Now it seems clear that the "45 minute" rule - which goes back to the postwar era or even longer - is now probably closer to a "1 hour" contour, and of course there are big exceptions - Tokyo for example - that are more reflective of a particular culture than some transportation metric.
But I don't think Seattle is exceptional in this case. How many people do you know whose commute is longer than 45 or 50 minutes? I can't think of any, but that's just me. People figure it out.
So my answer is, don't assume the system's broken and needs repairing. You can call it laissez-faire or overly passive, but again and again, smart, socially progressive cities have voted no on giant transport infrastructure projects, and were no worse for it. San Francisco tore down freeways, Vancouver never let them in in the first place, Seattle nixed the R.H. Thompson 40 years ago, and we're none the worse for it either.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
