6 ms·

I knew we had light rail in a few places, one monorail and lots of buses, but after living here for 1.5 years now, this is the first I've heard of Seattle Subwa

I knew we had light rail in a few places, one monorail and lots of buses, but after living here for 1.5 years now, this is the first I've heard of Seattle Subway. I don't think I've ever heard anyone make reference to it in conversation. The Seattle has 79% more area than San Francisco and San Francisco has 17% more people. How does it make economic sense to have a Subway when so much of the city is zoned for detached single family homes and there is acknowledged seismic and flooding risk? In 2020, wouldn't it be far more future proof and likely cheaper to plan on smart streets with self-driving pods like Dubai is doing with its Next platform? The moment autonomous on-demand P2P system is viable, it's going to turn subways in less densely populated cities into albatrosses. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJlQaCIUHTI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJlQaCIUHTI

ncallaway 6y ago
I think they're describing it as the "Seattle Subway" for the benefit of non-local audiences. The subway they're referring to is almost certainly the Link light rail, which runs through the bus tunnels, and has other extended stretches underground. It's probably the same light-rail that you're referring to.
- Schiendelman 6y ago
  Yes. And we called it Seattle Subway for the local audience, to get attention to the fact that we could significantly accelerate construction of the system with an additional ballot measure. Most of what Sound Transit calls "light rail" counts a a subway anyway.
  - nick_kline 6y ago
    And increasing the construction speed is the major thing we need to do here! Otherwise many of us working in seattle from outside will be retired or dead by the time it gets to us. I'm very eager to spend more of my own tax money to construct the system faster. Plus we should do it before Tim Eyman eventually takes away our ability to tax ourselves.
    - Schiendelman 6y ago
      That’s what we did in 2016. Instead of plodding along with one line at a time, we funded an entire generation to get started at once. In the US you can’t really make each line’s development faster, but you can start earlier. We cut at least a decade off Ballard, West Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma extensions.
chabons 6y ago
I think he's referring to the Seattle area pro-transit volunteer organization "Seattle Subway" https://www.seattlesubway.org/ https://www.seattlesubway.org/
Schiendelman 6y ago
You have $50 billion in mostly grade separated transit coming, largely due to the work of a lot of volunteers from 2011-2012 setting Sound transit up for the ST3 vote in 2016. What Sound Transit calls "light rail" is as high capacity as some subway systems. I named the nonprofit that led a lot of this organizing Seattle Subway because it got attention when we needed it, and it's true anyway. :) I think your other questions are interesting, but it seems like you have an opinion and you're looking for a way to defend it. If you're actually curious about why we're building a subway network and aren't just looking for a way to disagree, let me know!
- malandrew 6y ago
  I'm not particularly married to an idea here but it is 2020 and I remember exactly what happened with the Coliseum–Oakland International Airport line. It was planned and designed pre-ridesharing and instead of making $2 million in the first two years, it cost $860 million to operate. https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/27/barts-oakland-airport-connector-losing-money-uber-lyft-to-blame/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/27/barts-oakland-airpor... Now if technological progress in transportation were to completely stall, I'd agree that it likely would make sense, but the last thing I want as a taxpayer is a very expensive project that is eventually outcompeted by advances in ridesharing in the time it takes to build out the network. Given that there is no lack of public transportation boondoggles that have left taxpayers holding the bag, it's not unreasonable to ask questions and exhibit some skepticism, especially when the population density is below 8000 people per square mile. In places like NYC, I would be in complete agreement with you as the population density would dictates that only a subway would ever make sense because you simply don't have the road system relative to population density for a ridesharing solution to ever make sense. Lastly, I commented in good faith, but this condescension, "but it seems like you have an opinion and you're looking for a way to defend it", doesn't exactly help you garner support for what you're trying to achieve. That's also the kind of accusation that comes from someone accusing others of doing something they are guilty of. Perhaps it's you that has an opinion that you're looking for a way to defend?
  - sooheon 6y ago
bobthepanda 6y ago
The problem with Seattle is that while it isn’t that high population of a city, the geographic chokepoints are rather extreme. There is, quite frankly, not enough capacity north-south or across Lake Washington for people to be in vehicles at the low density of a comfortable car, which is what light rail is for. Already much of the commuting mode share in the Seattle area is people using buses to get downtown, in some cases driving to a park and ride lot to catch a bus there. Seattle has mostly exhausted the limits of this approach, so now there is a huge light rail construction project.
- malandrew 6y ago
  North/South can be pretty painful, but across Lake Washington isn't nearly as bad. I have a view of the entirety of the I-90 bridge which I see every day all day and it doesn't get nearly as bad as coming into Seattle via I-5 or Aurora. Whether you go with roads or rail, you still have the problem of building across those geographic chokepoints. Either way, you've got the cost of building bridges/tunnels regardless of the mode of transportation.
  - bobthepanda 6y ago
    The issue at hand is capacity. Free-flowing highway lanes move people at ~2000 people per hour per direction per lane, and the Seattle light rail has a capacity closer to ~30000 pphd. So light rail is 15x more space efficient than car travel; you might need to build a bridge, but you will generally need to build less bridge. Autonomous cars may improve road capacity but not 15x. More importantly, roads have a very noticeable capacity curve as they become congested and become less efficient; trains don't really get slower with crowding, they mostly just get more crowded inside. And I don't know, I-90 is kind of a crapshoot (especially on weekdays) when it comes to congestion. Even worse, it's bad both ways, because you have both heavy inflows to jobs in Seattle and jobs at the various Eastside centers like Redmond and Bellevue. 520 is much better, but it's also tolled, which is also why I-90 is so much worse.
    - malandrew 6y ago
      pphd was a new metric for me so I did some googling because I wanted to know more. From that searching I came across the following article. Now this article has a clear bias (but so do the people advocating for rail), but bias doesn't mean that there aren't valid points being made even if exaggerated. Curious what your response is to their counter claims: https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/sound-transits-ridership-capacity-sounds-exciting-in-theory-but-it-means-nothing-in-practice https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/sound-t... One thing that stands out is that ST3 is saying it is a theoretical limit of 16,000 pphd not 30,000. Where did you get the 30,000 figure from?

ncallaway 6y ago

I think they're describing it as the "Seattle Subway" for the benefit of non-local audiences. The subway they're referring to is almost certainly the Link light rail, which runs through the bus tunnels, and has other extended stretches underground. It's probably the same light-rail that you're referring to.

Schiendelman 6y ago
Yes. And we called it Seattle Subway for the local audience, to get attention to the fact that we could significantly accelerate construction of the system with an additional ballot measure. Most of what Sound Transit calls "light rail" counts a a subway anyway.
- nick_kline 6y ago
  And increasing the construction speed is the major thing we need to do here! Otherwise many of us working in seattle from outside will be retired or dead by the time it gets to us. I'm very eager to spend more of my own tax money to construct the system faster. Plus we should do it before Tim Eyman eventually takes away our ability to tax ourselves.
  - Schiendelman 6y ago
    That’s what we did in 2016. Instead of plodding along with one line at a time, we funded an entire generation to get started at once. In the US you can’t really make each line’s development faster, but you can start earlier. We cut at least a decade off Ballard, West Seattle, Everett, and Tacoma extensions.

chabons 6y ago

I think he's referring to the Seattle area pro-transit volunteer organization "Seattle Subway" https://www.seattlesubway.org/ https://www.seattlesubway.org/

Schiendelman 6y ago

You have $50 billion in mostly grade separated transit coming, largely due to the work of a lot of volunteers from 2011-2012 setting Sound transit up for the ST3 vote in 2016. What Sound Transit calls "light rail" is as high capacity as some subway systems. I named the nonprofit that led a lot of this organizing Seattle Subway because it got attention when we needed it, and it's true anyway. :) I think your other questions are interesting, but it seems like you have an opinion and you're looking for a way to defend it. If you're actually curious about why we're building a subway network and aren't just looking for a way to disagree, let me know!

malandrew 6y ago
I'm not particularly married to an idea here but it is 2020 and I remember exactly what happened with the Coliseum–Oakland International Airport line. It was planned and designed pre-ridesharing and instead of making $2 million in the first two years, it cost $860 million to operate. https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/27/barts-oakland-airport-connector-losing-money-uber-lyft-to-blame/ https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2016/11/27/barts-oakland-airpor... Now if technological progress in transportation were to completely stall, I'd agree that it likely would make sense, but the last thing I want as a taxpayer is a very expensive project that is eventually outcompeted by advances in ridesharing in the time it takes to build out the network. Given that there is no lack of public transportation boondoggles that have left taxpayers holding the bag, it's not unreasonable to ask questions and exhibit some skepticism, especially when the population density is below 8000 people per square mile. In places like NYC, I would be in complete agreement with you as the population density would dictates that only a subway would ever make sense because you simply don't have the road system relative to population density for a ridesharing solution to ever make sense. Lastly, I commented in good faith, but this condescension, "but it seems like you have an opinion and you're looking for a way to defend it", doesn't exactly help you garner support for what you're trying to achieve. That's also the kind of accusation that comes from someone accusing others of doing something they are guilty of. Perhaps it's you that has an opinion that you're looking for a way to defend?
- sooheon 6y ago

bobthepanda 6y ago

The problem with Seattle is that while it isn’t that high population of a city, the geographic chokepoints are rather extreme. There is, quite frankly, not enough capacity north-south or across Lake Washington for people to be in vehicles at the low density of a comfortable car, which is what light rail is for. Already much of the commuting mode share in the Seattle area is people using buses to get downtown, in some cases driving to a park and ride lot to catch a bus there. Seattle has mostly exhausted the limits of this approach, so now there is a huge light rail construction project.

malandrew 6y ago
North/South can be pretty painful, but across Lake Washington isn't nearly as bad. I have a view of the entirety of the I-90 bridge which I see every day all day and it doesn't get nearly as bad as coming into Seattle via I-5 or Aurora. Whether you go with roads or rail, you still have the problem of building across those geographic chokepoints. Either way, you've got the cost of building bridges/tunnels regardless of the mode of transportation.
- bobthepanda 6y ago
  The issue at hand is capacity. Free-flowing highway lanes move people at ~2000 people per hour per direction per lane, and the Seattle light rail has a capacity closer to ~30000 pphd. So light rail is 15x more space efficient than car travel; you might need to build a bridge, but you will generally need to build less bridge. Autonomous cars may improve road capacity but not 15x. More importantly, roads have a very noticeable capacity curve as they become congested and become less efficient; trains don't really get slower with crowding, they mostly just get more crowded inside. And I don't know, I-90 is kind of a crapshoot (especially on weekdays) when it comes to congestion. Even worse, it's bad both ways, because you have both heavy inflows to jobs in Seattle and jobs at the various Eastside centers like Redmond and Bellevue. 520 is much better, but it's also tolled, which is also why I-90 is so much worse.
  - malandrew 6y ago
    pphd was a new metric for me so I did some googling because I wanted to know more. From that searching I came across the following article. Now this article has a clear bias (but so do the people advocating for rail), but bias doesn't mean that there aren't valid points being made even if exaggerated. Curious what your response is to their counter claims: https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/sound-transits-ridership-capacity-sounds-exciting-in-theory-but-it-means-nothing-in-practice https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/publications/detail/sound-t... One thing that stands out is that ST3 is saying it is a theoretical limit of 16,000 pphd not 30,000. Where did you get the 30,000 figure from?