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.
I think the "standard price of public transit" is pretty outrageous just about everywhere in the US, honestly, and that it should be heavily subsidized, but I guess that's a whole other discussion.
I succumbed to a bit of a rant on this subject in another thread, here. "Subsidized" doesn't even come close to describing what is, in my view, quite a boondoggle.
The Link system has been from the beginning, and will continue to be, a "vanity" transportation project. In my (admittedly cynical, biased and probably old-codger) view, the light rail system, much like the process of upzoning the bejeezus out of "urban village" areas, is a poorly disguised wealth distribution process aimed at helping umpteen real estate developers, civil engineers, construction companies, and high-rise lawyers keep up their boat payments.
Do you really think the Link system is going to take cars off the freeway? Can you point to one place in the world where development of a light rail system in a previously-car and bus-dependent urban region has actually reduced traffic? BART? Vancouver? DC? London Docklands?
Run the light rail to some urban village (barf, what doublespeak) like Northgate. Right, and what percentage of the thousands of new Northgaters are going to use it every day? 50% 80%? Even if it's that high - and it won't be - what will the rest of them do? Ride their bikes to Woodinville or Amazonia?
Thought experiment: How many hybrid or outright electric buses, with infinite route flexibility and scalability, could have been bought with the billions spent on the Link system? How many miles of bus throughway (think RapidRide on steroids) could have been developed with a modest investment in computers, paint and signage?
Rhetorical questions, of course, but you get the drift. What's the common theme in the Link system, the densification of Seattle with "transit oriented development" (it's actually the opposite) and living in a city where the official city tree is the tower crane? The answer was given by Deep Throat during Watergate. "Follow the money."
Do you really think the Link system is going to take cars off the freeway? Can you point to one place in the world where development of a light rail system in a previously-car and bus-dependent urban region has actually reduced traffic?
I don't think reducing traffic is a realistic goal. Allowing people to get around the city quickly despite the traffic is, however.
Traffic in Seattle isn't going to get better in the lifetime of anyone reading this, no matter what anyone does or builds.
I don't think reducing traffic is a realistic goal. Allowing people to get around the city quickly despite the traffic is, however.
I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you, and I only mentioned the traffic reduction meme because it gets trotted out so often. Of course light or heavy rail doesn't reduce traffic; in fact it can contribute directly to increased traffic and sprawl, as perceived excess capacity on the roads stimulates more trip origins at the edges.
As for being able to get around the city despite the traffic, how will the light rail help someone living in Seward Park get to their job at the new Expedia campus on the waterfront? Or someone on Queen Anne get to First Hill?
Look at Uber and Lyft. Twenty-first century transit solutions. Flexible, fast, cheap. Scalable. Or, before the east side or West Seattle or Snohomish County Link stations are built, there will probably be some systems on the market where robotics and anti-collision technology can result in a 10% reduction in headway on the freeways, which, combined with more Ubering and hybrid-van-pooling and some high tech buses like Metro is now buying, will have a greater benefit on commuter times than the Link system operating at its (fictional) capacity. For billions of public dollars less, implementable in months rather than decades.
But in the meantime, we'll be paying off the debt on the rail system, b*tching that it doesn't go where we want it to, and being surprised when Jeff or Paul creates some new employment mecca miles from the nearest Link station planned by Sound Transit 20 years ago.
I have a problem with the sentiment that "Link will allow a certain range of folks to avoid traffic, but how does that help someone living in Queen Anne or Seward Park?"
The point of Link is to create a spine through the city that enables existing/future residents the option of using transit that is not bound by traffic/traffic signals. Buses/Lyft/Uber can't provide that. And the fact that someone in Seward Park won't benefit directly from Link doesn't nullify the obvious benefit of a network like Link which is markedly different than simply adding a new bus line.
Your concerns are valid but I think Seattle has waited far too long to develop a grade-separated transit network and waiting any longer will only inflate the cost even more for such a transit network. Had Seattle simply approved the Forward Thrust plan in the 1970's, we wouldn't have to spend a dime on this rail system, but unfortunately we're living with that mistake.
As for being able to get around the city despite the traffic, how will the light rail help someone living in Seward Park get to their job at the new Expedia campus on the waterfront? Or someone on Queen Anne get to First Hill?
So because it doesn't serve every possible trip pattern, it shouldn't happen? What about someone living in Capitol Hill going to their job at UW?
Quote:
Look at Uber and Lyft. Twenty-first century transit solutions. Flexible, fast, cheap. Scalable.
LOL. Private taxi service is not a replacement for transit. Also cheap? Really? How far can I get in an Uber for $2.50?
Quote:
Or, before the east side or West Seattle or Snohomish County Link stations are built, there will probably be some systems on the market where robotics and anti-collision technology can result in a 10% reduction in headway on the freeways, which, combined with more Ubering and hybrid-van-pooling and some high tech buses like Metro is now buying, will have a greater benefit on commuter times than the Link system operating at its (fictional) capacity.
It all depends on where you come from and where you are going. Using my Capitol Hill to UW example from before, a 20 min+ bus ride is a 3 minute train ride. There is no technology that can make buses or cars competitive with that time. "more ubering"? Really? The idea that Uber can reduce traffic is almost as funny as referring to it as cheap.
The poster in question referred to the the train as running " basically just downtown through some ghettos". I wondered where he was talking about because I would not call SoDo, Beacon Hill, or Columbia City "ghettos".
Well, that is what it looks like for a significant portion of the route. The areas next to the tracks are underdeveloped, run down and littered with grafitti. The first time I rode it from the airport I was thinking "wow, this is the first glimpse of Seattle that some visitors get. Not too nice". Frankly it looks pretty similar to the approach to O'hare, Baltimore and Philly - just not as dense.
Well, that is what it looks like for a significant portion of the route. The areas next to the tracks are underdeveloped, run down and littered with grafitti. The first time I rode it from the airport I was thinking "wow, this is the first glimpse of Seattle that some visitors get. Not too nice". Frankly it looks pretty similar to the approach to O'hare, Baltimore and Philly - just not as dense.
Hehe. I know what you're saying but I disagree.
Well - I prefer to think of it as - the visitor is treated to a degree of grittiness as well as diversity as an opening act before arriving in the beautiful and dense downtown. An urban overture of sorts, if you will
So because it doesn't serve every possible trip pattern, it shouldn't happen? What about someone living in Capitol Hill going to their job at UW?
LOL. Private taxi service is not a replacement for transit. Also cheap? Really? How far can I get in an Uber for $2.50?
It all depends on where you come from and where you are going. Using my Capitol Hill to UW example from before, a 20 min+ bus ride is a 3 minute train ride. There is no technology that can make buses or cars competitive with that time. "more ubering"? Really? The idea that Uber can reduce traffic is almost as funny as referring to it as cheap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BATCAT
Hoo boy. If you consider Uber a "cheap transit solution", them I'm envious.
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?
Crikey, do I have to spell it out? No, they're examples of how changing technology can transform one particular transport mode, in this case, taxis, from centralized to decentralized and dispersed, simplifying payments, reducing wait times and costs, lowering barriers to entry into the market. It's transformative technology, just like the transponders in the buses can set the signals to green on bus throughways, or like OneBusAway can help you time your bus rides.
There's nothing remotely transformative about light rail; at its core it's a 19th-century solution that they're trying to shoehorn into one of the least fixed-rail friendly cities in the nation, with very low density residential areas, multi-node employment destinations, lots of geographic and geological barriers, and a population too small ever to pay it off.
As for that person on Capitol Hill who would rather have a five minute commute on the light rail to the University vs. a 20 min. bus ride, well I'd argue that that particular part of the network is quite obviously already in equilibrium. Do YOU feel that a couple of extra billion dollars in capital cost is justified by having a couple hundred people get off the bus and into a train? Of course that's provided they live on Broadway and not at 15th and Aloha, or 19th and Roy on Capitol Hill. Because if they do live on 15th or 19th, or, poor devils, on 23rd, the added time to get to the Link station will pretty well take care of that 15 minutes.
Quote:
The point of Link is to create a spine through the city that enables existing/future residents the option of using transit that is not bound by traffic/traffic signals. Buses/Lyft/Uber can't provide that. And the fact that someone in Seward Park won't benefit directly from Link doesn't nullify the obvious benefit of a network like Link which is markedly different than simply adding a new bus line.
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?
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 RDG 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.
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.
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.
