Slog
News & ArtsFriday, October 8, 2010
City Seattle's Preferred Alternative Commute is by Public Transit
Posted by Cienna Madrid on Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 7:32 AM
- A powerful reason to invest in public transit.
Sightline's numbers are taken from 2009 "resident-based" census data, meaning that the numbers reflect where commuting residents live regardless of where they work (e.g. a Seattleite commuting to Redmond would be counted, a Redmond resident commuting to Seattle would not).
1
Good news, but unsurprising. Those who live in a city are less likely to drive. I'm more curious about the people who work in Seattle. How many of them drive to their place of business?
It seems that much of Seattle's road infrastructure is built to satisfy the needs of people who don't live in Seattle (i.e. the deep bore tunnel).
It seems that much of Seattle's road infrastructure is built to satisfy the needs of people who don't live in Seattle (i.e. the deep bore tunnel).
4
RonK hits the nail on the head.
Hope is not a strategy, and wishing cars would go away will not make it so. Add in the people who carpool and well over 60% of Seattle residents get to work by car.
Hope is not a strategy, and wishing cars would go away will not make it so. Add in the people who carpool and well over 60% of Seattle residents get to work by car.
5
Only in the Stranger could a study that says more than 50 percent of people commute alone in a car get the headline, "Seattle's Preferred Commute is by Public Transit."
That's journalism, folks.
That's journalism, folks.
8
Mr. X and bigyaz pull the classic "miss the point" the autonistas always pull: trends.
At the end of the 90s, SOV mode share was over 60%, now it's barely over 50%. At the end of the 90s, bikes held less than 2%, transit less than 15%. This idea of an autopocalypse never materialized as we invested more and more in transit and far less in building new roads and rebuilding old roads with a heavy slant toward cars.
It would seem that in the sense of road capacity we're actually doing better than we thought.
That's the funny thing that happens when you release pent up demand for transportation alternatives.
At the end of the 90s, SOV mode share was over 60%, now it's barely over 50%. At the end of the 90s, bikes held less than 2%, transit less than 15%. This idea of an autopocalypse never materialized as we invested more and more in transit and far less in building new roads and rebuilding old roads with a heavy slant toward cars.
It would seem that in the sense of road capacity we're actually doing better than we thought.
That's the funny thing that happens when you release pent up demand for transportation alternatives.
9
In 1990, bicycle mode share was 3%, and it hasn't budged.
In 1990, transit mode share was 18%, and it's nudged up to 19.5%
In 1990, SOV mode share was 59%, and now it's about 53%. Did you know that the City Comprehensive Plan called for SOV mode share to be 35% in 2010?
How's that working out for you?
In 1990, transit mode share was 18%, and it's nudged up to 19.5%
In 1990, SOV mode share was 59%, and now it's about 53%. Did you know that the City Comprehensive Plan called for SOV mode share to be 35% in 2010?
How's that working out for you?
11
@9 our population is a lot bigger than it was in 1990.
That's like asking a patient "other than the fact you're now 6 foot tall and weigh 250 pounds, you haven't changed a bit from your last visit at the age of 10".
That's like asking a patient "other than the fact you're now 6 foot tall and weigh 250 pounds, you haven't changed a bit from your last visit at the age of 10".
13
Sorry, Cienna.
A transit system that fails to provide an an attractive commute option for 80.5% of city-proper residents is a total failure.
Meanwhile, 91% of residents of the Seattle proper won't even consider setting foot on Metro outside of their commutes, except for Bumbershoot or the occasional sporting event (and even then just maybe).
It will never cease to amaze me how a vocal minority of Seattleites, acting on well-intentioned but exceedingly misplaced civic pride, insist on making excuses for (or skewing statistics to favor) the Metro status quo.
The Metro status quo is shite.
A transit system that fails to provide an an attractive commute option for 80.5% of city-proper residents is a total failure.
Meanwhile, 91% of residents of the Seattle proper won't even consider setting foot on Metro outside of their commutes, except for Bumbershoot or the occasional sporting event (and even then just maybe).
It will never cease to amaze me how a vocal minority of Seattleites, acting on well-intentioned but exceedingly misplaced civic pride, insist on making excuses for (or skewing statistics to favor) the Metro status quo.
The Metro status quo is shite.
14
@9: So a shift away from SOV, regardless of goals, is still some kind of victory for you? Oh, okay.
With populations growing rapidly, what's the actual numerical shift, Mr. X? Is it dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
Gosh, people are so wedded to the number one polluter in this region. It's faaaaaaabulous.
And how's that car culture workin' out?
With populations growing rapidly, what's the actual numerical shift, Mr. X? Is it dozens? Hundreds? Thousands?
Gosh, people are so wedded to the number one polluter in this region. It's faaaaaaabulous.
And how's that car culture workin' out?
15
Moving away from SOV reliance is a fine thing, but accepting a greater share of the region's growth predicated on the demonstrably false assumption that more trips will be shifted to other modes than actually are is not.
Believe it or not, under the GMA, cities aren't allowed to created gridlock (or add growth that increases it) without the necessary infrastructure to support it any more than the suburbs are.
And what are you autophobes going to do when non-polluting cars become the norm? What new rationale will you use to try and dictate other people's behavior?
Believe it or not, under the GMA, cities aren't allowed to created gridlock (or add growth that increases it) without the necessary infrastructure to support it any more than the suburbs are.
And what are you autophobes going to do when non-polluting cars become the norm? What new rationale will you use to try and dictate other people's behavior?
17
@14, 53% of our population now is more than 59% of our population in 1990. So the "actual numerical shift" is negative. More people drive today.
53% of 617,334 (2009 estimate) = 327,187. 59% of 516,259 (1990 census) = 304,593.
Now, consider that REGIONAL growth has mostly taken place outside of the city, where transit options are fewer and car driving is more prevalent, and the story gets worse.
@12, Will doesn't understand what percentages are. This isn't really a surprise.
53% of 617,334 (2009 estimate) = 327,187. 59% of 516,259 (1990 census) = 304,593.
Now, consider that REGIONAL growth has mostly taken place outside of the city, where transit options are fewer and car driving is more prevalent, and the story gets worse.
@12, Will doesn't understand what percentages are. This isn't really a surprise.
18
@17 no, you're not censoring your data for age.
You seem to fall into the logical fallacy of not realizing that the age cohort for the vast majority of citizens has shifted higher.
Just like Seattle Public Schools forgot that a recession means more parents will stop sending their middle school kids to private school when they get to high school age and they can't afford to pay for gas for their cars.
Next, I'll teach you why deep bore tunnels are REALLY REALLY STUPID ideas if you're trying to not INCREASE global warming emissions and why the sun rises in the east.
You seem to fall into the logical fallacy of not realizing that the age cohort for the vast majority of citizens has shifted higher.
Just like Seattle Public Schools forgot that a recession means more parents will stop sending their middle school kids to private school when they get to high school age and they can't afford to pay for gas for their cars.
Next, I'll teach you why deep bore tunnels are REALLY REALLY STUPID ideas if you're trying to not INCREASE global warming emissions and why the sun rises in the east.
19
(driving characteristics shift with opportunity and age cohorts, classic auto studies from Detroit ...)
20
Four comments from Will so far, and still not a glimmer of sense. Add "censor" to the list of words Will doesn't know what to do with".
Driving doesn't cause poverty; it's the other way around. Poor people have been priced out of Seattle proper, and are moving further and further away and thus have to drive longer and longer distances to get to work (or anywhere else). Even middle-class people can't afford to buy houses in Seattle; they end up in places like Orting and Mill Creek and south Puyallup and Marysville. And their jobs are in places like Everett and Auburn and places that don't even have names yet.
We already are LA; we're just waiting for the infill.
The saddest number there is bicycles, 3%. Such a major priority for the city, so little results. Ah, well. You can't change human nature.
Driving doesn't cause poverty; it's the other way around. Poor people have been priced out of Seattle proper, and are moving further and further away and thus have to drive longer and longer distances to get to work (or anywhere else). Even middle-class people can't afford to buy houses in Seattle; they end up in places like Orting and Mill Creek and south Puyallup and Marysville. And their jobs are in places like Everett and Auburn and places that don't even have names yet.
We already are LA; we're just waiting for the infill.
The saddest number there is bicycles, 3%. Such a major priority for the city, so little results. Ah, well. You can't change human nature.
21
@8: You make the classic mistake of promulgating an us-vs.-them mentality and assigning motive based on your own biases.
My point was simply that the Stranger was grossly misrepresenting the facts of the story with its headline (which has since been changed), seemingly to fit its ideological bent.
(By the way, I've commuted by bus for almost 20 years. But I still own a car and make no apologies for it.)
My point was simply that the Stranger was grossly misrepresenting the facts of the story with its headline (which has since been changed), seemingly to fit its ideological bent.
(By the way, I've commuted by bus for almost 20 years. But I still own a car and make no apologies for it.)
24
@15 "And what are you autophobes going to do when non-polluting cars become the norm? What new rationale will you use to try and dictate other people's behavior?"
I presume you're referring to electric cars, but those are pretty far from non-polluting. First off, hauling around a few tons of steel per person is always going to require a lot of energy, some of which will ultimately come from heavily polluting sources.
Secondly, those engines will still likely be lubricated with motor oil that runs off into the sound.
Thirdly, car-dependence means parking. Everywhere. And lots of it. That isn't environmentally sound whether the cars run on gasoline or magic pixie dust.
I presume you're referring to electric cars, but those are pretty far from non-polluting. First off, hauling around a few tons of steel per person is always going to require a lot of energy, some of which will ultimately come from heavily polluting sources.
Secondly, those engines will still likely be lubricated with motor oil that runs off into the sound.
Thirdly, car-dependence means parking. Everywhere. And lots of it. That isn't environmentally sound whether the cars run on gasoline or magic pixie dust.
25
Your fudging of the numbers is fucking pathetic. You're not McGinn, by any chance?
At the end of the 90s, SOV mode share was over 60%, now it's barely over 50%.
Your fudging of the numbers is fucking pathetic. You're not McGinn, by any chance?
26
If present trends continue, of course, we'll all live in our cars and have no jobs to commute to.
Except, of course, the 3% who spend nights huddled under their bicycles.
Except, of course, the 3% who spend nights huddled under their bicycles.
27
Fnarf @20,
"The saddest number there is bicycles, 3%. Such a major priority for the city, so little results. Ah, well. You can't change human nature. "
Major priority? Really? It's gotten a lot of press, but really how much of the city's transportation budget has been spent on cyclists? How about the county's? The state's? The federal government's? They all spend money on infrastructure here and bikes aren't even at the level of a rounding error in that equation. I'd guess it's a heck of a lot less than 3%..
Moving N/S on a bike in the Rainier Valley is still playing roulette with your life. It is indeed "human nature" to try not to die. That's not to say we can ever reach Copenhagen levels given our land use and topology, but we really haven't even tried yet.
"The saddest number there is bicycles, 3%. Such a major priority for the city, so little results. Ah, well. You can't change human nature. "
Major priority? Really? It's gotten a lot of press, but really how much of the city's transportation budget has been spent on cyclists? How about the county's? The state's? The federal government's? They all spend money on infrastructure here and bikes aren't even at the level of a rounding error in that equation. I'd guess it's a heck of a lot less than 3%..
Moving N/S on a bike in the Rainier Valley is still playing roulette with your life. It is indeed "human nature" to try not to die. That's not to say we can ever reach Copenhagen levels given our land use and topology, but we really haven't even tried yet.
28
@23, Electric cars are silent (which is going to be a problem for visually impaired pedestrians)
@24, Electric cars do not use motor oil (though I suppose they still need axle grease and whatnot)
@27, Bikes have been a major city planning priority for 20+ years, and their mode share hasn't risen a bit. Unless you start building bike funiculars (or leveling hills Denny Regrade-style) and global warming significantly reduces the 200+ days per year that there is rain in Seattle, bicycles will NEVER be more than an outlier in terms of their share of commute trips.
Wish in one hand, you-know-what in the other....
@24, Electric cars do not use motor oil (though I suppose they still need axle grease and whatnot)
@27, Bikes have been a major city planning priority for 20+ years, and their mode share hasn't risen a bit. Unless you start building bike funiculars (or leveling hills Denny Regrade-style) and global warming significantly reduces the 200+ days per year that there is rain in Seattle, bicycles will NEVER be more than an outlier in terms of their share of commute trips.
Wish in one hand, you-know-what in the other....
29
@28. Back it up! Has "major city planning priority" been anything other than lip service and an occasional bone? Where's the money?
There's also more to bikes than riding downtown from Lake City. There are also huge last-mile problems for transit due to low-density housing and pedestrian-hostile design. Bikes can play a key role in connecting people to high-capacity transit. In fact, given the hills you refer to it's probably the main role for a hypothetical mass of bike users.
As for weather, good ol' Wikipedia has Copenhagen in the winter with lower temperatures, about as many winter days of rain (though less volume), and LESS DAYLIGHT than Seattle. So much for that theory.
There's also more to bikes than riding downtown from Lake City. There are also huge last-mile problems for transit due to low-density housing and pedestrian-hostile design. Bikes can play a key role in connecting people to high-capacity transit. In fact, given the hills you refer to it's probably the main role for a hypothetical mass of bike users.
As for weather, good ol' Wikipedia has Copenhagen in the winter with lower temperatures, about as many winter days of rain (though less volume), and LESS DAYLIGHT than Seattle. So much for that theory.
30
Copenhagen is just DIFFERENT than Seattle. It's incredibly dense. Seattle just isn't laid out that way. We also don't have the kind of communitarian attitude towards central planning that Copenhagen has. Not that they're commies, but you can't even get Seattleites to agree on one left turn lane, let alone a major regional train plan. Not that Sound Transit is bad, but it's really, really difficult to move it forward. And Seattle is not the entire region; it's about a fourth of it. We're not Copenhagen. We're more like Phoenix, sad to say.
Don't get me wrong; I'm pro-transit and pro-bike. I want more of those things. I support more bike lanes. But reality intrudes.
You mention our low-density housing. That's obviously a huge defining characteristic of our region, even in all but a handful of even inner-city neighborhoods. Transit will never work for lots of people who will never live within practical distance of it, or need to get to places that are not near transit. Cities are webs of nodes, and our nodes are scattered across hundreds of square miles.
You can densify, but the conditions that make transit work for everyone don't necessarily follow. Here's an example: one of the things that used to make dense living possible was an incredible density of small corner stores. For one thing, people's shopping needs were much simpler then; nobody needed fresh arugula or canned huitlacoche or acai berry pancake mix, so they could get by with a good portion of their shopping from corner stores. Even today, we could use them for things like running out of milk or whatever. But the stores are gone. In my neighborhood, which is a hundred years old, I can point you to a DOZEN former corner stores that are now houses or art galleries or whatever. It's not economically viable; you can't sustain a middle-class Seattle lifestyle on a corner store. Sure, there's a FEW, but they're always struggling. You need immigrants to run stores like that, but immigrants are largely priced out of Seattle. Without those stores, you need to go to the supermarket for EVERYTHING, and that means driving.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. The people in my immediate neighborhood, say a block in every direction from my house, need to travel to dozens and dozens of different far-off locations every day. We don't all work downtown. We don't all work anywhere near a bus that transfers downtown. We don't all work in the same place we worked five years ago.
These are just some of the centrifugal forces at work here. Some of these forces are controllable -- building freeways -- but some are not. And even the ones that are -- building freeways -- are regional problems that are never allowed to be managed regionally. It's always cities or counties or states doing their own thing without asking anybody. Like the who-blinks-first contest over the big booby prize under downtown, the goddamn tunnel.
More...
Don't get me wrong; I'm pro-transit and pro-bike. I want more of those things. I support more bike lanes. But reality intrudes.
You mention our low-density housing. That's obviously a huge defining characteristic of our region, even in all but a handful of even inner-city neighborhoods. Transit will never work for lots of people who will never live within practical distance of it, or need to get to places that are not near transit. Cities are webs of nodes, and our nodes are scattered across hundreds of square miles.
You can densify, but the conditions that make transit work for everyone don't necessarily follow. Here's an example: one of the things that used to make dense living possible was an incredible density of small corner stores. For one thing, people's shopping needs were much simpler then; nobody needed fresh arugula or canned huitlacoche or acai berry pancake mix, so they could get by with a good portion of their shopping from corner stores. Even today, we could use them for things like running out of milk or whatever. But the stores are gone. In my neighborhood, which is a hundred years old, I can point you to a DOZEN former corner stores that are now houses or art galleries or whatever. It's not economically viable; you can't sustain a middle-class Seattle lifestyle on a corner store. Sure, there's a FEW, but they're always struggling. You need immigrants to run stores like that, but immigrants are largely priced out of Seattle. Without those stores, you need to go to the supermarket for EVERYTHING, and that means driving.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. The people in my immediate neighborhood, say a block in every direction from my house, need to travel to dozens and dozens of different far-off locations every day. We don't all work downtown. We don't all work anywhere near a bus that transfers downtown. We don't all work in the same place we worked five years ago.
These are just some of the centrifugal forces at work here. Some of these forces are controllable -- building freeways -- but some are not. And even the ones that are -- building freeways -- are regional problems that are never allowed to be managed regionally. It's always cities or counties or states doing their own thing without asking anybody. Like the who-blinks-first contest over the big booby prize under downtown, the goddamn tunnel.
31
Copenhagen = 34 square miles and flat
Seattle = 142 square miles and very hilly.
Sort of an important Wikidetail to omit, really...
Seattle = 142 square miles and very hilly.
Sort of an important Wikidetail to omit, really...
33
ser @32: Isn't the real story here that Bellevue beat out Portland? Seriously? That's amazing to me.
Yeah, seriously. What gives there? Can anyone explain how Bellevue has a half-decent transit share?
My guess is that Bellevue makes a natural transit hub, being right between Seattle and Microsoft. But what do I know?
To me, this is all the more argument for Sound Transit to treat Bellevue like the major urban center that it is when it comes to building eastside light rail. That means:
1. Do a tunnel through downtown.
2. No silly B7 detour.
Yeah, seriously. What gives there? Can anyone explain how Bellevue has a half-decent transit share?
My guess is that Bellevue makes a natural transit hub, being right between Seattle and Microsoft. But what do I know?
To me, this is all the more argument for Sound Transit to treat Bellevue like the major urban center that it is when it comes to building eastside light rail. That means:
1. Do a tunnel through downtown.
2. No silly B7 detour.
34
I think it's because it's a relative pain in the ass to get to Bellevue by car. 520 is almost always backed up, 405 is a mess. In other words, it's a direct consequence of the transit lane on 520.
Portland has a lot of the same problems we do -- the MAX is great, but 90% of the people there don't live on it. And their downtown is even less significant (though pleasanter) than ours. And since it's calling "Portland" and "Seattle" just the city limits, they're not folding in our much more extensive network of endless suburb. I'll bet the REGIONAL difference is much smaller. Just a theory.
Surprising that they're not just behind us, but WAY behind us, though.
They should be kicking our ass on bikes though. Place is mostly flat as hell.
Portland has a lot of the same problems we do -- the MAX is great, but 90% of the people there don't live on it. And their downtown is even less significant (though pleasanter) than ours. And since it's calling "Portland" and "Seattle" just the city limits, they're not folding in our much more extensive network of endless suburb. I'll bet the REGIONAL difference is much smaller. Just a theory.
Surprising that they're not just behind us, but WAY behind us, though.
They should be kicking our ass on bikes though. Place is mostly flat as hell.
35
Fnarf @30 regarding the loss of corner stores: Without those stores, you need to go to the supermarket for EVERYTHING, and that means driving.
Fnarf, for someone who claims to know everything, how can you state something so patently untrue as to equate going to the supermarket in Seattle (even for the sorts of things you'd go to a corner store for) with driving?
I live within walking distance of two supermarkets. There are a number of urban villages in Seattle that have supermarkets integrated into a pedestrian-oriented landscape. Seattle is trying to funnel growth and development into these urban villages, so the number of Seattleites who can reasonably walk to the grocery store for non-huge shopping trips is only going to grow.
Now, I realize you're implying a distinction between people who live in urban villages and people who live in single-family tracts--and implying that the only real Seattleites are the ones who live in single-family homes--but even if you discount all the Seattleites who don't live your standard lifestyle, not all Seattleites who do live in single-family homes are out of walking distance of their neighborhood cores.
Dude, this is the sort of moronic, ill-thought-out comment that you'd flog Will in Seattle for. If that's how you want to waste your precious time, fine. But at least most of Will's comments are harmless. When you spout silly lies to support this hopeless, fatalistic argument about Seattle and auto dependency, those lies do harm, however small and intangible that harm is. And I have no choice but to waste my own precious time to call you out on it.
Fnarf, for someone who claims to know everything, how can you state something so patently untrue as to equate going to the supermarket in Seattle (even for the sorts of things you'd go to a corner store for) with driving?
I live within walking distance of two supermarkets. There are a number of urban villages in Seattle that have supermarkets integrated into a pedestrian-oriented landscape. Seattle is trying to funnel growth and development into these urban villages, so the number of Seattleites who can reasonably walk to the grocery store for non-huge shopping trips is only going to grow.
Now, I realize you're implying a distinction between people who live in urban villages and people who live in single-family tracts--and implying that the only real Seattleites are the ones who live in single-family homes--but even if you discount all the Seattleites who don't live your standard lifestyle, not all Seattleites who do live in single-family homes are out of walking distance of their neighborhood cores.
Dude, this is the sort of moronic, ill-thought-out comment that you'd flog Will in Seattle for. If that's how you want to waste your precious time, fine. But at least most of Will's comments are harmless. When you spout silly lies to support this hopeless, fatalistic argument about Seattle and auto dependency, those lies do harm, however small and intangible that harm is. And I have no choice but to waste my own precious time to call you out on it.
36
@35, so I left off "for most people". I'm sorry. It's true, though; for most people, going to the supermarket means driving.
The number of people who live in these new-built "integrated villages" is trivial.
Where I live, near the zoo, there's no supermarket within walking distance. There's Ken's, and PCC, which are both at the outer limits of walking distance for me, though they aren't, realistically -- I would never bother walking there -- but they are both extremely limited markets. I want to go to either Ballard Market or Greenwood Market, neither of which is close enough to walk to.
Even some of Seattle's densest neighborhoods have this grocery problem. Where's the market for First Hill? Belltown? Not everyone wants to (or can afford to) shop at Whole Foods.
Very few regional residents live anywhere near as close to their market of choice as I do. Yes, you're right, some people do. But most do not.
Ditto transit.
Seattle was DESIGNED for the auto, and while people have figured out how to create cities that are not dependent on the auto, they have NOT figured out how to convert auto-dependent cities into non-auto-dependent ones. You can crank up the density, but many of those people those people will still have to drive to the store. And to work.
What I'm getting at is that density alone is not the answer. It's PART of the answer, and should be encouraged. But one thing Seattle's planners are explicitly NOT INTERESTED IN is increasing the density of retail, which makes dense neighborhoods viable. Oh, sure, there's lip service paid; the new multiuse buildings have to have some retail on the ground floor, pasted over the parking like a decal, but these retail spaces are usually somewhere between "awkward" and "ridiculous" on the usability scale, which is one reason why they're so attractive to nail salons and cell phone stores. No one ever pays any attention to the kind of retail development that REALLY makes a neighborhood viable, or how to encourage that. The city's solution is to hang banners from the light poles. Whoopie.
So you end up with traditional retail centers being chipped away and gradually destroyed by the very processes that are theoretically supposed to help them, while nearby new development succeeds in densification but utterly fails at actually providing the amenities people need. You end up with nail salons and no grocery store.
Get off Capitol Hill and see what's going on in the rest of the region. It's certainly not a spectacular increase in viable walkable neighborhoods. All those people still need cars.
More...
The number of people who live in these new-built "integrated villages" is trivial.
Where I live, near the zoo, there's no supermarket within walking distance. There's Ken's, and PCC, which are both at the outer limits of walking distance for me, though they aren't, realistically -- I would never bother walking there -- but they are both extremely limited markets. I want to go to either Ballard Market or Greenwood Market, neither of which is close enough to walk to.
Even some of Seattle's densest neighborhoods have this grocery problem. Where's the market for First Hill? Belltown? Not everyone wants to (or can afford to) shop at Whole Foods.
Very few regional residents live anywhere near as close to their market of choice as I do. Yes, you're right, some people do. But most do not.
Ditto transit.
Seattle was DESIGNED for the auto, and while people have figured out how to create cities that are not dependent on the auto, they have NOT figured out how to convert auto-dependent cities into non-auto-dependent ones. You can crank up the density, but many of those people those people will still have to drive to the store. And to work.
What I'm getting at is that density alone is not the answer. It's PART of the answer, and should be encouraged. But one thing Seattle's planners are explicitly NOT INTERESTED IN is increasing the density of retail, which makes dense neighborhoods viable. Oh, sure, there's lip service paid; the new multiuse buildings have to have some retail on the ground floor, pasted over the parking like a decal, but these retail spaces are usually somewhere between "awkward" and "ridiculous" on the usability scale, which is one reason why they're so attractive to nail salons and cell phone stores. No one ever pays any attention to the kind of retail development that REALLY makes a neighborhood viable, or how to encourage that. The city's solution is to hang banners from the light poles. Whoopie.
So you end up with traditional retail centers being chipped away and gradually destroyed by the very processes that are theoretically supposed to help them, while nearby new development succeeds in densification but utterly fails at actually providing the amenities people need. You end up with nail salons and no grocery store.
Get off Capitol Hill and see what's going on in the rest of the region. It's certainly not a spectacular increase in viable walkable neighborhoods. All those people still need cars.
37
Fnarf @35:
Fnarf, yes, and by leaving off "for most people" you took a probably factual statement and turned it into a lie. You're not an idiot, you know better. So why.
Why you feel compelled to traffic in falsehoods and gross exaggerations to establish this meme that is basically "Give up on Seattle, we're all a bunch of drivers" is beyond me. And yes, that is the meme you're pushing again and again in these threads. And what's really beyond me is what you hope to accomplish by pushing it.
But you know what, you're free to piss away your time and the rest of ours however you wish. All I can do is keep reading and keep you from keeping on with your dishonesty.
Fnarf again: Get off Capitol Hill and see what's going on in the rest of the region.
And no, I don't live in Capitol Hill. You can do better than playing the Capitol Hill elitist ad hominem argument.
@35, so I left off "for most people". I'm sorry. It's true, though; for most people, going to the supermarket means driving.
Fnarf, yes, and by leaving off "for most people" you took a probably factual statement and turned it into a lie. You're not an idiot, you know better. So why.
Why you feel compelled to traffic in falsehoods and gross exaggerations to establish this meme that is basically "Give up on Seattle, we're all a bunch of drivers" is beyond me. And yes, that is the meme you're pushing again and again in these threads. And what's really beyond me is what you hope to accomplish by pushing it.
But you know what, you're free to piss away your time and the rest of ours however you wish. All I can do is keep reading and keep you from keeping on with your dishonesty.
Fnarf again: Get off Capitol Hill and see what's going on in the rest of the region.
And no, I don't live in Capitol Hill. You can do better than playing the Capitol Hill elitist ad hominem argument.
38
@31 go back and read the comment of mine you were responding to and see if your response makes any sense at all. I specifically mention the hills, and in fact state in this thread that we'll never get to Copenhagen. But you're prattling on about the weather when the mecca of cycling has worse weather than ours.
39
Fnarf @30, I share your despair at our built environment, and there's a lot of challenges to overcome. But I see no way to proceed than to support SDOT when it tries to pursue an objective other than maximizing throughput of cars.
I actually see bikes as MORE critical given our low density. In this environment you won't get critical mass for transit unless you have some means of collecting people on the main corridors. I don't see a way to do that without bikes.
I actually see bikes as MORE critical given our low density. In this environment you won't get critical mass for transit unless you have some means of collecting people on the main corridors. I don't see a way to do that without bikes.
40
Yet another misleading statement that borders on a lie from Fnarf. @36: The number of people who live in these new-built "integrated villages" is trivial.
Fnarf, you know damn well I wasn't talking about people who live in newly built "integrated villages." You were talking about--and thus I was talking about--people who live within walking distance of a supermarket. And that number of people is not trivial, even if it's not a majority in Seattle. I myself do not live in such a village, and yet I live within walking distance of two supermarkets.
Listen, feel free to go on with your "lesser Seattle" drivel. But as long as you keep playing fast and loose with the facts, I'm going to keep standing up for the facts.
Fnarf, you know damn well I wasn't talking about people who live in newly built "integrated villages." You were talking about--and thus I was talking about--people who live within walking distance of a supermarket. And that number of people is not trivial, even if it's not a majority in Seattle. I myself do not live in such a village, and yet I live within walking distance of two supermarkets.
Listen, feel free to go on with your "lesser Seattle" drivel. But as long as you keep playing fast and loose with the facts, I'm going to keep standing up for the facts.
41
A sad measure of the transit situation. I RUN the light rail system in Seattle (Controller) and it is impossible for me to use public transit to commute. I get the free pass, but there is no service at 3am when I get off of work. I would gladly take the bus for 2 hours a day and cut 60+ miles off of my commute, but it just won't work. (Yes, I live in Olympia, and work here, it is still cheaper with the fuel cost to do that than live in Seattle.)
42
good point, @41.
working people use transit less when it starts AFTER they have to get to work and stops BEFORE they have to get to the shift change.
kind of hard to bike at 2am when all the drunks are out on the streets with their lights off and no turn signals.
working people use transit less when it starts AFTER they have to get to work and stops BEFORE they have to get to the shift change.
kind of hard to bike at 2am when all the drunks are out on the streets with their lights off and no turn signals.
43
@15- "And what are you autophobes going to do when non-polluting cars become the norm? What new rationale will you use to try and dictate other people's behavior?"
Well I'll celebrate, if I'm alive to see the day. But I probably won't be, because power requires a a source and there isn't really much movement towards non-polluting power generation anywhere. We're making decent progress (20 years later than it should have happened) towards less polluting cars. Which is great. Hooray!
I'd still rather ride my bike than sit in a car.
Well I'll celebrate, if I'm alive to see the day. But I probably won't be, because power requires a a source and there isn't really much movement towards non-polluting power generation anywhere. We're making decent progress (20 years later than it should have happened) towards less polluting cars. Which is great. Hooray!
I'd still rather ride my bike than sit in a car.
44
People act like there's ONE choice.
There are many choices.
If you live close to work, you can walk to work when it's nice and you have time, bike when it's grey, and take the bus or even drive part way otherwise.
If you live far from work your options are drastically more limited.
There are many choices.
If you live close to work, you can walk to work when it's nice and you have time, bike when it's grey, and take the bus or even drive part way otherwise.
If you live far from work your options are drastically more limited.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Hating People Doesn't Make Them Thinner by Jen Graves
-
Los Angeles Gay Bar Bans Bachelorette Parties Until Marriage Equality Is Attained by David Schmader
-
Fill in the Blank by Grant Brissey
-
This Reminds Me of the Great Calculator Scare of the Late '70s/Early '80s by David Schmader
-
Idiot Tries to Defend Bigoted Anti-Gay-Marriage Preacher on Anderson Cooper by Paul Constant
-
Six Moms with Too Much Time on Their Hands and a Shitty Website Decide to Fight Gay Superheroes by Paul Constant
-
The Saturday Morning News by Unpaid Intern
-
Why Mayor McGinn's Wife Canceled Her Family's Seattle Times Subscription by Eli Sanders
-
What the Hell Is Wrong With Seattle's Pride Parade? by Dominic Holden
-
NYC Man Ticketed for Not Riding in the Bike Lane by Jonathan Golob
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (44) RSS