|
Mrit posted:Hillary is going to win, so why worry about it? Hillary do you crave death and money and power? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orYcAiFqknU
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
4 delegates for Bernie, 1 for Hillary at my precinct in Ballard. Surprised the statewide ratio was about the same, but I guess I hadn't seen much polling on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:31
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:There are people inside Seattle with this exact same problem, in much denser housing better served by rapid transit, who are being ignored by this plan and who will likely be ignored by any plan driven by a regional agenda. That's it. Regional plans, by their very nature are regional. If you wanted support for those in Seattle, then maybe you lazy folks should have voted for the special funding for king county transit a while back rather than making GBS threads all over "the suburbs". There were even folks in this very thread who didn't bother to vote for it!
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 01:49
|
|
|
Wraith of J.O.I. posted:4 delegates for Bernie, 1 for Hillary at my precinct in Ballard. Surprised the statewide ratio was about the same, but I guess I hadn't seen much polling on it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 04:40
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Regional plans, by their very nature are regional. If you wanted support for those in Seattle, then maybe you lazy folks should have voted for the special funding for king county transit a while back rather than making GBS threads all over "the suburbs". There were even folks in this very thread who didn't bother to vote for it! You're not really making an argument why anyone inside the Seattle city limits should vote for this plan. ST2 added a lot of value for the city, this adds a bad at-grade rail line for Ballard in 22 years and a too-short West Seattle extension in 17. No service at all for the Central District or Fremont/Wallingford. Not compelling.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 09:52
|
|
|
Burn Seattle to the ground. Everyone gets the same thing, no one gets left out and the transit infrastructure will finally be commensurate to the population.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 10:27
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Burn Seattle to the ground. Everyone gets the same thing, no one gets left out and the transit infrastructure will finally be commensurate to the population. Finally a good solution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Burn Seattle to the ground. Everyone gets the same thing, no one gets left out and the transit infrastructure will finally be commensurate to the population. I thought we'd tried that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Burn Seattle to the ground. Everyone gets the same thing, no one gets left out and the transit infrastructure will finally be commensurate to the population. #feeltheburn
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 16:31
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Burn Seattle to the ground. Everyone gets the same thing, no one gets left out and the transit infrastructure will finally be commensurate to the population. Point Big Bertha towards the base of Mount Rainier then chain detonate nuclear warheads underneath until the sweet release of death and ash choke the region into peace and calm.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:Burn Seattle to the ground. Everyone gets the same thing, no one gets left out and the transit infrastructure will finally be commensurate to the population. I misread your username as "Accelerationist" the first time. Maybe the Juan de Fuca plate will finally take another dive and knock down enough of Seattle to help. At the very least, the Alaskan Way Viaduct will 100% collapse.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Nick Rivers posted:Point Big Bertha towards the base of Mount Rainier then chain detonate nuclear warheads underneath until the sweet release of death and ash choke the region into peace and calm. Wild animals reclaim the area, but they all get entangled in Amazon lanyards and die.
|
|
#
?
Mar 27, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:[*]The SLU Streetcar got totally trapped by man-in-tree traffic yesterday and left riders stranded at the stations, but I tried it today and found that it's actually quite a lot better with the Business Access/Transit lanes in place and does a reasonable job of shuttling a lot of Amazon employees to the transit tunnel. Unfortunately cops are not around to enforce the new lane rules and a few people are ignoring the signs. We'll see if there's still any reason to ride the SLUT on Monday when practically its entire route is overlaid with the C-Line extension.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:You're not really making an argument why anyone inside the Seattle city limits should vote for this plan. ST2 added a lot of value for the city, this adds a bad at-grade rail line for Ballard in 22 years and a too-short West Seattle extension in 17. No service at all for the Central District or Fremont/Wallingford. Not compelling. Because most people in Seattle go outside of Seattle once in a while. Also, do you seriously not give a gently caress about the environment or all the people driving cars into and out of your city every day? I mean seriously, your posts read basically like "gently caress you, got mine". Do you really want to wait another 40 years for real regional transit simply because you're not seeing specifically what you want right this loving second?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:Because most people in Seattle go outside of Seattle once in a while. The central argument seems to be that driving cars into and out of the city is caused by a lack of good internal transportation. People can not live in the city and commute to work even with the city council doing everything they can and already have to reduce prices if the system doesn't work or doesn't exist. Arguing that we should make the city more livable for the single-occupant carfolk of the suburbs is not an environmentalist argument whatsoever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 01:06
|
|
|
minidracula posted:Wait, I'm out of the loop on this bit: what's the deal with the business access/transit lanes for the SLU Streetcar? They added them along all of Westlake North of Denny, along with restricting allowed turns. It helps a lot! On the other hand, the C Line now covers 90% of the Streetcar's route, uses the same lanes, shows up more often, and goes more places... Solkanar512 posted:Because most people in Seattle go outside of Seattle once in a while. Let's look at some numbers, hot off of ST3's own scoping estimates. Everett LTR projected cost (average of ST's estimate range): $4,182,500,000 Everett average projected daily ridership, 2040: 39,000 $107,243 / daily rider Issaquah projected cost: $1,650,000,000 Issaquah projected daily ridership: 13,000 $126,923 / daily rider Ballard projected cost: $4,606,000,000 Ballard projected daily ridership: 129,500 $35,567 / daily rider Even if you assume the Ballard spur takes all the cost of the WSTT without getting credit for any of the WSTT ridership, these suburb extensions are still twice as expensive per rider, which you can read either as ST cheaping out on the Interbay at-grade alignment or gold-plating their services for the suburbs. These long-distance suburb extensions to LRT do not make sense even without the outside context of the inner Seattle districts having a much more critical need. The 405 BRT route at least makes sense from a cost/ridership perspective. I think the criteria of "completing the regional spine" has basically run its course and ST3 is a broken proposal as a result. They're chasing a criteria that doesn't make any sense and these poo poo project proposals are the result. Also, all of these suburb extensions are bundled with massive subsidized parking projects to give suburban drivers more of an incentive to drive. We're talking about a billion dollars of free parking, which makes ST3 the biggest free parking project in Washington State's history. That's going to encourage further sprawl and people will commute in single-occupant vehicles to park in their gold-plated free parking spot. So don't give me that environmentally friendly line. I want more transit desperately but these projects aren't worth building, and the deal Seattle is getting is too lovely to make me overlook that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Also, all of these suburb extensions are bundled with massive subsidized parking projects to give suburban drivers more of an incentive to drive. We're talking about a billion dollars of free parking, which makes ST3 the biggest free parking project in Washington State's history. That's going to encourage further sprawl and people will commute in single-occupant vehicles to park in their gold-plated free parking spot. So don't give me that environmentally friendly line. Suburban housing stock isn't going anywhere in the next few decades. As long as it exists, burb-dwellers are going to need to get places, and their options will almost all start with getting into small SOVs unless you want to spend even more money on staggeringly massive, hilariously underutilized suburban transit systems (which would likely be even less environmentally friendly than decent cars - sending largely empty buses to circle developments in Issaquah every 30 minutes is not a good plan). But, if you want to have people actually use transit, you need to provide reasonable frequency of service and walking distance. People will do almost anything to avoid walking a mile in the rain to a bus that comes once per hour. So, assuming you're made the sovereign master of sound transit, you've got three options. Option one is to spend many billions building out a suburban transit network. I assume that, since you're opposed to a single billion being spent on suburban parking, this isn't a practical option for you. Plus, as noted above, it's a crappy solution for other reasons. Option two is to say "gently caress the suburbs, we'll send a bus out there to a transit center every once in a while but that's all." This seems to be what you're closest to right now. The suburban dwellers will grumpily stay in their cars, taking long CO2-heavy trips to work on clogged highways, demanding parking in CBD areas, and otherwise continuing with our present problems and making them even worse. But, hey, you got to do what's really important: flip your middle finger to the drat suburbanites, because yer hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for their unholy "lifestyle"! Option three is to actually subsidize parking in suburban areas, and encourage people to turn a 60 minute, 15 mile freeway commute to a 2 mile, 10 minute drive to a transit center followed by a bus or train ride. It's not perfect, but it's the best adaptation we can make for what we've got. As a bonus, it'll help normalize transit use, and people who are already used to using transit are much more likely to see the value in living within easy walking distance of a bus stop or transit center.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Saying "no transit until Lynnwood is a walkable urban village" is saying "no transit."
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
If a giant parking structure is how suburbs want to handle their transit stations, that's their choice. It'll probably come back to bite them later as driving to Seattle during rush hour gets steadily more more untenable and the parking fills up and they suddenly need even MORE parking, but that will be their problem. Now, if the plans require Seattle to subsidize their giant parking garages, then that's dumb.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Suburban housing stock isn't going anywhere in the next few decades. As long as it exists, burb-dwellers are going to need to get places, and their options will almost all start with getting into small SOVs unless you want to spend even more money on staggeringly massive, hilariously underutilized suburban transit systems (which would likely be even less environmentally friendly than decent cars - sending largely empty buses to circle developments in Issaquah every 30 minutes is not a good plan). But, if you want to have people actually use transit, you need to provide reasonable frequency of service and walking distance. People will do almost anything to avoid walking a mile in the rain to a bus that comes once per hour. quote:Option two is to say "gently caress the suburbs, we'll send a bus out there to a transit center every once in a while but that's all." This seems to be what you're closest to right now. The suburban dwellers will grumpily stay in their cars, taking long CO2-heavy trips to work on clogged highways, demanding parking in CBD areas, and otherwise continuing with our present problems and making them even worse. But, hey, you got to do what's really important: flip your middle finger to the drat suburbanites, because yer hard-earned tax dollars shouldn't go to pay for their unholy "lifestyle"! BRT is a far superior option to serve low density suburban areas than LRT, which is why the ridership cost benefit on the I405 corridor beats the daylights out of any of the suburban LRT projects proposed. But hey, rails or death, right? quote:
That free parking is going to make the LRT terminus attractive to people near it already it certainly; but much moreso to people in even further-flung and as-yet unbuilt developments. Want to encourage sprawl? Build poo poo that makes it easier to buy a cheaper, bigger house further away and start inducing demand for developers to build those cheaper, bigger houses that now make more sense to buy. The idea that Issaquah is going to densify around a suburban light-rail station ensconced within a Park & Ride is a farce; it's going to encourage people to buy bigger, further, and cheaper and commute from Snoqualmie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
Sprawl will continue up to the limits of the growth management act as long as buying close costs half a million dollars or more, with or without a park and ride. At the same time, in no scenario will this sprawl develop as walkable villages at the outset. Voting against transit because Lynnwood is and will continue to be a suburb is the classic case of sacrificing the good for the perfect. Lynnwood is going to Lynnwood. By the time Lynnwood is a series of walkable villages it will be far too late.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:19
|
|
|
Put the Lynnwood station tlat Alderwood mall 
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Best Friends posted:Sprawl will continue up to the limits of the growth management act as long as buying close costs half a million dollars or more, with or without a park and ride. At the same time, in no scenario will this sprawl develop as walkable villages at the outset. Voting against transit because Lynnwood is and will continue to be a suburb is the classic case of sacrificing the good for the perfect. Lynnwood is going to Lynnwood. By the time Lynnwood is a series of walkable villages it will be far too late. Lynnwood is already funded, though?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Thanks for the red herring, I guess. The entire point of the "red herring" is that BRT is not a workable solution in low density areas. When you don't have enough demand to keep bodies on buses regularly, you're just wasting diesel driving empty buses in circles (and it's a lot of diesel and buses, because you're establishing a geographically large network regardless of population density). Imagine the edge case of BRT in Arlington or Enumclaw. You have to drop frequency and stops - but that turns it from BRT into the suburban bus systems that are inadequate for commuters. If you want to develop a workable transit plan for our region, you have to find some way to make it work for suburban commuters, too. A lot of people live in the suburbs, and you have to get their buy-in if you want the whole thing to work. Refusing to build a universally workable transportation system because you don't want your tax dollars going to people not like you is exactly the kind of Eymanesque intransigence that leads people to oppose transit because it doesn't serve them and only them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Weirdos ride the bus
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Start a bus company and see how much $ you make, I oppose all public transit
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
Lord Waffle Beard posted:Start a bus company and see how much $ you make, I oppose all public transit
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:03
|
|
|
Government funded public transit*
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Agreed, no more government funds for those lazy mooching drivers, tolls everywhere!
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Should pay taxes on our cars annual mileage. Also everyone should have pedometers and pay taxes on movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:18
|
|
|
Privatized roads would be good, agreed
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:Also, all of these suburb extensions are bundled with massive subsidized parking projects to give suburban drivers more of an incentive to drive. We're talking about a billion dollars of free parking, which makes ST3 the biggest free parking project in Washington State's history. That's going to encourage further sprawl and people will commute in single-occupant vehicles to park in their gold-plated free parking spot. So don't give me that environmentally friendly line. If there's no parking at all, then no one will have a way to get to the stations and use them. Having access to mass transit like this actually makes is a whole lot easier to build densely, not more difficult. I mean come on, what is your alternative here? That everyone suddenly be able to afford living in the city proper? That tons of new housing gets built under the nose of the loving NIMBYs that cry and scream every time someone wants to change their precious city in amber? People live in the suburbs in large part because your neighbors take a giant poo poo every time someone wants to increase housing and now you're taking a giant poo poo on people wanting to get to work and back in an economical, efficient manner. What are folks forced to be in the suburbs do?
|
|
#
?
Mar 30, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:If there's no parking at all, then no one will have a way to get to the stations and use them. Having access to mass transit like this actually makes is a whole lot easier to build densely, not more difficult. It kind of seems like sprawl of the sort that American cities built out in the post-WW2 era simply doesn't work terribly well with any kind of transit, and trying to get it to work well will involve some major downsides (like incredibly expensive parking garages). I realize that "go back in time and be like Germany instead" isn't terribly useful advice, but it also seems like just enabling and subsidizing the same dumb transit-hostile development is going to be a bad idea in the long run. If suburbs want easy access to the urban core for their metro, it makes sense that they'd have to build to support that, which could mean parking garages (assuming that they're picking up the tab for it), or it could also mean upzoning, providing better bike network access, feeder buses, etc. Cicero fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 00:28
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:The entire point of the "red herring" is that BRT is not a workable solution in low density areas. This is totally counterfactual in the face of Sound Transit's own ridership estimates for their BRT projects. Ed: let me be a little clearer. For the same money that is being burned in a fire to provide light rail to these places, a BRT (very frequent service, dedicated lanes, etc.) replacement that is the same or better except peak capacity could be built instead that would do the same poo poo except it would serve many, many more stops and terminals than light rail can. Because it is cheaper per mile than rails are. This makes it a superior solution for low-density transit needs than anything involving rail can be. Rail is a better solution when your BRT on the equivalent route is crush-loaded and people can't get onboard. Oh, and it could be opened sooner. The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
The one thing that BRT fails at is timing. As someone who has to be at work by 8am every day, I loving dream of light rail because my buses are all over the board. I could right on time (which means I get to work 20 minutes early because I account for slow buses) Or my bus could still be 15-20 minutes late for what ever fucktard reason. Mostly assholes parking in the bus lanes or some person who wants the driver to give a 20 minute explanation of how to get somewhere in seattle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Tigntink posted:The one thing that BRT fails at is timing. As someone who has to be at work by 8am every day, I loving dream of light rail because my buses are all over the board. I could right on time (which means I get to work 20 minutes early because I account for slow buses) Or my bus could still be 15-20 minutes late for what ever fucktard reason. Mostly assholes parking in the bus lanes or some person who wants the driver to give a 20 minute explanation of how to get somewhere in seattle. BRT does tend to suffer from service quality, but that's more down to implementation deficiencies in individual BRT systems than a problem with the actual concept. Failing to provide properly controlled lane entrances, signal priority, etc. and you end up with... well, RapidRide. But, you can build a pretty nice BRT system that serves a lot more people with the money you'd otherwise be sacrificing on the altar of light rail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
The Oldest Man posted:This is totally counterfactual in the face of Sound Transit's own ridership estimates for their BRT projects. I think you're confused. I'm not talking about BRT vs rail - I'm responding to your complaints about spending money to build subsidized parking garages near suburban transit centers. "Low density" in this context does not refer to a suburban transit center that might support BRT or light rail (which could actually be modeled as a single point of artificially extreme density), but to suburban housing developments. Substantially expanding bus service to those areas, with stop density and service frequency that could make it a viable door-to-door alternative to driving for many commuters who live in those areas, would be an absurdly expensive boondoggle. It's not ideal to subsidize low-density living, but it would be far worse to spend billions building a transit system that fails to make the biggest possible impact on basic goals like reducing SOV miles driven and reducing traffic on the highway during peak hours, for the sake of a moral argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Substantially expanding bus service to those areas, with stop density and service frequency that could make it a viable door-to-door alternative to driving for many commuters who live in those areas, would be an absurdly expensive boondoggle. It's not ideal to subsidize low-density living, but it would be far worse to spend billions building a transit system that fails to make the biggest possible impact on basic goals like reducing SOV miles driven and reducing traffic on the highway during peak hours, for the sake of a moral argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
How about we modify the GMA to make it so we build infrastructure and cluster all new development around said investment, so in 30-40 years when people are taking the 405/169 cooridor mass transit the population will be clustered around the best investment and return instead of "well we have to build out this way because a 19th century mining town lost all control of it's comprehensive planning and a developer build 4000 new homes in a town of 1200"
|
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
"Space Gopher" posted:I think you're confused. I'm not talking about BRT vs rail "Space Gopher" posted:The entire point of the "red herring" is that BRT is not a workable solution in low density areas. I think I'm done responding to this. Ed: On a re-read, it appears you are attempting to strawman my support for BRT as me advocating for local bus service as a light rail replacement. That's ludicrous bullshit. If you are really interested in having a conversation about parking then fine: the solution is to make it paid parking, and to make that part of ST3 signed in Dow Constantine's blood so that he can't weasel out of it later. If we want to fight sprawl and CO2 emissions, then we need to subsidize the things that reduce those things (the transit tickets) not the part that encourages it (the SOV parking). The Oldest Man fucked around with this message at 03:23 on Mar 31, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 31, 2016 03:13
|
|