Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, March 5, 2010
3
Wow, those people in NY are so lucky to have an actual functioning transit system.
Seattle (still) has a transit system that was designed to move people FROM the suburbs into downtown on weekday mornings, and then back TO the suburbs on weekday afternoons. And that's about it.
Just one more board in my "Seattle-Is-Not-A-REAL-City" platform.
Seattle (still) has a transit system that was designed to move people FROM the suburbs into downtown on weekday mornings, and then back TO the suburbs on weekday afternoons. And that's about it.
Just one more board in my "Seattle-Is-Not-A-REAL-City" platform.
4
Amazing!
Unfortunately, I probably show up as someone who drives to work, because they don't count the fact that I only drive 2-3 times a month, run/walk to work 2-3 times a week, and take the bus the rest of the time.
It depends on how you fit each square peg in each round hole.
Unfortunately, I probably show up as someone who drives to work, because they don't count the fact that I only drive 2-3 times a month, run/walk to work 2-3 times a week, and take the bus the rest of the time.
It depends on how you fit each square peg in each round hole.
5
NYC and DC have the advantage of their high density housing and transit systems being built or started before car's became so common. Because of our newness, and the fact that so many around here can remember when traffic wasn't a clusterfuck, our populace has lived with the illusion that this is something we do not need. The low initial ridership, costs of construction (the price of procrastinantion), insufficient route planning, political pandering to NIMBY's and property developers, and suburban resistance (this is a regional problem, not a Seattle problem) all combine to jeopardize what really needs to happen around here.
We need better route planning, and we need to consider all of the options available (light rail, BRT, monorail, trolleys, buses, subways) and decide on a route to route basis what is best. But our city leadership also needs to speak out to the suburbs and make it clear to them that this is a regional problem, and they need to do their part with density and public transportation development.
We need better route planning, and we need to consider all of the options available (light rail, BRT, monorail, trolleys, buses, subways) and decide on a route to route basis what is best. But our city leadership also needs to speak out to the suburbs and make it clear to them that this is a regional problem, and they need to do their part with density and public transportation development.
7
The graphic is nice, like a lovely smoggy sunset. But where are the correlating numbers. Orange percent of commuters drive to work(more) and periwinkle take trains(less)
8
Persons per square mile of land area in each metro area pretty much explains the whole thing. This 'infographic' is apples v oranges.
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA
459.5
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA
560.6
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA CMSA
466.2
--------------------------------------------
New York-No. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA/NECMA
1,955.3
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA
909.4
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA
752.4
If you want a real world comparison you need to think about Lancaster, PA (478.4) or Columbus, OH (464.7)
Also you need to come to terms with the fact that we are in some ways equal or lesser than Lancaster and Columbus (shudder)
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA CMSA
459.5
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA
560.6
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA CMSA
466.2
--------------------------------------------
New York-No. New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-CT-PA CMSA/NECMA
1,955.3
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA CMSA
909.4
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV CMSA
752.4
If you want a real world comparison you need to think about Lancaster, PA (478.4) or Columbus, OH (464.7)
Also you need to come to terms with the fact that we are in some ways equal or lesser than Lancaster and Columbus (shudder)
10
"bike, work at home, etc.?" What?
Is that like in Futurama, when aliens were going to eat everyone on Earth, "beginning with the firemen, then the math teachers, and so on in that fashion?"
Is that like in Futurama, when aliens were going to eat everyone on Earth, "beginning with the firemen, then the math teachers, and so on in that fashion?"
11
We'll I'm glad I have a nice big family home with garden 10 minutes drive from downtown.
How about you?
How about you?
12
8 - I disagree that its apples and oranges. The population density explanation makes it INTERESTING that there are differences.
There are differences between cities, and density might be one reason why there are differences. Cool.
There are differences between cities, and density might be one reason why there are differences. Cool.
13
@3..beat me to the punch.
I used to walk to work. Now that our offices have moved I have to take the bus (2 of them, actually) and pay $90 a month. What do I get in return? Standing-room only, infrequent routes, and tardiness. Hellllooo biking to work!
I used to walk to work. Now that our offices have moved I have to take the bus (2 of them, actually) and pay $90 a month. What do I get in return? Standing-room only, infrequent routes, and tardiness. Hellllooo biking to work!
14
Defensive in Seattle @4: On any study worth its salt, you would show up as a 10% auto commute, a 50% foot commuter, and a 40% public transit commuter.
@5: Most of the D.C. area was DEFINITELY developed for automobiles. And the subway only began operations in 1976. That city's extraordinarily high public-transit usage should be taken as evidence that any city can change their mobility habits with the right investment.
@5: Most of the D.C. area was DEFINITELY developed for automobiles. And the subway only began operations in 1976. That city's extraordinarily high public-transit usage should be taken as evidence that any city can change their mobility habits with the right investment.
15
I would bus to work if it took maybe twice as long as it does to drive. It takes 3-4 times as long because I have to go east-west within the city, meaning going all the way into downtown and then back out, turning a 5 mile trip into a 15 mile trip.
17
This graph is irrelevant. What are the average commuter times. And hey city folk. No one cares about you when they make transit policy. Transit policy is about getting workers(who almost always live outside the city, because if you have the money why would you live like a bunch of sardines stacked on one another) into the city. If you are some crybaby hipster city dweller, you are already where people want you to be. Seattle is not a real city. No matter how much tech stuff or mass transit options we steal from other cities, we will never be a liberal NY with miles of light rail and subways to take little hipster fixies riding capital hill residents all over the city eating fine foreign foods believing themselves to be o so cultured in the process. Good grief.
18
It's worth noting that while we have slightly higher transit usage than Los Angeles (it would probably be the reverse if you isolated the 7 or 8 swaths of L.A. that have fantastic transit), both L.A. and Houston are killing us in carpool usage. Could it be because those cities have EFFECTIVE HOV lanes, while ours on I-5 are often crammed up worse than the regular lanes?
19
In DC a considerable number of the people are going to the same place to work. It's a bit concentrated.
20
Sweet infographics! Yeah right.
Simple question (there are about 50 one could ask, but here's only one): Is this graph saying the number who drive themselves to work in Houston is about double that of San Francisco, or about four times as much?
Simple question (there are about 50 one could ask, but here's only one): Is this graph saying the number who drive themselves to work in Houston is about double that of San Francisco, or about four times as much?
21
@!7 it's precisely the "who gives a shit about improving the city" attitude you're copping that is keeping us from becoming what the rest of the country would call a "real city". If the suburbanites and transplants would get over their holier than thou quaintness rocks bullshit, we could see growth and progress instead of legal fights and Eyman worship.
22
@14, thanks for the correction on when DC's subway line was built. I think the density of that city, as well as the concentration of where people work noted by mugwumpt made and their location in the east near other city's with subways made the decision more palatable to the people of that region.
23
LA/OC/Riverside is a polycentric community unlike NY and DC. Mass Transit is more difficult to pull off as effectively.
24
@17, so we see that you have some kind of prejudice against the city guiding your beliefs on this issue.
Now, what is your solution. We cannot continue to sprawl out further into rural and forested areas, and bus's as they currently operate cannot sustain us alone in our public transportation needs.
I think you comments actually reinforce what I wrote that our city leadership needs to demand more of the suburban communities. They are the ones creating gridlock in our transit development, just as they do on the roads.
We had density in the city before it was "hip". It is time for the suburban communities to take up more of the load.
Now, what is your solution. We cannot continue to sprawl out further into rural and forested areas, and bus's as they currently operate cannot sustain us alone in our public transportation needs.
I think you comments actually reinforce what I wrote that our city leadership needs to demand more of the suburban communities. They are the ones creating gridlock in our transit development, just as they do on the roads.
We had density in the city before it was "hip". It is time for the suburban communities to take up more of the load.
25
you need to compare pop. density of DC SF NY ***BEFORE*** they built their train systems not after -- train systems cause density.
DC had no industry, no pre auto era trains to speak of, it was postwar suburbs, really and some burbs and some in city built along 1920s streetcar lines.
And they have no towers in DC, period. Not allowed. Can't be higher than the capitol building, in fact.
Everyone said it's not dense enough.
They built the metro in 25 years and boom, they get the ridership and the additional density, they get the transit market share, they got like over one million rides a day, they got new life in formerly depressed neighborhoods in the city, they got the vibrant minidowntowns with density and housing and bars and resraurants and offices at the stops like Bethesda MD or Ballston VA which pre subway were boring stip malls lining boring suburban low density avenues.
Trains make density. DC proves it. Doesn't matter if you dont' have density to start with. Why? traffic is so fucked up trains that are out of traffic are more convenient that battling traffic, and growth is fastest near subway stops. This is if your train system covers the area and if it's not going in the streets and if it doesn't go slow and have limited volume because you put it in the street for a few miles.
If you're green you build real transit. We're not doing that quite yet, so we should stop thinking and saying we're green.
Really, four billion for a two mile highway underground and nine billion for a new floating bridge with not even a transit lane is hardly green.
BTW the zoning in all those cities is also far more favorable to density than our super suburban zoning limitations here.
DC had no industry, no pre auto era trains to speak of, it was postwar suburbs, really and some burbs and some in city built along 1920s streetcar lines.
And they have no towers in DC, period. Not allowed. Can't be higher than the capitol building, in fact.
Everyone said it's not dense enough.
They built the metro in 25 years and boom, they get the ridership and the additional density, they get the transit market share, they got like over one million rides a day, they got new life in formerly depressed neighborhoods in the city, they got the vibrant minidowntowns with density and housing and bars and resraurants and offices at the stops like Bethesda MD or Ballston VA which pre subway were boring stip malls lining boring suburban low density avenues.
Trains make density. DC proves it. Doesn't matter if you dont' have density to start with. Why? traffic is so fucked up trains that are out of traffic are more convenient that battling traffic, and growth is fastest near subway stops. This is if your train system covers the area and if it's not going in the streets and if it doesn't go slow and have limited volume because you put it in the street for a few miles.
If you're green you build real transit. We're not doing that quite yet, so we should stop thinking and saying we're green.
Really, four billion for a two mile highway underground and nine billion for a new floating bridge with not even a transit lane is hardly green.
BTW the zoning in all those cities is also far more favorable to density than our super suburban zoning limitations here.
26
@23, The greater LA region is also geographically larger than the NYC metro area. While that is a retion that needs to be tied together better, nonstop transit service from Riverside or OC would be impractical.
27
@25, do you have any statistics that show how long it took DC's transit system to create that density? It would be a useful stat to use against the "no one rides it" crowd.
28
I would be both orange and light blue on this chart, were I ever to actually venture into the city of Seattle, and not just up and down the Eastside 405 corridor. Who are the people supposedly traveling into the city of Seattle to work? What jobs would be in Seattle, that would draw people from Eastside suburbs to commute to them, instead of the other way around?
29
"DC...I think the density of that city [it wasn't dense!] as well as the concentration of where people work [today, they work in Ballston in the burbs in Bethesda around the beltway as well as downtown, definitely not concentrated downtown] noted by mugwumpt made and their location in the east near other city's with subways made the decision more palatable to the people of that region."
Yes, iow if you actually build it it works, then you build more density and more cityness, and if you don't build it, then people won't ride it and remain a low density sprawl zone.
That's kind of the whole point.
Yes, iow if you actually build it it works, then you build more density and more cityness, and if you don't build it, then people won't ride it and remain a low density sprawl zone.
That's kind of the whole point.
30
DC system was built in 25 years, and just as important, they designed it first...so at the start you knew more or less where all the lines would be built. You knew they would all be built and they would go all over.
Here, 25 years from 1997 would be....2022. but i don't think we have planned to complete 8 or 9 lines by 2022.
Maybe, about 3.
Seriously go look at before and after pix of Ballston and Bethesda.....
Here, 25 years from 1997 would be....2022. but i don't think we have planned to complete 8 or 9 lines by 2022.
Maybe, about 3.
Seriously go look at before and after pix of Ballston and Bethesda.....
31
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
SUBWAY SUBWAY SUBWAY
32
@26 Agreed. A better system in each county and a way to tie them together. I tried to take transit from central OC to the Staples Center in LA. It would have cost $22.00 and take 2:45 hours. Ridiculous. I said f-ck that and drove.
34
@30, that is because we are planning our transit system one line at a time, instead of planning the whole thing before we start. I think this is out of politicians fear of the "it costs too much and no one will ride it" crowd.
It costs too much because we have put it off for too long.
In 1972 we voted yes to the build the Kingdome (since demolished and replaced) and no to expand the monorail. Sheesh, what would our city be like if we had voted yes on any kind of grade separated mass transit system?
It costs too much because we have put it off for too long.
In 1972 we voted yes to the build the Kingdome (since demolished and replaced) and no to expand the monorail. Sheesh, what would our city be like if we had voted yes on any kind of grade separated mass transit system?
35
a more accurate statistical measure would include all the people in Connecticut and other locations who take trains and ferry boats to work as well. do we have backdata on that?
38
@3 i'm not sure it's even that "great" busing from the suburbs. you still have to drive to the park and ride, then be lucky enough to have your bus go near where you work. busing in the suburbs is even worse.
39
Gee, the defensiveness of the comments here is embarrassing. The title of the graphic is not, "Relative enlightenment and environmental awareness of residents of urban areas based on how they commute to work."
Facts are facts. You can rehash all the reasons if you want, but don't shoot the messenger.
Facts are facts. You can rehash all the reasons if you want, but don't shoot the messenger.
40
Did you know that having a house in Everett or Tacoma used to mean a 15 minute drive to downtown Seattle back in the 80s?
Mind you, now it's more like an hour.
And Issaquah used to be 20 minutes away from Ballard.
Mind you, now it's more like an hour.
And Issaquah used to be 20 minutes away from Ballard.
41
@ 38 - Oh, I agree. The planners of Metro back-in-the-day obviously gave no thought to the fact that people will want to use the bus on the weekends or at night, and they might want to go somewhere else besides downtown (shock!). It was clearly set up to be a commuter-funnel system, and little more than that.
It's like the original Metro planners assumed that on the weekends people would just hop in their cars and zip around wherever they wanted to go... Which, now that I look at that all typed out, is probably exactly what was going on back then. Now we've got something like 16x the amount of population (if you include the greater Seattle area) with a whole bunch of non-car-owning folk.
It's a different world, but we've still got Ozzie and Harriet's bus system.
:-/
It's like the original Metro planners assumed that on the weekends people would just hop in their cars and zip around wherever they wanted to go... Which, now that I look at that all typed out, is probably exactly what was going on back then. Now we've got something like 16x the amount of population (if you include the greater Seattle area) with a whole bunch of non-car-owning folk.
It's a different world, but we've still got Ozzie and Harriet's bus system.
:-/
43
Besides being loosely quantified, this graphic's findings are self-explanatory.
1. Everyone drives in Los Angeles. They don't have a ton of public transit. No one lives within walking distance to their places of work. This is not news to anyone.
2. New York has one of the most fully-developed and comprehensive metro-area transit networks on the planet (second only to Tokyo). Its major player is trains, both within (subway/light rail) and around the city (commuter rail). New York is extremely dense at the urban centers; driving is highly discouraged. Many people work a few blocks walk from their homes. Biking is growing in popularity, but safety is a continuing concern.
3. Houston, America's 4th largest city. It's in Texas, where they love to drive excessively large vehicles over great distances, both out of necessity (near-complete lack of public transit coupled with low suburban population density) and economic luxury (we built those roads; someone's gotta drive on 'em).
4/5. SF and DC are the middle-grounders on this one: Both have reliable transit systems of limited reach, decent population density outside of the urban centers, and middling road capacity. DC is a good biking city, when the weather is good; And, it's mostly flat. SF is not flat, but local culture promotes biking anyway.
Then...6: Seattle. The confused cousin of the American metropolis. Roads are crumbling (literally) and are jammed to capacity. The bus system is good when its not stuck in traffic (or snow); rail transit is only just now in its infancy. Geography is tough, but enough locals seem to be able to use foot and pedal power. Density is on the rise; the single-drivers should drop in response over the next decade or so. Seattle is also the smallest metropolitan population by a fair margin (SF is next with about a million additional people, some 30% of the Seattle region; NYC, the largest region, still eats Seattle about 6 times over, though).
So...what have we learned? Very little, other than the fact that we can plan for population growth, but that it needs to happen before the people actually get here.
More...
1. Everyone drives in Los Angeles. They don't have a ton of public transit. No one lives within walking distance to their places of work. This is not news to anyone.
2. New York has one of the most fully-developed and comprehensive metro-area transit networks on the planet (second only to Tokyo). Its major player is trains, both within (subway/light rail) and around the city (commuter rail). New York is extremely dense at the urban centers; driving is highly discouraged. Many people work a few blocks walk from their homes. Biking is growing in popularity, but safety is a continuing concern.
3. Houston, America's 4th largest city. It's in Texas, where they love to drive excessively large vehicles over great distances, both out of necessity (near-complete lack of public transit coupled with low suburban population density) and economic luxury (we built those roads; someone's gotta drive on 'em).
4/5. SF and DC are the middle-grounders on this one: Both have reliable transit systems of limited reach, decent population density outside of the urban centers, and middling road capacity. DC is a good biking city, when the weather is good; And, it's mostly flat. SF is not flat, but local culture promotes biking anyway.
Then...6: Seattle. The confused cousin of the American metropolis. Roads are crumbling (literally) and are jammed to capacity. The bus system is good when its not stuck in traffic (or snow); rail transit is only just now in its infancy. Geography is tough, but enough locals seem to be able to use foot and pedal power. Density is on the rise; the single-drivers should drop in response over the next decade or so. Seattle is also the smallest metropolitan population by a fair margin (SF is next with about a million additional people, some 30% of the Seattle region; NYC, the largest region, still eats Seattle about 6 times over, though).
So...what have we learned? Very little, other than the fact that we can plan for population growth, but that it needs to happen before the people actually get here.
44
@41: It's only once or twice a month that I find myself on a peak-direction express 15, 18, 17, or 28. It blows my mind every time -- for that extra rush-hour quarter, the travel-time drops by half!
On the other hand, I'm frequently headed in the counter-commute direction: I still pay that extra quarter, but the trip takes twice as long as normal (or 4 times as long as those expresses going the other way)!
This city is STILL full of car-owners who behave exactly as you describe -- express commute to work, zip around in the cars the rest of the time. And they LOVE to defend our transit system.
On the other hand, I'm frequently headed in the counter-commute direction: I still pay that extra quarter, but the trip takes twice as long as normal (or 4 times as long as those expresses going the other way)!
This city is STILL full of car-owners who behave exactly as you describe -- express commute to work, zip around in the cars the rest of the time. And they LOVE to defend our transit system.
46
@43: Did you by any chance notice that the light-blue line on the graph, L.A.'s transit-using percentage, is only SLIGHTLY smaller than Seattle's. And it's a huge city, so the real number of transit users blows ours out of the water!
To all others talking out of their ass about L.A.'s lack of public transit: I've spent a decent chunk of time down there, usually without a car. In much of the city -- especially the über-dense-by-Seattle-standards 10-mile corridor from Santa Monica to Downtown L.A. ("where the white folks are"), public transit is fabulous! Walk to any major boulevard, and a bus will show up in 5 minutes or less -- you'll probably have a local or an express option, in any direction, all day and most of the evening. Make it to Hollywood or Mid-Wilshire, and find yourself on one of the fastest subways in the western hemisphere, with connections to 3 more fully completed rail lines that will whisk you to the furthest reaches of that extremely large city, usually twice as fast as you can drive.
L.A. has been POURING money into their system over the last few years; each expansion initiative makes Metro's "TransitNow" initiative look like change they found in their needlessly large and grimy seat cushions. Equally important, there were no "sacred cows" in their system restructuring. It didn't matter of the transit operators had always done something a certain way. If it was inefficient and counterproductive (labyrinthine routings, long layovers at time-points), it was gone.
The result is, for the first time since the dismantling of the Red Cars, a usable transit system in Los Angeles. Metro -- and Seattle -- could be learning a TON from L.A. if only they/we would pay attention (and stop resorting to old tropes like "everyone drives everywhere in L.A., ha ha)".
More...
To all others talking out of their ass about L.A.'s lack of public transit: I've spent a decent chunk of time down there, usually without a car. In much of the city -- especially the über-dense-by-Seattle-standards 10-mile corridor from Santa Monica to Downtown L.A. ("where the white folks are"), public transit is fabulous! Walk to any major boulevard, and a bus will show up in 5 minutes or less -- you'll probably have a local or an express option, in any direction, all day and most of the evening. Make it to Hollywood or Mid-Wilshire, and find yourself on one of the fastest subways in the western hemisphere, with connections to 3 more fully completed rail lines that will whisk you to the furthest reaches of that extremely large city, usually twice as fast as you can drive.
L.A. has been POURING money into their system over the last few years; each expansion initiative makes Metro's "TransitNow" initiative look like change they found in their needlessly large and grimy seat cushions. Equally important, there were no "sacred cows" in their system restructuring. It didn't matter of the transit operators had always done something a certain way. If it was inefficient and counterproductive (labyrinthine routings, long layovers at time-points), it was gone.
The result is, for the first time since the dismantling of the Red Cars, a usable transit system in Los Angeles. Metro -- and Seattle -- could be learning a TON from L.A. if only they/we would pay attention (and stop resorting to old tropes like "everyone drives everywhere in L.A., ha ha)".
47
@45: Are you referring, by any chance, to the Yesler cable car trestle?
Otherwise, that's the first I've EVER heard of elevated streetcars in Seattle. And Google is not backing you up.
Otherwise, that's the first I've EVER heard of elevated streetcars in Seattle. And Google is not backing you up.
48
Will saw a picture of an elevated trestle once and assumed it was in downtown Seattle. He doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about. Likewise with his "15 minute" drive from Tacoma -- apparently he believes that the speed limit on I-5 was 120 MPH back then.
49
I bet if Seattle parking lots charged $450/month like Manhattan's do, there would be a more transit commuters.
51
@50: Not without sources, it doesn't. Whoever graphed it may have been using Canadian numbers compiled and reported differently (I find it pretty hard to believe that transit usage in Halifax and Winnipeg outpaces usage in Boston and Chicago).
52
@48 - Fnarf you fucking clueless moron.
Seriously, go to MOHAI.
Do you NOT recognize the buildings in the fucking background.
Now, get a clue and blow a fucking hole in your brain, so that it gets more air.
Seriously, go to MOHAI.
Do you NOT recognize the buildings in the fucking background.
Now, get a clue and blow a fucking hole in your brain, so that it gets more air.
54
I found the original post on this over at the Infrastructuralist. There were one or two others who recognized what a rape this graph is, but, like here, most people thought it was an example of quality work.
Which I find seriously depressing, but then the New York Times and Time magazine made heinous graphics like this for two decades or more before Edward Tufte built a career rubbishing their hackery.
The only good to come of this is that I learned that the phrase "Edward Tufte would be turning in his grave. If he were dead," predates me by two to four years. At least there is some enlightenment out there.
The US Census Survey has an awesome site where you can download XLS and CSV files of the raw data, including a coupe hundred more urban areas than just the 8 in this vile graph. Which adds up the data in several very misleading ways, besides the horrific presentation.
Which I find seriously depressing, but then the New York Times and Time magazine made heinous graphics like this for two decades or more before Edward Tufte built a career rubbishing their hackery.
The only good to come of this is that I learned that the phrase "Edward Tufte would be turning in his grave. If he were dead," predates me by two to four years. At least there is some enlightenment out there.
The US Census Survey has an awesome site where you can download XLS and CSV files of the raw data, including a coupe hundred more urban areas than just the 8 in this vile graph. Which adds up the data in several very misleading ways, besides the horrific presentation.
55
This is what it might look like with more straightforward visualization.
You can use the controls to reveal the other cities, sort so on.
You can use the controls to reveal the other cities, sort so on.
56
According to this over %50 drive to work. How do I know? The 'drive' portion goes down past the exact middle of the letter "E". FTW
58
Will @ 52: Perhaps you can understand my incredulity... You expect us to believe that Seattle had DOWNTOWN ELEVATED RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE, that ample photographic evidence exists to substantiate it, and that in years of debating Sound Transit/monorail/etc. plans it NOBODY ELSE EVER MENTIONED IT?
59
#17 is a good example of how to Godwin a thread on Slog. Callouts of hipsters, fixies, New York, Capitol Hill, "Seattle is not a real city," etc. Stick a pit bull in it and you're done.
60
@27, it's almost like there are too many "it depends" statements to answer that question. My Metro stop was among the first opened, but doesn't have the density of some other areas of the city served by lines that opened within the last 20 years, which may or may not have the density of other desirable areas not served by transit (Georgetown, for example).
SOOOOOOOO much goes into how neighborhoods develop in DC that it's hard to draw ties between transit and development in many areas. In some areas it seems likely that transit brought development and density, and in some areas crime and anti-development forces prevented density even though transit infrastructure existed. The city is also still evolving with development and increasing density coming to many formerly crime-ridden, underdeveloped neighborhoods, with a mix of transit access.
One thing is for sure, though, there's a clear trend for many to prefer the dense urban center. Neighborhoods in the city keep springing out of the rubble of urban blight, and property values by and large keep hanging on or even increasing. Meanwhile, I know people whose property values have plummeted (in some cases by as much as 2/3) and whose planned communities/large-scale condo developments out in BFE are emptying out. It's just really hard to tie it to Metro given the long history of the city before Metro and all the baggage included in that.
SOOOOOOOO much goes into how neighborhoods develop in DC that it's hard to draw ties between transit and development in many areas. In some areas it seems likely that transit brought development and density, and in some areas crime and anti-development forces prevented density even though transit infrastructure existed. The city is also still evolving with development and increasing density coming to many formerly crime-ridden, underdeveloped neighborhoods, with a mix of transit access.
One thing is for sure, though, there's a clear trend for many to prefer the dense urban center. Neighborhoods in the city keep springing out of the rubble of urban blight, and property values by and large keep hanging on or even increasing. Meanwhile, I know people whose property values have plummeted (in some cases by as much as 2/3) and whose planned communities/large-scale condo developments out in BFE are emptying out. It's just really hard to tie it to Metro given the long history of the city before Metro and all the baggage included in that.
63
LA is so far behind every other major city in the world, it's nuts.
I think we're doing pretty well given the relative lack of infrastructure aka rail.
I think we're doing pretty well given the relative lack of infrastructure aka rail.
64
Also, this is a breakdown of how Seattleites actually get around, as of the 2000 census:
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/cms/groups/pa…
http://www.seattle.gov/DPD/cms/groups/pa…
65
I am more convinced than ever that Fnarf and Will in Seattle are both sock puppets of the same mid 30's guy, in his mom's basement, playing his xbox in his tighty whitey's, trying to imagine what life at the top of the stairs must be like.
What other possible explanation is there?
What other possible explanation is there?
67
@61: Damn it, Will. Can you not see why you're so flabbergastingly unconvincing every time you make an assertion such as this? Let's look at your record, just on this post:
> "like when we had elevated trains and streetcars downtown?"
The extent of early 20th-century Seattle's streetcar network is widely known. You attempt to closely associate, by proximity, your specious claim that we had an "elevated train" (a term that usually denotes rapid transit, though apparently not when you use it) with common knowledge. And yet you offer no specifics.
> "1914-1918 lots of pics - check it out at MOHAI"
Specific dates! (But no supporting evidence for those dates!) Specific source! (Which would take anyone else half a day or more to even attempt to substantiate!) And yet still no specific location? 1918 is, of course, the year that the city of Seattle purchase the streetcar network from its private former operator. Why would the city tear down this hypothetical elevated infrastructure they had just paid so much to acquire, especially if it had existed so briefly?
> "Do you NOT recognize the buildings in the fucking background." [punctuation sic]
So you recall the photos well enough to visualize the buildings. Okay, then WHY WON'T YOU TELL US WHERE THE FUCK THIS MYTHICAL ELEVATED DOWNTOWN SEATTLE TRANSIT WAS??
(You know, to help me with my Google search that thus far says you're full of it.)
> "actually, they displayed copies of the photos at the SMP office."
But never mentioned it on their website? To the press? In their electioneering materials? Yeah, right!
> "like when we had elevated trains and streetcars downtown?"
The extent of early 20th-century Seattle's streetcar network is widely known. You attempt to closely associate, by proximity, your specious claim that we had an "elevated train" (a term that usually denotes rapid transit, though apparently not when you use it) with common knowledge. And yet you offer no specifics.
> "1914-1918 lots of pics - check it out at MOHAI"
Specific dates! (But no supporting evidence for those dates!) Specific source! (Which would take anyone else half a day or more to even attempt to substantiate!) And yet still no specific location? 1918 is, of course, the year that the city of Seattle purchase the streetcar network from its private former operator. Why would the city tear down this hypothetical elevated infrastructure they had just paid so much to acquire, especially if it had existed so briefly?
> "Do you NOT recognize the buildings in the fucking background." [punctuation sic]
So you recall the photos well enough to visualize the buildings. Okay, then WHY WON'T YOU TELL US WHERE THE FUCK THIS MYTHICAL ELEVATED DOWNTOWN SEATTLE TRANSIT WAS??
(You know, to help me with my Google search that thus far says you're full of it.)
> "actually, they displayed copies of the photos at the SMP office."
But never mentioned it on their website? To the press? In their electioneering materials? Yeah, right!
68
With the exception of the monorail, there has never been an elevated rapid transit system in Seattle. There have been bridges and other infrastructure designed to negotiate Seattle's hills and bodies of water. But there has never been an elevated system that was elevated for the specific purpose of allowing rapid transit to operate on a grid separated from the surface streets by trestles and bridges.
69
@68: Yeah, I keep imagining that Will saw a photo of streetcars on the 12th Ave S (José Rizal) bridge, or perhaps on the part of Yesler that passes over 4th and 5th.
I'll just never understand how that caricature of Seattle synaptic misfire's brain works! He makes an assertion that rings incredibly untrue... then spends the rest of the thread accusing everyone else of being thick-headed!
I'll just never understand how that caricature of Seattle synaptic misfire's brain works! He makes an assertion that rings incredibly untrue... then spends the rest of the thread accusing everyone else of being thick-headed!
70
Figured it out, for anybody who cares:
Will saw either...
A) A temporary dirt-hauling elevated railway (with mineshaft-like dirt bins) used during some portion of the Denny Regrade...
B) A temporary elevated-and-covered conveyor belt used during some portion of the Denny Regrade...
C) A temporary streetcar trestle used to maintain an existing streetcar line up a hill as the Denny Regrade progressed...
...and mistook it for PURPOSE-BUILT elevated rail transit. Which is an entirely different thing.
Will saw either...
A) A temporary dirt-hauling elevated railway (with mineshaft-like dirt bins) used during some portion of the Denny Regrade...
B) A temporary elevated-and-covered conveyor belt used during some portion of the Denny Regrade...
C) A temporary streetcar trestle used to maintain an existing streetcar line up a hill as the Denny Regrade progressed...
...and mistook it for PURPOSE-BUILT elevated rail transit. Which is an entirely different thing.
72
@71
Yeah, I've seen that one. There are also some from the Yesler regrade, where they dug out huge chunks of First Hill and kept the Yesler line on makeshift wooden trestles during the construction. If viewed by a stupid person -- or, you know, Will -- they could be mistaken for elevated trains.
Yeah, I've seen that one. There are also some from the Yesler regrade, where they dug out huge chunks of First Hill and kept the Yesler line on makeshift wooden trestles during the construction. If viewed by a stupid person -- or, you know, Will -- they could be mistaken for elevated trains.
73
@72: That photo actually is from the Yesler area. I found it after I wrote the Denny Regrade post.
74
I'm a journalist working on a public transportation story in August so I expect the above posters will have moved on to other topics by now but I must make two observation/comments:
1. You guys are so nice! New Yorkers are not so retrained. You also seemed to be confused, as though there are no public policy makers in Seattle to lay blame on. Wow, we know who the idiots are up in here.
2. Please don't confuse New Yorkers with "hipsters;" I mean sure we have trendsetting hipsters - some poor, some very well financed - but they live in pockets (Williamsburg, other Brooklyn neighborhoods), and in no way reflect New Yorkers as a person. A New Yorker is either a native, a new immigrant or a commuter (see White, E.B., "This is New York"). New Yorkers and others use the subway as part of their day, it is a natural extension of their day to day activities. The subway, with all its faults, works as it is supposed to: get you there and fast.
Cheers, you rainsoaked Starbucks-sipping tree-hugging hiking-boot wearing geeks!
1. You guys are so nice! New Yorkers are not so retrained. You also seemed to be confused, as though there are no public policy makers in Seattle to lay blame on. Wow, we know who the idiots are up in here.
2. Please don't confuse New Yorkers with "hipsters;" I mean sure we have trendsetting hipsters - some poor, some very well financed - but they live in pockets (Williamsburg, other Brooklyn neighborhoods), and in no way reflect New Yorkers as a person. A New Yorker is either a native, a new immigrant or a commuter (see White, E.B., "This is New York"). New Yorkers and others use the subway as part of their day, it is a natural extension of their day to day activities. The subway, with all its faults, works as it is supposed to: get you there and fast.
Cheers, you rainsoaked Starbucks-sipping tree-hugging hiking-boot wearing geeks!
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Republicans Put Gay Marriage on the Ballot at Their Own Risk by Goldy
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (74) RSS