- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
June 19, 2010 at 6:52 pm #696563
velo_nutParticipantIf everyone was happy, it’d be really boring.
June 20, 2010 at 12:16 am #696564
JoBParticipantmetrognome..
if you take a look at the rapid transit station spacing you will find they are more dense as the train approaches the city and either elevates or tunnels far less dense along MLK..
the train is surface all along MLK and the stations far less expensive to build there.
Not quite the same story as a monorail passing by downtown core areas…
but hey.. any kind of pubic transportation is going to inconvenience someone..
so why build it at all?
because if we don’t …..
June 20, 2010 at 3:09 am #696565
metrognomeParticipantJoB — Every mode of public transportation has its pluses and minuses, as does private transportation (gas, insurance, repairs, traffic jams…) When you add in local politics (both elected officials and citizens) as well as terrain constraints and right-of-way availability restrictions in already developed areas, any choice is going to be controversial. And, no choice will meet everyone’s (or anyone’s) complete travel needs. Link station locations were based on projected ridership and population density as well as practical considerations such as land availability. The decision to tunnel or elevate in specific locations was based mostly on dealing with environmental considerations such as hills, ravines, water, major arterials, etc.
BTW, ‘monorail’ refers to technology; monorails can run at-grade or on elevated tracks or even in tunnels.
I am a firm believer in the benefits of public transportation; there is really no wrong technology, just bad decisions about how to best spend limited public $$ to maximize both ridership and mobility as well as long-term benefits such as concentrating development around fixed guideway stations. The best system is the multi-modal system (bus, light and commuter rail, streetcar) that we are finally developing (we would be ahead of Portland/Tri-Met if the transportation portion of the 1968 Forward Thrust ballot measure hadn’t been defeated by developers.) The monorail was simply poorly planned and even more poorly executed.
June 20, 2010 at 4:14 pm #696566
JoBParticipantmetrognome…
it would be really interesting to see how they calculated ridership along the MLK corridor.
The same corridor in Portland was designed to fit into the neighborhood, has multiple stops and is well used by the neighborhood it travels through.
Not the story at all with Link.
Also.. if we are talking ridership… what kept LINK from swinging east and stopping at the mall which would have provided both parking and increased ridership?
methinks politics has too much to do with transportation in Seattle.
July 4, 2010 at 7:51 pm #696567
dawsonctParticipantWell, we had to start somewhere, and the line needed two termini, so what we have is the beginning. No matter what route, or the destinations, or the number of stops, people would complain. Seattle has too long stunted our development in our never-ending quest for absolute consensus.
Hopefully, we will look at the first line and say “that’s a good start” rather than “it isn’t instantly everything for everyone, so it’s a failure.”
Now if we could get the route planners at Metro to realize that consistent and frequent neighborhood shuttles and East/West routes have been too long neglected.
It shouldn’t take me 45 minutes to get from Ak. Jct. to Alki. I shouldn’t have to go downtown to get to the VA. It shouldn’t have taken me three buses to get 3.5 miles from Green Lake to View Ridge when I lived there.
—
Sorry about the tangent; long festering issue for me.
July 6, 2010 at 7:33 pm #696568
JoBParticipantdawsonct…
my point is that LINK is not the beginning of a transportation system that will get those who can’t afford private transportation from point A to point B in a timely manner…
LINK is the start of a transportation system that will connect wealthy neighborhoods with resources..
No it shouldn’t take that long to get there from here on public transportation.. but it does.
Poor planning results in public transportation systems that are underutilized…
July 6, 2010 at 9:46 pm #696569
metrognomeParticipantJoB — I am waiting in breathless anticipation to hear your definition of ‘wealthy neighborhoods’ … SeaTac? Rainier Valley? Beacon Hill? Capitol Hill? It seems to me that using your definition the Monorail would have connected the equally ‘wealthy neighborhoods’ of Ballard and West Seattle with downtown in the middle …
And, tell me how the Monorail would have gotten dawsonct to Alki? Or to the VA? Or crosstown between Green Lake and View Ridge? BTW, taking the Monorail to the VA actually would have required taking Metro to a WS Monorail station and at least one bus from the SODO station to the VA.
The purpose of fixed guideway mass transportation, whether it be heavy rail, light rail, monorail or whatever, is to connect locations with high ridership to high demand locations (note the key word ‘mass’.) It will always require that riders drive or take a local bus to a station, take the fixed guideway transportation to a destination station, typically employment centers or colleges, and then walk or take a bus to the final destination. Therefore, the ultimate solution is what is referred to as a ‘multi-modal system’ with commuter rail (Sounder), light rail (Link), streetcar (SLUS), express bus (ST Express), local bus (Metro, Pierce, Community Transit), vanpools & carpools, car sharing, park&ride lots, HOV lanes, etc. Just like the Portland Tri-Met system you keep extolling.
And, yes, it should typically take a while longer to travel by public transportation than it does by car, since you are sharing a ride to share expenses and therefore stopping periodically to pick up other riders. The benefit is that you don’t have the stress of driving, looking for (and probably paying for) parking, insurance, maintenance, etc. Do you really want to pay for a public transportation system that allows everyone to get from any Point A to any Point B at the same speed it would take to drive there? The Monorail wouldn’t have done that any better than the current system you decry. And, the Monorail is the perfect example of a poorly planned system that likely would have been poorly utilized with an extremely high cost per trip. West Seattle and Ballard simply aren’t high trip generators for a capital-intensive project like the Monorail. Hopefully, Metro’s upcoming WS and Ballard RapidRide routes, which mimic the Monorail route, will provide the necessary capacity at a more reasonable cost per trip.
July 6, 2010 at 11:33 pm #696570
JoBParticipantmetrognome…
if the purpose of mass transit is to connect areas with high ridership to high demand locations… like downtown.. why would you route public transit through a high demand area like the MLK corridor and not service that market?
Not to mention the disruption caused to access to the existing bus transportation in that area…
When you make public transportation difficult to use it generates low demand figures. When you make it easy.. the demand figures follow access…
Planning is sorely lacking in all facets of transportation in Seattle.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.