5 ms·

You could build more bike lanes and add transit only lanes. Build out from the city core, and expand it to outlying areas. Prove its value by showing people tha

You could build more bike lanes and add transit only lanes. Build out from the city core, and expand it to outlying areas. Prove its value by showing people that alternatives to cars can actually be better. For example if there was an express buss between Bellevue and the U District that didn't have to sit behind cars crossing Lake Washington, I think it would be pretty popular. The chicken and egg problem is hard to crack. Not enough transit riders -> high car usage -> not enough transit riders -> ... If we all throw up our hands and say "too hard" it's only going to get worse. Growing up in Seattle and Tacoma, it was pretty frustrating to hear about the supposed light rail connection between the two that's been promised and delayed countless times over the last 20+ years. See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle_process

existencebox 8y ago
A lot of me wonders if the root is less a lack of specifically transit, and more of the broader oft-discussed problem of decaying ability to efficiently build public infrastructure/motivate capital improvements. Novelty hill rd in the NE was supposed to be 4 lanes, even through the switchback, but because of bad contractor (likely back-scratching internally) and a lack of contractual protections, 4 lanes were paid for but 2 were obtained. If we can't even do simple things right (that road typically bottlenecks for ~20-30 miles straight during rush hour, and is single lane, so no bus advantage) and your aformentioned rail link, it's really a moot point, so the focus might need to be on governance than on the transit itself. (To address your suggestions, I agree that dedicated bus lanes might be helpful, but worry that given the respective usage volumes 1. would it be effective and 2. can you convince everyone else potential further limitation to their lanes is worth it?. Not to say "throw hands up" but it might need to come coupled with a proposal to offer more car bandwidth. I've always been skeptical of bike lanes on the longer-haul lines outside of city centers, because at least for the area I live in with huge gaps between "stuff", (and with our weather/geography) it's not a feasible form of long-term travel for most people, even for things like picking up groceries. If it can be built without impacting road bandwidth/significantly increasing cost, I obviously see that as a plus, but I'd need to be convinced that the tradeoff actually provided the right outcome. My focus is typically on rail build-out, improving bus usage, and aforementioned governance/efficiency, as these seem to align incentives pretty well among various groups of transit users.)
sbov 8y ago
Yeah, LA has a lot of commuter express buses from the suburbs that only have 3-4 stops. The problem is you're stuck in the same freeway traffic that everyone else is. Despite this, I know several people taking these buses, which are ~2.5 hour one way trips during rush hour.
- DuskStar 8y ago
  LA also seems to be building a ton of rail. The Expo Line to Santa Monica was completed recently, and they're currently building the Crenshaw Line to LAX, the Purple Line extension into Beverly Hills, and a new set of stations downtown with more in the pipeline.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- gowld 8y ago
  That's only a problem because the government doesn't reserve lanes for the busses.

existencebox 8y ago

A lot of me wonders if the root is less a lack of specifically transit, and more of the broader oft-discussed problem of decaying ability to efficiently build public infrastructure/motivate capital improvements. Novelty hill rd in the NE was supposed to be 4 lanes, even through the switchback, but because of bad contractor (likely back-scratching internally) and a lack of contractual protections, 4 lanes were paid for but 2 were obtained. If we can't even do simple things right (that road typically bottlenecks for ~20-30 miles straight during rush hour, and is single lane, so no bus advantage) and your aformentioned rail link, it's really a moot point, so the focus might need to be on governance than on the transit itself. (To address your suggestions, I agree that dedicated bus lanes might be helpful, but worry that given the respective usage volumes 1. would it be effective and 2. can you convince everyone else potential further limitation to their lanes is worth it?. Not to say "throw hands up" but it might need to come coupled with a proposal to offer more car bandwidth. I've always been skeptical of bike lanes on the longer-haul lines outside of city centers, because at least for the area I live in with huge gaps between "stuff", (and with our weather/geography) it's not a feasible form of long-term travel for most people, even for things like picking up groceries. If it can be built without impacting road bandwidth/significantly increasing cost, I obviously see that as a plus, but I'd need to be convinced that the tradeoff actually provided the right outcome. My focus is typically on rail build-out, improving bus usage, and aforementioned governance/efficiency, as these seem to align incentives pretty well among various groups of transit users.)

sbov 8y ago

Yeah, LA has a lot of commuter express buses from the suburbs that only have 3-4 stops. The problem is you're stuck in the same freeway traffic that everyone else is. Despite this, I know several people taking these buses, which are ~2.5 hour one way trips during rush hour.

DuskStar 8y ago
LA also seems to be building a ton of rail. The Expo Line to Santa Monica was completed recently, and they're currently building the Crenshaw Line to LAX, the Purple Line extension into Beverly Hills, and a new set of stations downtown with more in the pipeline.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
gowld 8y ago
That's only a problem because the government doesn't reserve lanes for the busses.