Sound Transit 3 - Proposals and Alternatives

[PeteyNice]

I don't see how you can say BRT is "flexible". To be real BRT you need exclusive lanes. You aren't going to get them by taking over current general traffic lanes. These new lanes costs nearly as much as light rail tracks since they would likely end up in the same places. Once you give up the idea of exclusive lanes you just have more buses sitting in traffic which does not help anyone.

People want rail. Beyond the psychological biases, trains are generally faster than buses. If ST3 was what you suggest, I wouldn't vote for it and I don't see how it would ever pass. Rail delivers a consistent time that you can count on. Even BRT can't say that unless you make it so that the BRT corridors never cross general traffic streets.

My commute is going to drop from 20-45 minutes to a consistent 5 minutes in March. BRT cannot touch that.

Also, "flexible service" is horrible. Look at what Metro is doing to bus service on Capitol Hill. It is a zero sum game where everyone has to compete with everyone else. With the train, you can count on it being there.

[Gardyloo]

Originally Posted by PeteyNice

I don't see how you can say BRT is "flexible".

Reading comprehension problems?

Originally Posted by Gardyloo

Maybe because we can do some math and can figure out how many buses - for BRT or flexible service or even DART for us fogies - you can buy for the billions of bucks for fixed route infrastructure?

I'm not going to get into another debate about the glories of fixed rail in an urban region that is increasingly characterized by dispersed residential and employment patterns and where the vast majority of commuters DON'T live within walking/biking distance of fixed system nodes. I'm just going to stick to good old numbers. Did you read the PDF? Just start with pp 4-5. We're talking about marginal benefits from the billions of dollars over a 25 year horizon.

[CrazyDonkey]

Pitting BRT against LRT is a favorite tactic of light rail opponents. They are complementary, not competing, modes, however. BRT, without LRT, could work only if most private cars were banned from downtown Seattle.

[PeteyNice]

Originally Posted by Gardyloo

Reading comprehension problems?



I'm not going to get into another debate about the glories of fixed rail in an urban region that is increasingly characterized by dispersed residential and employment patterns and where the vast majority of commuters DON'T live within walking/biking distance of fixed system nodes. I'm just going to stick to good old numbers. Did you read the PDF? Just start with pp 4-5. We're talking about marginal benefits from the billions of dollars over a 25 year horizon.

But again. Just having more "flexible" service just means more buses sitting in traffic. That does not solve anything. That gives you less than marginal benefits. I feel like even "marginal benefits" are more than worth the investment. Especially since the alternatives are worse. The only way to ensure benefits is to have grade separated options. For good reason, there is not an appetite to build more roads in the region. So you have to work with what you have for "flexible" bus service and there is no way you can dress that up as acceptable.

Also, your numbers are a non-starter since they include a much larger region than Sound Transit. Also, I think their LR numbers are horribly pessimistic. Currently Link averages ~37,000 boardings every weekday (good months they top 40k). To think that this would only slightly more than double in 25 years seems silly to me. Especially since in those 25 years the system will be so much larger than it is now. ST is expecting an additional 71,000 daily riders just for CHS and Husky Stadium by 2030.

[Gardyloo]

Like I said, I'm not going to get into a rail v. bus debate. To me, it's all about the money, and saying some public infrastructure, be it light rail or more freeway lanes or free flying cars is "worth whatever it costs" is being unrealistic and frivolous. We have a lot of needs in our region, from crumbling roads and 100-year old bridges, to obsolete schools, classrooms that are too full, an assisted housing stock that's far from adequate, under-invested parks, you name it. Setting priorities that pour billions into transport projects that will reduce average speeds by a couple of mph or reduce median commute times by a few minutes (and that only with cherry-picked data) is - just my view - irresponsible.

[modc]

Regarding why I care about expanding light rail in 20 years. Perhaps companies might be more drawn to invest in this region in the next few years and have their headquarters here if they know that the cities are investing heavily in solutions to traffic issues- even if they are long range. If I owned a company, I would be more interested in moving to a region that had light rail and a way to move people around efficiently. particularly if I wanted that company to expand.

Finally, I'd like to still be living here in 20-30 years - right next to a light rail station so I don't have to rely on my auto-drive google car to drive me everywhere.