Sound Transit idiocy in the light rail planning (Seattle, Bellevue: neighborhood, construction)

[seattlenextyear]

The bus system is planned so that the maximum number of people can get to centralized destinations. Not so Obsidian can get to work in 10 minutes.

[obsidian97]

Originally Posted by seattlenextyear

The bus system is planned so that the maximum number of people can get to centralized destinations. Not so Obsidian can get to work in 10 minutes.

I'd settle for 30-40 minutes, and it's not to work.

Like I said, if the goal is to get cars off the road, and most cars on the road are commuting, then it makes sense to make commuting a possibility.

The "centralized destination" you speak of nearby is a bus station 1/2 mile from anything of use unless you want to go to the fire station or some strip malls.

Just for folks reading through the thread who are moving to the area and think that the metro system is going to do them some good, plan a few trips. You'll be surprised at how long it's going to take you to get to anywhere much further than where you could just have walked.

[seattlenextyear]

Well, on the Eastside, most buses go to transfer centers, which are located in downtown regions. So, for example, I can get a direct bus to downtown Kirkland, downtown Bellevue, and/or downtown Seattle pretty easily. Those are destinations where jobs/shopping/etc are located. Other transfer centers are along the highway, so people can drive to a highway station and get a bus to Everett or Renton.

A problem arises when you want to go from one decentralized location to another.

[JesseJB]

If you chose to live in a suburb you can deal with the consequences of that.

Happy commuting!

[toughguy]

Originally Posted by JesseJB

If you chose to live in a suburb you can deal with the consequences of that.

Happy commuting!

Common sense answer

People need to stop treating cars like a birthright, and start getting used to the idea that car-based transit is currently unsustainable, and will very soon be an anachronism (unless major advances in fuel-cell/battery powered cars arrive, soon).

Ubiquitous bus lines that service far-flung communities just as pervasively as the urban core are incredibly expensive, so be prepared to re-allocate the money you are currently using on gas to pay for Metro routes in your area.

[obsidian97]

Uh, guys. I don't live in Black Diamond.

I'm talking about the time it takes to get from downtown Redmond to Crossroads in Bellevue. That's hardly one decentralized area to another.

My point isn't to complain about the bus service, it's to say "hey, if we all want to get people out of their cars, then how about we give people a viable way of doing that." What we have now is pretty much a way of getting people into Seattle, and only then if you don't have kids (i.e. don't have daycare stops to deal with).

There are tons of buses around here. The problem isn't the bus service, it's the synchronization of transfer times for lines moving between transfer stations.

Don't forget, our emissions go into the same atmosphere as yours. So you might think twice about feeling all smug about yourselves. Not everyone is in a position to live in downtown Seattle and still needs to work. Actually, if I lived in Seattle I'd be making the problem worse, not better.

I'm fine with my commute the way it is. I don't live that far from work. I would RATHER be able to take the bus so that I can help cut emissions and such.

[pw72]

A lot of these posts tend to be localized, and there is nothing wrong with that. A transit system is only as good as its ability to serve these local areas.

However, I would like to look at the big picture. Is it unreasonable to ask that the new light rail routes serve the main traffic corridors? I never understood the Rainier Valley route, but what is done is done.
Yes, it serves a certain population, but is a long and circuitous route from downtown to Sea-Tac.

The routes north to Northgate and beyond, and to the eastside seem to make more sense. I hope the debate about these routes doesn't slow them down too much, and I also hope that there will be an effort on behalf of city zoning to make the areas around the stops more open to development. This is the ultimate goal, but something tells me Seattle will find a way to argue about it for years.

[jzt83]

Originally Posted by Haakon

I also live in NE King County where transit options are barely available, if I want to drive 8 miles to the closest park n ride, and I hate paying mass transit taxes and always vote against them. Let the people who use the service pay for it, and if people want to work in Seattle let them move there.

"mass" transit (which will probably actually be used by a small fraction of the people they claim will use it) does me no good, and since they want to actually take capacity AWAY from I-90 to build it will most likely make the traffic situation worse for everyone, not better. Why should every tax payer pay for something few will use when it will also make things worse for the majority? King County government in action.

Why should people who don't drive cars subsidize the maintenance of roads and freeways (that was a rhetorical and non-serious question)? Having mass transit allows for more transportation options and to have development skewed towards automobile usage at the expense of other modes of transport is classist and plain stupid, especially in an area with a growing population and increasing density.

[jzt83]

Also, perhaps King County should have either focused of developing a solid rapid transit commuter rail first or Seattle should have focused on a more centralized rapid transit system in and around the downtown core first. The current light-rail system seems to be kind of a poorly compromised hybrid commuter rail/inter-city rail.

[eskercurve]

Sorry to burst your bubble obsidian, but Crossroads in Bellevue IS decentralized when you talk about downtowns and compare it to a strip mall.