A Simple Equation
In his blog today, Stefan Sharkansky refers to my recent Slog post defending Peter Steinbrueck’s $1,700 annual auto expense reimbursement as “largely nonsensical,” and condemns Steinbrueck as “a hypocrite and a lousy policy maker” for leading the charge to tear down the Alaskan Way Viaduct and replace it with a surface boulevard, transit and improvements to surface streets downtown. Sharkansky even histrionically invokes the fear that “people will be killed in a viaduct collapse” if the council spends so much as five to six weeks studying the surface option.
What I actually said in my post is that bus commuting isn’t realistic for everyone. What I didn’t add (because it seemed self-evident) is that for many, it is. Bus service to downtown from neighborhoods like West Seattle and Ballard is frequent and convenient, but on many routes (like Ballard to Capitol Hill, for example, or Lake City to City Hall) busing takes many times longer than driving.
Unlike Sharkansky, though, I see this as a reason to spend more on transit, not less. Transit should be convenient. It shouldn’t require people to “cheerfully forfeit an extra hour of work every day in order to take the bus,” as Sharkansky puts it. That’s why the surface/transit plan makes sense: The more transit there is, the easier it will be for those with busy lives (workers with multiple jobs, people with kids, students) to use it. I’ll take a bus if service is fast, frequent and convenient; if it isn’t, I won’t.
Furthermore, you don’t have to be a “rabid anti-car ideologue” to recognize that if you do, for reasons of convenience or ideology, choose to drive, you, too, benefit from more people using transit. More people on buses = fewer cars on the road.
I think you meant "More people on buses == fewer cars on the road." to show equality, a single = character is used for assignment of value.
Computer Geek