Comments on Stranger Staff Misconceptions
"Imply," not "infer." You inferred it from their implication.
Carry on.
I think one incentive for carpooling might be to exempt carpools from having to pay for tolls across SR520, I90, or the Narrows Bridge.
Actually, Greg and the City did kill the monorail.
Ron Sims, on the other hand, is Mr. Practicality, and is more about doing than showing up for Vanity Fair spreads, as you can tell from the latest Transit Now package he did.
I agree about the incentive for carpools for the bridges. But they may need to have 3 adults to qualify.
Thank you for the sanity:
"INCENTIVES are the best way to spark change. They empower and reward citizens and get them on your side. Tax breaks for not driving and using transit or carpooling, quick and convenient transit options, supporting viable transit projects, I dunno, etc."
I keep saying that in response to ECB's stupid ranting that we should tar and feather all drivers.
1. The RTID portion include a huge, really bad NEW highway. RTID's exec. committee earlier today approved the plan WITH the Cross-Base Highway. That is already the subject of environmentalists' lawsuits.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/front/topstories/story/81780.html
2. ST's LINK light rail is not over budget. The line was reduced to 14 miles in order to stay within the voter-approved budget. It is on-schedule to be completed in 2009, to the Airport. Hardly a "line to nowhere" . . ..
Oh, Gomez. I don't have the time to respond at length. But tell me again how a rapid transit route running from West Seattle to downtown (and on to Ballard) is useless? Particularly now, with the viaduct coming down, and everyone screaming and yelling about how all those poor people in West Seattle will get downtown without the viaduct? Seems to me we could use the monorail now.
Also, yes, West Seattle isn't as dense as it could be -- kind of a glorified suburb. But you don't build rapid and mass transit to serve the place is a city is at the moment it's constructed and all the years that came before. You build it for the future. West Seattle isn't very dense -- but it would get dense, and get dense quick, if it were served by rapid transit.
When the built the tube in London and the U-Bahn in Berlin they built stations in the middle of empty fields--housing sprung up around 'em. Rapid transit attracts new construction and density.
Nice typo.
"If I hated you, I wouldn’t read you. I’m critical when I need to be."
hahaha oh brother, I think someone's balls just dropped.
Oh, man, Dan! I knew I left off a ton of things, but you reminded me right there of one:
Building mass transit leads to development around those areas.
... unless the area is already developed. Most mass transit in major cities was built half a century or nearly a century ago, as cities were still developing. So of course new stations spurred development: the cities were growing outward anyway and there was new, accessible space to work with. There's not a lot of free space in West Seattle, LQA or Interbay, and I freely admit that Link is not going to spur serious new development in the south side.
Developed areas develop by having human factors that create demand. Jobs. Aesthetic nature. Affordable homes. Train stops? Not so much.
(and yes, I realize writing an entry like this is like putting a bullseye on my back)
But... West Seattle isn't developed, Go. You said so yourself. Train stops, rezone, building boom -- we're getting the boom anyway, just without building the kind or urban mass transit infrastructure that makes a city livable.
I gotta go. Can't argue all day. I'll just point to every big city on the planet, Gomez, from Cairo to London to New York to Chicago to Tokyo. Rapid transit works.
But... West Seattle isn't developed, Go. You said so yourself. Train stops, rezone, building boom -- we're getting the boom anyway, just without building the kind or urban mass transit infrastructure that makes a city livable.
I gotta go. Can't argue all day. I'll just point to every big city on the planet, Gomez, from Cairo to London to New York to Chicago to Tokyo. Rapid transit works.
Dan mimicking the double-post tic?! I love it!
Gomez?
Misconceptions?
Look at RTID project list: $1.2 b to "widen" I-405; $350 million to "add capacity" to SR 167; $870 million to connect 509 to I-5; and millions more in "congestion relief."And as of today's vote $277 million for Cross Base highway!
And you trusted 'em.
"If I hated you, I wouldn’t read you. I’m critical when I need to be."
Get over yourself. Your typical criticism is a couple of lines of your own opinions presented as facts, without any sort of supporting references or analysis. If that's the best that you can do, then you shouldn't bother.
This is more along the lines of what I expected from Freaky Friday. Way to get your digs in, Gomez.
"Developed areas develop by having human factors that create demand.[...] Train stops? Not so much."
WTF?
Waiter, check please.
Speaking as a West Seattle resident, its been an interesting year in the face of the condo development/conversions that have been happening and the reaction of people in the neighborhood about density: "We have no transit! How are all of these people going to get around!"
No shit, dumbfucks!
Josh is right about the RTID (or Legislation Beggin Seattle To Vote It Down) including the Cross-Base Highway ... AGAIN!
They killed it and then brought it back.
Looks like a Yes-No vote for me (which unfortunately means a No vote since they won't let us vote for each part).
As to West Seattle having no transit after killing the monorail ... consequences.
Building mass transit leads to development around those areas.... unless the area is already developed. Most mass transit in major cities was built half a century or nearly a century ago, as cities were still developing.
Look at the Third street rail in SF if you are twisted on whether developed cities (one that had Seattle's population more than a century ago) can still benefit and in-fill around new transit lines.
"INCENTIVES are the best way to spark change."
I'm all for that. But it works both ways -- replacing the viaduct with another waterfront highway is an incentive for car use. Just because something is the status quo doesn't mean it isn't social engineering.
You're incorrect. What killed the Green Line - from W. Seattle to Crown Hill, to be exact - was the financing cost. Forget $4-6 billion; the killer headline was the $11-13 billion figure, with interest and financing, for just over 13 miles; the last minute "revamp" as you call it came too late and wasn't even a consideration. But, no surprise: The Stranger got this story wrong from the get-go, why change now?
13. For what it's worth, the projects listed all add up to a bit under $3 bil, and the additions supplement and update outdated highways in several areas.
The monorail would have cost no less than $4-6 billion, $4-6 bil+ to build one line that serves a few thousand people a day in a couple of neighborhoods.
But that said, the bill is far from perfect and I'm sure you can find 100 reasons why.
Josh is right about the RTID (or Legislation Beggin Seattle To Vote It Down) including the Cross-Base Highway ... AGAIN!They killed it and then brought it back.
Looks like a Yes-No vote for me (which unfortunately means a No vote since they won't let us vote for each part).
And some of those roads projects are critically important where no other funds exist (520 and south park bridge, for example). RTID has a few shitty parts, a few good parts and a bunch of oh well parts in it, but ST2 is all golden. You should vote yes.
Nit-picker:
In order for a transit project to be on budget, it must
1) go the original planned distance, not 2/3 of the distance; AND
2) stay on budget.
Light Rail is not on budget. One out of two is a nice try, but nice tries only count for 4 year olds. The 21 mile Phase 1 project is not only not on budget, it does not even exist.
So STOP with the “light rail is on budget!” crap. You’ll turn supporters who can count into brick throwers.
this is the longest post ever, but i appreciated the first two paragraphs.
And if I hated you I wouldn't read you either, Gomez, but if I were a member of your family I would stage an intervention to get you off the CRACK!
"topography and layout leads to only a handful of feasible thoroughfares"
I guess you've never been to that place, y'know the one with the extensive mass transit systems and the irregularly laid out cities, what's it called again. It's on the tip of my tongue
Oh that's right - EUROPE!!
"topography and layout leads to only a handful of feasible thoroughfares"
I guess you've never heard of that place, y'know the one with the extensive mass transit systems and the irregularly laid out cities, what's it called again. It's on the tip of my tongue
Oh that's right - EUROPE!!
Grant's comment wins. I laughed.
San Francisco does not have over a dozen transit systems. There's Muni, Bart, AC Transit, Golden Gate Transit, and that's pretty much it.
"topography and layout leads to only a handful of feasible thoroughfares"To be fair, most big cities with good transit (European, Asian or American) are fairly flat. Tokyo has arguably the best public transit (at least the system that is most widely used) and it is almost completely flat through its entire region (the Great Kanto plain). London is flat, New York is mostly flat, Paris is completely flat, Berlin is flat, Stockholm is flat, Seoul is flat, etc.
The only city I can think of that has extremely varied terrian and a great public transit system is Hong Kong, and that has basically two train lines and a bunch of funky buses, ferries and cable cars.
San Francisco is hilly, but transit there sucks. There's basically one mass transit line (BART), a few subway stations outside of that and a bunch of street cars. Anyone who has commuted down Geary Street in SF would not think that transit there is good. (Sure it's better than Seattle, but so is Portland)
1. New road lanes ARE new roads. Duh. Just because they aren't brand-spankin'-new highways in the middle of nowhere doesn't mean the road expansions in RTID aren't new miles of pavement. They still induce demand, still create new impervious surface (surface that can't absorb all the shit that cars produce), and still spur sprawl in the hinterlands.
2. I don't know your source for the claim that "most cities" are built on flat land, have grid systems, and don't have to deal with bodies of water. San Francisco, Austin, New York, Chicago, Portland... Anyway, your answer -- "but Seattle is exceptional"--proves Dan's point.
3. I don't think anyone at the Stranger has ever said people are "car loving" and "car obsessed." People are, however, selfish and often irrational in their behavior. Driving in heavy traffic is often much slower than biking, for example, but the most popular "solution" for traffic congestion has always been "build more roads." That, paradoxically, induces more demand for roads. This is not a controversial claim. Try driving in Houston sometime, with its miles and miles of freeways twenty lanes wide, and you'll see that we can't build our way out of congestion.
(As an aside, if you rode the bus, you'd know that people with kids ride it all the time. I'm not saying it's ideal--rail would be much better-- but it's pretty classist to say that all people with kids "have no choice" but to buy cars. Some people, myself included, actually can't afford cars.
4. I like Sound Transit. I can't wait for it to open.
30. My sources hath failed me!
That said, that's still a lot of transit, especially considering that Muni handles the bulk of it.
34. Dan won't argue with me here (well, he also had to run), and I won't argue with you here, ECB. Points taken into consideration, with the usual skepticism ;P
Some people, myself included, actually can't afford cars.
Maybe if The Stranger staffers got paid for their Slogging and could actually afford a car, they'd stop Slogging endlessly against automobiles.
@32 - I like Sound Transit too.
But the cross-base highway is a deal killer.
Bygones.
And can't they use Flex-Car like everyone else, @34?
Hey gomez,
If it was the MVET pure and simple, why did the Monorail Recall in November of 2004 (a year and half AFTER the MVET started) fail by a vote 2/3 in favor of keeping the project going?
Um, because everyone still believed it would only cost $2 billion and that the MVET would be over in a few years?
"The city’s officials, not the highways that people use, are the problem."
AND the people that voted against mass tranist, especially the one in the 60's. If only we could ride those stadiums to work! Fuckwits
"They still induce demand, still create new impervious surface (surface that can't absorb all the shit that cars produce), and still spur sprawl in the hinterlands."
Huh?
The "impervious sufaces" argument doesn't make sense.
Hey K X one, don't be dissin' on the people that didn't vote for transit back in the 60's & 70's. Seattle was a very different town back then, and there weren't all the rich people that we have now.
I didn't live here in the Boeing Bust, but I had family that did, and it was a bad, scary time. It took until the mid 80's for the town to start to recover from that. Nobody was thinking about transit.
In retrospect, the 80's would have been the perfect time to build regional transit: Property values were still low, downtown Seattle was all torn up for the bus tunnel anyway, and the sprawl wasn't quite as sprawly.
But that was during the "Reagan Revolution", when the destruction of the middle class was started. He was putting a kindly face on aggressive greed, and everyone was watching Dynasty. Besides, we were still trying to get 90 completed.
speaking of the downtown tunnels, why is it that nothing is being done with them?
Will @ 35
"I like Sound Transit too.
But the cross-base highway is a deal killer."
Really?
So you are going to pass up a package that gets light rail to Bellevue, Microsoft, and Redmond in the east; Tacoma
in the south; and the U-Dist, Roosevelt, Northgate, Shoreline, Lynnwood and Alderwood in the north?
Over a shitty little highway that nobody knew about or cared about until a few weeks ago?
I can respect those who can't accept the RTID package because it builds a lot of new lanes. But the Cross Base is not the line in the sand to throw away two years of regional planning and negotiating that went into the ST and RTID packages.
BTW--the RTID package that builds all those new lanes actually does a few nice things for Seattle. It will help fully fund new overpasses and ramps for cars and transit at Lander and Spokane streets. These two projects will actually begin to implement some of the things one would have to do if you were going to do a surface option on the waterfront. They will be done by the time the viaduct likely comes down. The package also will help pay for improvements to Mercer that will help knit Queen Anne and South Lake Union together. The RTID also replaces the South Park Bridge, a vital lifeline to one of Seattle's best working class neighborhoods, and the worst bridge in the state. It also builds bus lanes on Aurora in Shoreline that match the ones Metro is building in Seattle and it builds a new off ramp for buses only for the HOV lanes coming from South King or Pierce county. The Seattle stuff is almost all transit. Take a look at it again.
Hey Gomez,
Please give any reference that indicates that the tax will only last a few years. No one except Dick F ever indicated that the tax would only take a few years.
If there was one thing that killed the monorail it was their publishing the full finance costs of the project. Try to find that information on ST site for Link segment one or any of their projects.
Obviously the SMP made many mistakes and should have been open and transparent a little earlier but compared to ST they did great for moving the project and bringing in the hard costs only 20% over the voted on budget with a fixed price contract. Had the leadership in the city and county pushed the state to give the $200 million transit mitigation for the AWV the total finance costs would have been within the acceptable multiple.
But...
Hey K X one, don't be dissin' on the people that didn't vote for transit back in the 60's & 70's. Seattle was a very different town back then, and there weren't all the rich people that we have now.
You know what? Fuck that. Seattle has been considering and rejecting mass rapid transit since 1911. The argument in favor is always, "Human populations tend to grow. Ours will grow and we will need an efficient way to move all those people around. The land required for mass transit will never be cheaper than it is right now."
Those things were true in 1911, they were true in 1960, they were true when Seattle shot down a previous effort to create rapid transit in the '70s, and they're true now.
I don't know what country you live in, but Americans ARE car-loving and car-obsessed. It's part of the culture. What do kids do when they turn 16? I don't know how insulated you have to be not to realize that a majority of Americans LOVE driving. Did you read that report about how high the price of gasoline would have to be to get people to find alternatives to driving?
Just because someone complains about their SUV, doesn't mean they don't love it. Sometimes my friend will complain about her husband. "He leaves his dirty socks everywhere." Do you think she doesn't love him?
ECB - "I like Sound Transit. I can't wait for it to open."
Assuming you are talking about LINK, how do you like something that doesn't exist?
And could you explain the induced demand analysis to which you linked? Wouldn't link rail to Overlake induce demand for housing even father from urban centers? Wouldn't that encourage sprawl?
uh huh. Sure, Judah.
Tell me how much you will support mass transit the next time unemployment here hits 12%, or Microsoft lays off 60% of its Seattle workforce.
Get to know your history, dear. It will help you in your life.
As to people with kids riding the bus, I was talking with Venus Velazquez today and she was describing when she takes the bus with her two kids - and when she drives with them.
She's right.
More transit more often if you want parents to take kids places.
Gomez-I think you do have a lot of good points and I even agree with some of them. However, I don't think the Green Line would have been "useless." I live in Ballard, and every time I'm riding the excruciatingly slow #17 or #18 stuck in rush hour traffic, I wish fervently for a monorail to get me to my destination in a speedy and efficient fashion...Transit sucks so bad I end up driving even when I feel I shouldn't (like to downtown), because even though I'm stuck in the same traffic as the bus, I'll still get there faster...etc. etc.
Comments Closed
In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).