Slog
News & ArtsMonday, September 21, 2009
City Link Light Rail: The Longest Mile!
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Sep 21, 2009 at 11:01 AM
So... my riveting live Slogging of my light rail trip to the airport was interrupted when I had to get off the train in Tukwila and—shudder—ride a bus the rest of the way to the airport. Transfering from a sleek, quick, quiet, smooth light rail train to a dirty, slow, smelly, herky-jerky bus was a good reminder why buses are the preferred mass transit option for people who don't ride and don't intend to ride mass transit. Trains are fixed and they're more expensive, but they incentivize leaving your car at home—or forgoing a $50 cab ride—by providing smoother rides and faster trip times than smelly, claustrophobic, stuck-in-traffic buses. On the train you can actually relax and enjoy your trip in a way you just can't when you're hurtling along in traffic in a private car or crawling through traffic in an airless bus.
I mean, I've seen Mt. Rainier from I-5 a million times on my way to the airport. But I don't think I was really able to appreciate the view until today, when I got to see the mountain from my light rail car, not from backseat of a cab with cars hurtling past.
An argument will now break out in the comments about whether providing me with a glorious view of Mt. Rainier on my way to the airport is worth the public expense of building a light rail line. To all the folks who think other folks should be content to ride cheap, slow, ugly, dirty buses everywhere: aesthetics matter, how a trip is experienced matters. If it didn't—if everyone should be content to get from point A to point B in the cheapest possible mode of transport—why does your car have leather seats? Air conditioning? A sound system? Why aren't you driving a Yugo?
2
I like light rail AND slow ugly dirty buses. Especially ETBs.
Too bad King County wants to cut tons of service out of Seattle, which will take over a decade and a half to reinstate. And they were told they should get rid of ETBs.
Too bad King County wants to cut tons of service out of Seattle, which will take over a decade and a half to reinstate. And they were told they should get rid of ETBs.
3
Busses wouldn't be as slow and forced to crawl through traffic if there weren't so many single-occupant cars taking up space.
5
Your view is worth the public expense! Cars are nice if you want to take a random picnic in the country but for most other raveling needs I'd rather coast along in a light rail where I can read the paper or enjoy a view.
6
Maybe I'm a dumbass, but isn't this McGinn fella who's running for mayor (with what seems to be the Stranger's full support) against the expansion of the light rail system? He's a bus guy, right? Am I missing something?
7
Trains are a lot easier to pack full with people. Standing up on a bus fucking sucks. I've wrenched my back more than once when the bus jerks and swerves on our shitty roads. The train allows for a much smoother ride and rarely slams on the brakes for any reason.
8
"On the train you can actually relax and enjoy your trip in a way you just can't when you're hurtling along in traffic in a private car or crawling through traffic in an airless bus."
You have obviously never rode the 7 train at 630 am on a Monday morning. God awful way to start the week.
You have obviously never rode the 7 train at 630 am on a Monday morning. God awful way to start the week.
10
@6 He wants Seattle to vote on expanding Light Rail from Ballard to West Seattle in 2 years. I'd say that's pro-Light Rail.
11
So Dan, are you lending credence to those that argue for retaining the Viaduct, based on their argument that the view while driving it is pretty amazing?
13
If only Sound Transit didn't always choose the most expensive way to build light rail. By mixing surface grade with below and above grade, labor costs shoot up because it can't be safely automated. Plus, they have to buy lots and lots of land to support their routes and stations. I wish they'd made their whole line elevated, as it is south of MLK Bl.
15
I got the impression that the expansion was planned and that McGinn was taking the "let's take the viaduct BACK to the voters" approach of a public vote on lightrail expansion. I'm not sure about you, but the voters tend to vote down anything progressive in transportation here in Seattle if it costs them a couple extra pennies here and there.
18
And I think that's why the trains have those hose-it-out finishes. The seats are terrible pressed-aluminum thingies with sharp edges, a gesture at padding and legroom for children only.
The BART's such a huge contrast. Carpeting provides hushed zooming, roomy comfy seats, well maintained, and the driver speaks the stops himself. Very human.
The BART's such a huge contrast. Carpeting provides hushed zooming, roomy comfy seats, well maintained, and the driver speaks the stops himself. Very human.
19
Correction: light rail is NOT faster than buses to Seatac (except for rush hour). The 194 takes 30 min (barring traffic of course). Light rail takes 30 min to get to Tukwila and then however long to transfer and ride the bus to Seatac.
20
@16 and 17
Actually you're wrong, or at least you could be. Ride BART and MUNI trains in the Bay Area and see how nice and old, well worn and well used train system can be. They're not gleaming new, but they're relatively clean and certainly much better than buses.
Actually you're wrong, or at least you could be. Ride BART and MUNI trains in the Bay Area and see how nice and old, well worn and well used train system can be. They're not gleaming new, but they're relatively clean and certainly much better than buses.
21
There's isn't much practical overlap in destinations, but when given the choice, I'll pay a few dollars more to fly out of less-reliable SFO because BART delivers riders directly to the terminal vs. OAK's "Airbart" shuttle bus between the Coliseum stop and the actual airport. It's not a the biggest inconvenience in the world—I've done it hundreds of times—but the break in the trip, adding a 3rd, or 4th, or 5th mode of transportation to you're trip really makes things a drag.
I also like PDX's setup. I'm glad their eventually completing the link to Sea-Tac, a train that almost goes to the airport is like those stores that are closed on random weekdays. You inconvenience people more than they anticipated, they find another way around.
I also like PDX's setup. I'm glad their eventually completing the link to Sea-Tac, a train that almost goes to the airport is like those stores that are closed on random weekdays. You inconvenience people more than they anticipated, they find another way around.
22
oh, and I'm not driving a Yugo because a Tato Nano gets better mpg and has one-fourth the global warming gas emissions for only $2500 for the US model (coming soon).
@3 ftw, @10 for runner up.
@3 ftw, @10 for runner up.
23
#20 how are the busses?
I'm curious a) what busses Dan rides that would make him characterize them as dirty and smelly, and b) what Dan thinks makes the busses dirty and smelly, and why he thinks those same things won't affect trains.
I'm curious a) what busses Dan rides that would make him characterize them as dirty and smelly, and b) what Dan thinks makes the busses dirty and smelly, and why he thinks those same things won't affect trains.
24
#18 - the BART smells like grandma's diaper, mixed with an undiscovered gyro from 1997. I wouldn't use that as a PRO example.
25
I think the light rail is a good start to a proper, more complete rail system (if they do it right and don't just stop once it reaches the airport). Seattle's the largest city I've been to where people seem to think that buses ought to be enough. Go to any large city in Europe (London, Prague, Paris, Berlin, etc) or on the east coast (NYC), and they have both an extensive bus system AND an extensive rail system, whether underground or above ground.
People need to realize that sometimes you build something so that it will be useful in a number of years. Seattle's the only place where people seem to think, "what good is this (uncompleted) rail system? Why can't they instantly make it appear at its full production and expansion out of thin air?"
That's like looking up at a building being constructed and thinking, "what good is this giant cage of steel I-beams surrounded by cranes? What a mistake it was for the city to vote to build a skyscraper!"
People need to realize that sometimes you build something so that it will be useful in a number of years. Seattle's the only place where people seem to think, "what good is this (uncompleted) rail system? Why can't they instantly make it appear at its full production and expansion out of thin air?"
That's like looking up at a building being constructed and thinking, "what good is this giant cage of steel I-beams surrounded by cranes? What a mistake it was for the city to vote to build a skyscraper!"
26
Buss transit is NOT cheaper. You still have to include the road building cost - even if the road is already built. Plus, since a bus is not the only thing causing surface wear on it's route, they have to be maintained to a higher expense.
27
@18 They had to build the cars that way, as they were taking into account the average cleanliness (or complete lack thereof) of the ridership of the route.
In contrast if they would have built the first route up the I 405 North corridor to Bellevue, they could have outfitted it identically to BART, as the ridership being more professional, and middle/upper middle class in nature would have been cleaner as a whole. Facts don't lie.
Too bad that politics got in the way of going with the Seatac thru the hood to the Intl District got in the way of pragmatism. I mean... lots and lots of folks in the hood fly on planes every day !
Right?
In contrast if they would have built the first route up the I 405 North corridor to Bellevue, they could have outfitted it identically to BART, as the ridership being more professional, and middle/upper middle class in nature would have been cleaner as a whole. Facts don't lie.
Too bad that politics got in the way of going with the Seatac thru the hood to the Intl District got in the way of pragmatism. I mean... lots and lots of folks in the hood fly on planes every day !
Right?
28
The shuttle buses to SeaTac are beaters, but they don't smell. Still, it will be nice when the light rail goes all the way to the airport, the last bit can take 10 minutes if the drivers gets unlucky with lights/traffic.
The 194 is usually faster, but as the man said, traffic allowing. I'll be interested to see how the train does when we get some snow/ice this winter. I remember spending an hour trying to get off I-5 and over to SeaTac in a snowstorm, due to a bus (the 194) that jacknifed in the middle of the off-ramp. Would have missed my flight, but the crew was stuck in traffic behind me.
The 194 is usually faster, but as the man said, traffic allowing. I'll be interested to see how the train does when we get some snow/ice this winter. I remember spending an hour trying to get off I-5 and over to SeaTac in a snowstorm, due to a bus (the 194) that jacknifed in the middle of the off-ramp. Would have missed my flight, but the crew was stuck in traffic behind me.
29
@19 beat me to it, but per Metro, the actual difference is 28 minutes from 2nd & University to the Airport on the 194 vs. 32 minutes from there to the Tukwila station on Light Rail. They really should have built to accommodate express service... you know... like real public transportation... (NYC Subway Rocks!)
30
27: They may not fly frequently, but they get on to go to downtown when it's coming from the airport, and then take a train towards the airport and get off before the airport stop.
See, it's not supposed to be a direct shuttle between The Rich People and Their Airport. There really is a point to stopping off in different areas along the way. Areas where people may not own cars (the international district and "the hood," as you call it, translated as "the place where those scary black people who can't afford to fly live").
See, it's not supposed to be a direct shuttle between The Rich People and Their Airport. There really is a point to stopping off in different areas along the way. Areas where people may not own cars (the international district and "the hood," as you call it, translated as "the place where those scary black people who can't afford to fly live").
31
Yes, trains are a smoother ride and less jerky.
But I hate how so much is made of "relaxing" and "reading" and "enjoying the view".
NEWS FLASH - as more and more people take the train, YOU WON'T GET A SEAT DURING RUSH HOUR/COMMUTE TIMES.
And then -- hey -- guess what -- you have to fucking stand.
Now - standing on a train is WAY better than standing on a bus. But it is NOT relaxing, pleasant, etc. But standing is standing and it's not comfortable.
Stop talking about how great it is to SIT. If you get what you want - which is much more train ridership - then you WILL NOT GET A SEAT on the train during commute times
In my experience on light rail systems in many big cities, this has always proven the case. Maybe in Seattle train ridership will never be that high and Dan can always get a seat. Great for Dan, but not great for rail.
But I hate how so much is made of "relaxing" and "reading" and "enjoying the view".
NEWS FLASH - as more and more people take the train, YOU WON'T GET A SEAT DURING RUSH HOUR/COMMUTE TIMES.
And then -- hey -- guess what -- you have to fucking stand.
Now - standing on a train is WAY better than standing on a bus. But it is NOT relaxing, pleasant, etc. But standing is standing and it's not comfortable.
Stop talking about how great it is to SIT. If you get what you want - which is much more train ridership - then you WILL NOT GET A SEAT on the train during commute times
In my experience on light rail systems in many big cities, this has always proven the case. Maybe in Seattle train ridership will never be that high and Dan can always get a seat. Great for Dan, but not great for rail.
32
If you're going to the airport, you just sit on your duffel bag or backpack - and have your girlfriend sit in your lap.
33
@30 They may not fly frequently, but they get on to go to downtown when it's coming from the airport, and then take a train towards the airport and get off before the airport stop.
See, it's not supposed to be a direct shuttle between The Rich People and Their Airport. There really is a point to stopping off in different areas along the way. Areas where people may not own cars (the international district and "the hood," as you call it, translated as "the place where those scary black people who can't afford to fly live").
You see Bonefish that is the problem
Sound Transit is trying to have it both ways. They need to tell voters the truth when bringing the option to the ballot box. Tell the voters that Link Rail is designed to replace buses along that route. Tell them that Sound Transit expects to pack the train with both former riders from the South Seattle buses and the airline traveling public. Be honest and see how far that gets you at the ballot box!
Because on the one hand we are told that Light Rail is supposed to be fast efficient safe clean transit to the airport. And for those flying... they generally are cleaner and more affluent than those in the hood taking local transit to and from a social service office, the park, or whereever else they are joyriding to...
Because you see... there is a HUGE clash of cultures, norms and realities between the different groups.
And as I mentioned before on the other thread, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR LUGGAGE, MY KIDS, AND MY KIDS LUGGAGE on the trains. And I REFUSE to stash my luggage 15 feet away as brothaz from da hood enter/exit the train.
As much as you need to paint me as some form of racist or whatever your goal is.... the facts remain. It isn't that they are "big bad scary black folks"... it is that they don't live to the same levels of cleanliness standards as my culture does... they don't have the same values, mores, or respect as my family considers normal and acceptable. Call it what you wish, but I don't wish to subject myself to that kind of exposure. And as a tax paying citizen, I have a right to simple decent set of standards of behavior, hygiene and soberness in public.
And with the combining of former bus traffic with airline traffic those worlds are converging, and the taxpayers paying for Light Rail didn't expect Light Rail to supplant bus traffic.
Keep on with your race baiting. It is much more than that. But if you need it to fit your agenda... carry on..
More...
See, it's not supposed to be a direct shuttle between The Rich People and Their Airport. There really is a point to stopping off in different areas along the way. Areas where people may not own cars (the international district and "the hood," as you call it, translated as "the place where those scary black people who can't afford to fly live").
You see Bonefish that is the problem
Sound Transit is trying to have it both ways. They need to tell voters the truth when bringing the option to the ballot box. Tell the voters that Link Rail is designed to replace buses along that route. Tell them that Sound Transit expects to pack the train with both former riders from the South Seattle buses and the airline traveling public. Be honest and see how far that gets you at the ballot box!
Because on the one hand we are told that Light Rail is supposed to be fast efficient safe clean transit to the airport. And for those flying... they generally are cleaner and more affluent than those in the hood taking local transit to and from a social service office, the park, or whereever else they are joyriding to...
Because you see... there is a HUGE clash of cultures, norms and realities between the different groups.
And as I mentioned before on the other thread, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR LUGGAGE, MY KIDS, AND MY KIDS LUGGAGE on the trains. And I REFUSE to stash my luggage 15 feet away as brothaz from da hood enter/exit the train.
As much as you need to paint me as some form of racist or whatever your goal is.... the facts remain. It isn't that they are "big bad scary black folks"... it is that they don't live to the same levels of cleanliness standards as my culture does... they don't have the same values, mores, or respect as my family considers normal and acceptable. Call it what you wish, but I don't wish to subject myself to that kind of exposure. And as a tax paying citizen, I have a right to simple decent set of standards of behavior, hygiene and soberness in public.
And with the combining of former bus traffic with airline traffic those worlds are converging, and the taxpayers paying for Light Rail didn't expect Light Rail to supplant bus traffic.
Keep on with your race baiting. It is much more than that. But if you need it to fit your agenda... carry on..
34
@31 that is precisely my point. Sound Transit needs to decide, clarify and PUBLICIZE their future intent with Light Rail. Are we going to have a TOKYO SUBWAY scenario, being crammed to the gills? Or are we going to have Munich Ubahn scenario with bigger trains with bigger seats, more frequent trains and thus less crowding... You can't have it both ways
Sound Transit needs to also reserve seats for those coming to/from the airports, as they will likely have luggage, children with luggage etc... and need the seating... and yes that means moreso than fat asses using the handicap seats.
Maybe Sound Transit should have one car per train reserved for airport traffic only , complete with a car that has overhead luggage racks, and designed for a cleaner travelling public.
Yes I'm serous and not being PC, but fuck that. I'm tired of having to deal with the lowest common denominator if I want to take public transit.
Enough already.
Sound Transit needs to also reserve seats for those coming to/from the airports, as they will likely have luggage, children with luggage etc... and need the seating... and yes that means moreso than fat asses using the handicap seats.
Maybe Sound Transit should have one car per train reserved for airport traffic only , complete with a car that has overhead luggage racks, and designed for a cleaner travelling public.
Yes I'm serous and not being PC, but fuck that. I'm tired of having to deal with the lowest common denominator if I want to take public transit.
Enough already.
35
@24 - Not sure what sort of experience you had, but I ride BART every day, and 99% of the time, it's very pleasant. Compared to the bus, it's a fucking day spa. BART's an odd comparison for any transportation model however, since it's basically just a commuter train, and not so much a train that links the city together.
Portland's MAX is probably a better comparison, which—outside the pitfalls that all surface transit can have—I've had overwhelmingly good experiences on.
Portland's MAX is probably a better comparison, which—outside the pitfalls that all surface transit can have—I've had overwhelmingly good experiences on.
36
i really like that i can get from Ohare to my house near downtown Chicago in 20 minutes. it's pretty awesome.
38
@19: "...light rail is NOT faster than buses to Seatac...barring traffic of course..."
Yeah, thank God we don't have any of that to worry about.
Yeah, thank God we don't have any of that to worry about.
40
Wouldn't it be nice if Link made it easy to drive to the stations? Instead, you're effectively locked out of neighborhood parking anywhere neat the station. And—what?—two bikes can fit in each Link car?
41
"Maybe Sound Transit should have one car per train reserved for airport traffic only........Yes I'm serous and not being PC"
No, you're being retarded. Just how would they enforce this ridiculous idea of yours?
No, you're being retarded. Just how would they enforce this ridiculous idea of yours?
42
@41 Hey moron... simple...
They could achieve they a few different ways. For example, the door would only be open at the Tukwilla station for passengers to get on. Unless a passenger wanted to get off, the door would not open at other stops. Passengers inside could hit a button if they chose to get off at Beacon Hill for example. Every time I have been riding Light Rail, there has been a police presence at the entrances. It would not be hard for the transit police, and/or a Light Rail conductor to walk down the one dedicated train car prior to the train leaving the station, as there is normally a 10-15 minute rest before proceeding.
Alternatively, you could simply require that people have a valid airline ticket to sit in that car... wouldn't be hard to implement either...
But I'm sure you knew that right?... as I'm sure you ride Link Rail all the time right?
dumbass.
They could achieve they a few different ways. For example, the door would only be open at the Tukwilla station for passengers to get on. Unless a passenger wanted to get off, the door would not open at other stops. Passengers inside could hit a button if they chose to get off at Beacon Hill for example. Every time I have been riding Light Rail, there has been a police presence at the entrances. It would not be hard for the transit police, and/or a Light Rail conductor to walk down the one dedicated train car prior to the train leaving the station, as there is normally a 10-15 minute rest before proceeding.
Alternatively, you could simply require that people have a valid airline ticket to sit in that car... wouldn't be hard to implement either...
But I'm sure you knew that right?... as I'm sure you ride Link Rail all the time right?
dumbass.
44
Yes @ 40 it would. But the utiopian dreamers at Sound Transit have this belief that they can force social change on you by not offering said parking. In their little perfect green world everyone gets up extra early to walk to a station miles away in the rain, to enjoy nature, lose weight, and achieve Nirvana by saving the environment one day at a time.
Far be it from them to use common sense, that not everyone lives within blocks of Light Rail Stations, and might need to drive several miles to get there. Far be it for them to imagine that since the Light Rail travels to the airport, that hypothetical passengers might have luggage and packages, and not be able to walk dozens of blocks to arrive magically at a terminal.
You will be expected to click your heels 3 times and imagine yourself standing there... without that silly transportation mobile that gets you from point A to point B. Ohh and you think 2bikes can fit on a light rail car! HA ! Think again.. when it is packed.. good luck getting that bike in there!
Silly fool.. just trust in Sound Transit! They know all! You will soon come to learn!
Far be it from them to use common sense, that not everyone lives within blocks of Light Rail Stations, and might need to drive several miles to get there. Far be it for them to imagine that since the Light Rail travels to the airport, that hypothetical passengers might have luggage and packages, and not be able to walk dozens of blocks to arrive magically at a terminal.
You will be expected to click your heels 3 times and imagine yourself standing there... without that silly transportation mobile that gets you from point A to point B. Ohh and you think 2bikes can fit on a light rail car! HA ! Think again.. when it is packed.. good luck getting that bike in there!
Silly fool.. just trust in Sound Transit! They know all! You will soon come to learn!
45
yes, because once a car is assembled, it can never, ever, ever be reconfigured. Nothing can ever be changed.
46
Reality Check said: "And for those flying... they generally are cleaner and more affluent than those in the hood taking local transit to and from a social service office, the park, or whereever else they are joyriding to... [...] It isn't that they are 'big bad scary black folks'... it is that they don't live to the same levels of cleanliness standards as my culture does... they don't have the same values, mores, or respect as my family considers normal and acceptable."
Ah, I understand. Your family's normal values and mores are apparently racism and intolerance mixed with a collection of ignorant assumptions. Your family's respect is apparently only given to those who look like you. So, you are right, a lot of folks in SE Seattle probably don't have the same values as those your family considers normal and acceptable. And that's a good thing.
Ah, I understand. Your family's normal values and mores are apparently racism and intolerance mixed with a collection of ignorant assumptions. Your family's respect is apparently only given to those who look like you. So, you are right, a lot of folks in SE Seattle probably don't have the same values as those your family considers normal and acceptable. And that's a good thing.
47
Reality Check = mega freeway moron.
Not much else to say about that.
The clown is still trying to rewind history to October, 2008.
Not much else to say about that.
The clown is still trying to rewind history to October, 2008.
48
"And then -- hey -- guess what -- you have to fucking stand."
Ah, the voice of fat, lazy "I drive six blocks to work" Seattle.
Ah, the voice of fat, lazy "I drive six blocks to work" Seattle.
49
Reality Check, apparently you don't know the definition of PUBLIC transpotation. It's transportation that everyone is supposed to be able to use. You want some private coach where only the "clean" (read: white and affluent) can ride? They have those. They're called limos and taxis. Public transportation is for people who aren't afraid of being out with "the public," even though that might include some minorities who stick gum on the seats or stand around looking all melanin-y or whatever it is you have a problem with.
And the reason people encourage public transportation and (*gasp* god forbid) walking isn't because of some hippie fantasy world where walking to work achieves nirvana and world peace and we all sing kumbaya around the campfire. It's because those of us still in contact with the real world know that CO2 emissions are a BAD thing (I'll keep it simple). Generally, if something is bad (say, for the environment, which we live in and breathe in whether we're hippie paupers or your fellow yacht club members), it's better to use less of it. Hence, using less gasoline by walking, biking, or sharing public transportation (with poor people!) rather than having each person drive their own car to work. And in order for public transportation to be widely used, it needs to be widely available. You should be arguing for the expansion of the rail system to more parts of the city so that everyone CAN walk (or bus) there; not for parking at rail stations. And you certainly shouldn't be arguing for partitioning of its use.
It's not just some trendy green thing. It's common sense, which you claim to champion: if something is limited in supply, and harmful when used in large amounts, you use less of it. Public transportation results in less fossil fuels being used, so long as it's actually available to people. It's not rocket science.
More...
And the reason people encourage public transportation and (*gasp* god forbid) walking isn't because of some hippie fantasy world where walking to work achieves nirvana and world peace and we all sing kumbaya around the campfire. It's because those of us still in contact with the real world know that CO2 emissions are a BAD thing (I'll keep it simple). Generally, if something is bad (say, for the environment, which we live in and breathe in whether we're hippie paupers or your fellow yacht club members), it's better to use less of it. Hence, using less gasoline by walking, biking, or sharing public transportation (with poor people!) rather than having each person drive their own car to work. And in order for public transportation to be widely used, it needs to be widely available. You should be arguing for the expansion of the rail system to more parts of the city so that everyone CAN walk (or bus) there; not for parking at rail stations. And you certainly shouldn't be arguing for partitioning of its use.
It's not just some trendy green thing. It's common sense, which you claim to champion: if something is limited in supply, and harmful when used in large amounts, you use less of it. Public transportation results in less fossil fuels being used, so long as it's actually available to people. It's not rocket science.
50
@46 You need to paint me as a racist to dismiss my point and that is truly sad. Far from it. I have friends and coworkers of all races, including black. Those friends have the same values, mores, or respect as my family considers normal and acceptable too, yes... even the black one! It has nothing to do with race moron.
And I shouldn't have to subject my kids to those types of people irregardless of race, culture, or cleanliness if I so choose JUST so I can use public transportation.
It is sad that all of the general public can't use public transportation, without having to sacrifice their own value set just to have that privilege, lest they be called racist by those who could care less what their wishes may be.
Take your faux pity and faux moral outrage and shove it up your ass!
And I shouldn't have to subject my kids to those types of people irregardless of race, culture, or cleanliness if I so choose JUST so I can use public transportation.
It is sad that all of the general public can't use public transportation, without having to sacrifice their own value set just to have that privilege, lest they be called racist by those who could care less what their wishes may be.
Take your faux pity and faux moral outrage and shove it up your ass!
51
@49, if it is public transportation and everyone should be able to use it right? So you are in favor of removal of handicap spots in public transportation, public parking etc right? Wouldn't want to create a separate class of citizen now would we? And if that Light Rail is full to the gills, and I"m standing in the spot for the bicycles, I'll not feel entitled to move out of there, when someone like you steps on with a bicycle right? And you won't think me an asshole if I tell you sorry first come first serve! I mean just because you have a bicycle doesn't mean you get a special place for it right? Nooooo.... we wouldn't want those with extra baggage considerations to have reserved spots on the bus for their luggage, just like we wouldn't want special consideration for people climbing on board with a bike.
Right?
And my rant about walking had nothing to do with health. It had to do with the "type" of commuter Sound Transit wants on its trains. They don't want people to drive to a Park and Ride and get on the trains. They've made sure to not include parking (intentionally), even though LOTS of the voting public doesn't live ANYWHERE NEAR a station. Nor did they consider that a percentage of travellers are going to the airport and might have awkward luggage, children with luggage etc, and it is not feasible to walk long distances to arrive at said station.
You are right Bonefish. It is not rocket science. It is much more than a simpistic public transportation Nirvana that you have outlined. In actual practice many of the working parts are broken. One only needs to read how people have responded to my comments to see the fairly land some still live in every day, conveniently ignoring that there just might be other possible reasons for needing parking lots at stations, separate cars for travelers with luggage, and a stated intent of Sound Transit (re:separation of the local commuter traffic with express service from the airport)
But hey... in order to support your straw man arguments, feel free to attack me personally with racist overtones to support your agenda. Reality dictates otherwise.
More...
Right?
And my rant about walking had nothing to do with health. It had to do with the "type" of commuter Sound Transit wants on its trains. They don't want people to drive to a Park and Ride and get on the trains. They've made sure to not include parking (intentionally), even though LOTS of the voting public doesn't live ANYWHERE NEAR a station. Nor did they consider that a percentage of travellers are going to the airport and might have awkward luggage, children with luggage etc, and it is not feasible to walk long distances to arrive at said station.
You are right Bonefish. It is not rocket science. It is much more than a simpistic public transportation Nirvana that you have outlined. In actual practice many of the working parts are broken. One only needs to read how people have responded to my comments to see the fairly land some still live in every day, conveniently ignoring that there just might be other possible reasons for needing parking lots at stations, separate cars for travelers with luggage, and a stated intent of Sound Transit (re:separation of the local commuter traffic with express service from the airport)
But hey... in order to support your straw man arguments, feel free to attack me personally with racist overtones to support your agenda. Reality dictates otherwise.
52
Keep digging your hole deeper, Reality Check. Oops...forgot you LIVE in a suburban hell hole.
"Some of my co-workers are black" is a hilarious way to defend yourself against charges of (obvious) racism.
Anti-social basement dwelling dweebs have a strange hatred of forced public interaction, ie public transportation. They love the isolation of their cars. But, take an anti-social dweeb WITHOUT a driver's license...and you get one very angry, paranoid & reactionary dude.
"Some of my co-workers are black" is a hilarious way to defend yourself against charges of (obvious) racism.
Anti-social basement dwelling dweebs have a strange hatred of forced public interaction, ie public transportation. They love the isolation of their cars. But, take an anti-social dweeb WITHOUT a driver's license...and you get one very angry, paranoid & reactionary dude.
53
"They don't want people to drive to a Park and Ride and get on the trains. They've made sure to not include parking (intentionally), even though LOTS of the voting public doesn't live ANYWHERE NEAR a station"
Reality Check is always so far removed from reality, it's a bit sad.
This idiotic rant about ST "intentionally" leaving out park & rides is a joke. The city of Seattle banned park & rides years ago. The one station Sound Transit has outside of Seattle is in Tukwila. And it features two large park & ride lots, with the possibility of expanding them even more.
Reality Check thinks he's a victim of social engineering. In reality, he's really just a victim of his own pig-headedness and sheltered stupidity.
Reality Check is always so far removed from reality, it's a bit sad.
This idiotic rant about ST "intentionally" leaving out park & rides is a joke. The city of Seattle banned park & rides years ago. The one station Sound Transit has outside of Seattle is in Tukwila. And it features two large park & ride lots, with the possibility of expanding them even more.
Reality Check thinks he's a victim of social engineering. In reality, he's really just a victim of his own pig-headedness and sheltered stupidity.
54
"if it is public transportation and everyone should be able to use it right? So you are in favor of removal of handicap spots in public transportation, public parking etc right?"
Wow this is some rich stupidity here. So because I think everyone should be able to use public transportation, I must therefore be in favor of making it INACCESSIBLE to a fragment of the population? How can someone be dumb enough to think that's a clever interpretation of my argument?
Here's a giant hole in your logic: measures for handicapped people are there so that they are ABLE to use the transportation. Having to look at dirty people doesn't PREVENT you from being able to use public transportation. It may prevent you from WANTING to use it, but that's not the same thing, genius.
Same thing with areas for bikes. It's one thing to provide physical space for something (bikes, luggage, etc) in order to make it PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for people who have those things with them to use the rail. It's another to divide the trains up by class so that the occasional yacht club member doesn't have to look at a pauper during his ride to his learjet. People with luggage or bikes would be physically prevented from riding the train if there weren't space for these things (which there should be; I never argued against having space for luggage). People who wish to avoid filthy commoners are not physically prevented from anything; they're just having their delicate sensibilities offended for 20 minutes. It's not the same thing; not by a long shot. If you really think that your "values" are in need of as much public accommodation as a paraplegic, you've got the most gigantic, blind sense of entitlement I've ever seen.
Also, park & rides are not the solution if people don't live near a station or a bus route to the station. The solution is to EXPAND the public transit, so that there are more rail stations, or more bus routes TO the rail stations. That's how every large city with a competent public transit system does it: look at London, Paris, NYC, Prague, Berlin, etc. Park and rides encourage driving to your public transit. An expansive public transit would encourage use of mass transit from the get go. One of those two options tends to defeat the purposes of public transit, which are to reduce congestion and to reduce pollution by reducing individual driving. Can you guess which one?
So no, it's not because the city of Seattle wants to force you to achieve Nirvana on your way to work. It's because they, while they should make the rail more expansive, know at least half of what they're doing.
So tell me; we have wheelchair ramps for the handicapped, and audio crosswalk signals for the blind. Since you view your "values" as being on equal footing with a physical disability, answer me this: should they have separate sidewalks and staircases for wealthy, "clean," people?
More...
Wow this is some rich stupidity here. So because I think everyone should be able to use public transportation, I must therefore be in favor of making it INACCESSIBLE to a fragment of the population? How can someone be dumb enough to think that's a clever interpretation of my argument?
Here's a giant hole in your logic: measures for handicapped people are there so that they are ABLE to use the transportation. Having to look at dirty people doesn't PREVENT you from being able to use public transportation. It may prevent you from WANTING to use it, but that's not the same thing, genius.
Same thing with areas for bikes. It's one thing to provide physical space for something (bikes, luggage, etc) in order to make it PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE for people who have those things with them to use the rail. It's another to divide the trains up by class so that the occasional yacht club member doesn't have to look at a pauper during his ride to his learjet. People with luggage or bikes would be physically prevented from riding the train if there weren't space for these things (which there should be; I never argued against having space for luggage). People who wish to avoid filthy commoners are not physically prevented from anything; they're just having their delicate sensibilities offended for 20 minutes. It's not the same thing; not by a long shot. If you really think that your "values" are in need of as much public accommodation as a paraplegic, you've got the most gigantic, blind sense of entitlement I've ever seen.
Also, park & rides are not the solution if people don't live near a station or a bus route to the station. The solution is to EXPAND the public transit, so that there are more rail stations, or more bus routes TO the rail stations. That's how every large city with a competent public transit system does it: look at London, Paris, NYC, Prague, Berlin, etc. Park and rides encourage driving to your public transit. An expansive public transit would encourage use of mass transit from the get go. One of those two options tends to defeat the purposes of public transit, which are to reduce congestion and to reduce pollution by reducing individual driving. Can you guess which one?
So no, it's not because the city of Seattle wants to force you to achieve Nirvana on your way to work. It's because they, while they should make the rail more expansive, know at least half of what they're doing.
So tell me; we have wheelchair ramps for the handicapped, and audio crosswalk signals for the blind. Since you view your "values" as being on equal footing with a physical disability, answer me this: should they have separate sidewalks and staircases for wealthy, "clean," people?
55
Reality Check says: "It is sad that all of the general public can't use public transportation, without having to sacrifice their own value set just to have that privilege, lest they be called racist by those who could care less what their wishes may be."
LOL. You "sacrifice your values" by coming into contact with the great unwashed masses? The people who do physical work for a living, the homeless, the mentally ill, etc?
I feel quite content with the city not giving you what you want.
LOL. You "sacrifice your values" by coming into contact with the great unwashed masses? The people who do physical work for a living, the homeless, the mentally ill, etc?
I feel quite content with the city not giving you what you want.
56
Reality check is just bitter that he was tricked into marriage by a conniving woman and now has to support some brats that may or may not be his.
Next time, get a pre-nup, and put planned parenthood on your speed dial. You can still hope for a happy middle age.
Next time, get a pre-nup, and put planned parenthood on your speed dial. You can still hope for a happy middle age.
57
@54 Nice attempt at cherry picking my earlier statements and take it to some absurd hypothesis. Completely ludicrous on your part, but nice try nonetheless.
You are essentially making the argument for me. If I as a public person trying to travel with my luggage near me on the train, and I CANNOT find a seat or location with suitable storage for said luggage, by all measures, you HAVE made it inaccessible to me, as I WILL NOT travel without my luggage within arm's reach.
The ONLY reason I suggested a separate car for airport commuters, would be to ensure they have seats that are large enough to put their luggage at their feet in their seats, OR to have overhead luggage racks.
But that wouldn't fit your agenda to paint me as some "yacht club member" not wanting to mix with the other passengers. Not true at all. However, considering that the likelihood of being the victim of a crime is higher with the average person living in the areas of the other stops, vs. someone just getting off a plane.... that is a valid point made by you. That special "airport car" would be VASTLY safer, just by looking at the statistics. Facts are a silly little detail that get in the way of political correctness huh?
And once again I'll reiterate. It is a sad state of affairs that we have to lower ourselves, our values, our levels of public acceptability in order to use public transportation. Essentially we are having to subsidize cheap transportation in society, in order to gain efficiency. The paradox to that fact, is that those very middle class drivers who you all so desperately want to get off the roads to reduce congestion and save the Earth. Yet those very petty details about having to deal with the lowest common denominator makes a HUGE portion of the commuting public not even consider taking said Light Rail, because they choose to NOT deal with the unwashed masses.
I guess they are all racists, yacht club members, politically incorrect assholes. Yep, I guess that the majority who feel that way must all be wrong in your little worlds.
In regards to your parking garage solution. One word. FAIL. In your la la world of dreams, there would be perfect amounts of rail and buses everywhere.... well buddy.. I got news for you... THAT IS A PIPE DREAM. Now wake up! In the real world there is no way that will ever come to pass. People have cars. Many have a couple. Face reality. Those people simply don't live near bus routes. MANY people never go near downtown, or any other urban dense area that is close enough to transit. Fully 95% of the county doesn't live anywhere near a transit station! Furthermore, I shouldn't need to subscribe to your version of "how" I should live, without a vehicle. Consequently, I want to drive my vehicle to a park and ride, and start my mass transit journey from there. I want the convenience to get to my vehicle quicker/more efficiently before I arrive home. I might have other plans to not go home right away after arriving at my nearest transit center. But it would appear that Sound Transit would want more say over my wishes.
You're a fucking moron if you are trying to compare the exurbs of Seattle to " London, Paris, NYC, Prague, Berlin, etc"! hahahahah we are more than 20 years away from beginning to even look like those cities.. by then I'll be long gone from the area. In the mean time, I WANT TO HAVE PARK AND RIDES AT ALL TRANSIT CENTERS! and no... I don't give a fuck if some eco rabid commission already drafted a master plan to the contrary!
I've said my piece. The same way you feel the need to snub my wants/needs... in return I fee the same way about yours....
'touche'
More...
You are essentially making the argument for me. If I as a public person trying to travel with my luggage near me on the train, and I CANNOT find a seat or location with suitable storage for said luggage, by all measures, you HAVE made it inaccessible to me, as I WILL NOT travel without my luggage within arm's reach.
The ONLY reason I suggested a separate car for airport commuters, would be to ensure they have seats that are large enough to put their luggage at their feet in their seats, OR to have overhead luggage racks.
But that wouldn't fit your agenda to paint me as some "yacht club member" not wanting to mix with the other passengers. Not true at all. However, considering that the likelihood of being the victim of a crime is higher with the average person living in the areas of the other stops, vs. someone just getting off a plane.... that is a valid point made by you. That special "airport car" would be VASTLY safer, just by looking at the statistics. Facts are a silly little detail that get in the way of political correctness huh?
And once again I'll reiterate. It is a sad state of affairs that we have to lower ourselves, our values, our levels of public acceptability in order to use public transportation. Essentially we are having to subsidize cheap transportation in society, in order to gain efficiency. The paradox to that fact, is that those very middle class drivers who you all so desperately want to get off the roads to reduce congestion and save the Earth. Yet those very petty details about having to deal with the lowest common denominator makes a HUGE portion of the commuting public not even consider taking said Light Rail, because they choose to NOT deal with the unwashed masses.
I guess they are all racists, yacht club members, politically incorrect assholes. Yep, I guess that the majority who feel that way must all be wrong in your little worlds.
In regards to your parking garage solution. One word. FAIL. In your la la world of dreams, there would be perfect amounts of rail and buses everywhere.... well buddy.. I got news for you... THAT IS A PIPE DREAM. Now wake up! In the real world there is no way that will ever come to pass. People have cars. Many have a couple. Face reality. Those people simply don't live near bus routes. MANY people never go near downtown, or any other urban dense area that is close enough to transit. Fully 95% of the county doesn't live anywhere near a transit station! Furthermore, I shouldn't need to subscribe to your version of "how" I should live, without a vehicle. Consequently, I want to drive my vehicle to a park and ride, and start my mass transit journey from there. I want the convenience to get to my vehicle quicker/more efficiently before I arrive home. I might have other plans to not go home right away after arriving at my nearest transit center. But it would appear that Sound Transit would want more say over my wishes.
You're a fucking moron if you are trying to compare the exurbs of Seattle to " London, Paris, NYC, Prague, Berlin, etc"! hahahahah we are more than 20 years away from beginning to even look like those cities.. by then I'll be long gone from the area. In the mean time, I WANT TO HAVE PARK AND RIDES AT ALL TRANSIT CENTERS! and no... I don't give a fuck if some eco rabid commission already drafted a master plan to the contrary!
I've said my piece. The same way you feel the need to snub my wants/needs... in return I fee the same way about yours....
'touche'
58
57: The point isn't that Seattle is just like Prague. The point is that, when designing a public transit system, you look at larger cities whose transit systems WORK. Like Prague, London, etc. The city's planners aren't designing it with YOU in mind. They don't give a shit that YOU will be gone in however many years. The CITY will be around for a long time. Stamp your foot and type in all caps all you want; the city doesn't care what YOU want right now. It's about what will work best over the long term.
And you weren't just saying that they need space for luggage. You were saying that the poorer people need to be separated from the wealthier airport commuters because of their "different habits" and "different values." In fact, you went on to say it again just now, TWO paragraphs after denying it and saying that it was all about luggage. I think there should be overhead luggage storage on all the cars, so that airport commuters can use ALL of them. If this were about luggage, you would agree with that, but it's not. You just don't want to "lower yourself" to the level of the public (your words, not mine, and then you say that I'M the one living a pipe dream?).
Your argument that expecting a city to have a decent public transport system is a pipe dream is wrong for two reasons:
1) There are cities that have them. You know, all those ones I listed, and those are just the ones I've seen for myself. If old, large cities can have them, then newer, growing cities can build them. Or do you think that London has had an extensive underground rail system since medieval times?
2) You expect an entire city to design its infrastructure around you, personally, until you leave that city in a few years. You have no right to accuse ANYONE else of living in a la-la land. You just sound like the world's most spoiled twat.
More...
And you weren't just saying that they need space for luggage. You were saying that the poorer people need to be separated from the wealthier airport commuters because of their "different habits" and "different values." In fact, you went on to say it again just now, TWO paragraphs after denying it and saying that it was all about luggage. I think there should be overhead luggage storage on all the cars, so that airport commuters can use ALL of them. If this were about luggage, you would agree with that, but it's not. You just don't want to "lower yourself" to the level of the public (your words, not mine, and then you say that I'M the one living a pipe dream?).
Your argument that expecting a city to have a decent public transport system is a pipe dream is wrong for two reasons:
1) There are cities that have them. You know, all those ones I listed, and those are just the ones I've seen for myself. If old, large cities can have them, then newer, growing cities can build them. Or do you think that London has had an extensive underground rail system since medieval times?
2) You expect an entire city to design its infrastructure around you, personally, until you leave that city in a few years. You have no right to accuse ANYONE else of living in a la-la land. You just sound like the world's most spoiled twat.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: The Tell-Tale Handjob by Dan Savage
-
Foie Gras Tastes Like Cat Food by Callan Berry
-
Cap Hill Is Becoming a Little Like What? by Charles Mudede
-
Pizza Update: Breaking the 5-Minute Barrier by Goldy
-
President Obama Says NSA Spying Is "Transparent" by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Let Me Think... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Leviticus 20:9 by Goldy
-
War Reporter Michael Hastings, Dead at 33 by Ansel Herz
-
The Daily Show on Poor, Bullied Christians by Paul Constant
-
In Which Peter Steinbrueck Performs in Blackvoice by Goldy
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (58) RSS