4 ms·

Thanks for the response. Lots of really good points. In a vacuum, I'm actually totally fine with either option (public transportation or cars) and not particul

Thanks for the response. Lots of really good points. In a vacuum, I'm actually totally fine with either option (public transportation or cars) and not particularly married to see either one built or against either one being built and both have their utility. Personally, I think both need to be built. My main concern is really about who is going to pay for it. Such projects really disproportionately benefits those that will be commuting into and out of Seattle and those people in Seattle that live in parts of the city where they don't have parking and are likely to live near a station. I'm a huge proponent of people paying for those services they use and for services to be financially self sustaining. People who take the train should fund the train. People who drive cars should fund the roads and the DMV. Furthermore, the same argument for greater throughput of a system should also support the argument that such a system should generate greater revenue and be naturally self sustaining. But for this to be true, all calculations shouldn't be based on theoretical limits but actual predictions of how many more people will be moved per hour per direction and that needs to be compared to the revenues and the costs to figure out if the current design of the system is sustainable (a lesser more modest design might be warranted once faced with the reality of how many riders are actually expected). > It's worth noting that this figure is not qualified by how much road projects cost per road user, because this is not meant to be a comparative talking point. Roading projects are just as expensive, if not more due to higher land requirements; yet they are not scrutinized to the same degree. They should get the same scrutiny. One proposed system getting this scrutiny isn't an argument that neither should get the same scrutiny. > The SR 99 tunnel we just built cost $3.2B for two lanes in each direction with no exits. And it has tolls, but the tolls should probably be 3x higher than they currently are. Every system, roads or rail, should pay for itself. Any system that isn't priced appropriately is distorting the market and making it harder to figure out the true cost and plan effectively. One thing I would love to see adopted in the US is a public transportation tolling system like they have in Japan where you pay for distance traveled and the cost of your commute in general. In the interest of stating my biases, personally, I purchased a home in a part of Seattle that is unlikely to ever see much if any benefit from a subway system. I'm familiar with the geotechnical concerns where I live and the only public transportation which will ever serve my home and my neighborhood is likely to be a bus (this is not too dissimilar to the reason why Beacon Hill will also not benefit). I am, however, in favor of buses and would also like to see investment long term in smart streets that provide a foundation of an autonomous vehicle system. Lastly, thanks for engaging in good faith discussion unlike other commenters here.

bobthepanda 6y ago
> They should get the same scrutiny. One proposed system getting this scrutiny isn't an argument that neither should get the same scrutiny. It is a statement about the bias of the linked piece though, which is quite clearly right-wing. > One thing I would love to see adopted in the US is a public transportation tolling system like they have in Japan where you pay for distance traveled and the cost of your commute in general. Roads also work like this in Japan. But I wouldn't call the Japanese system much better; Japan allows companies to subsidize 1000USD per month for each employee, in a manner similar to how American employers subsidize healthcare. This has the effect of making travel relatively pricey in general (because people with subsidy can afford to pay more), and also the effect of concentrating employment in major urban areas, because if you live in a small city with low transportation costs you are essentially leaving most of that 1000USD off the table. In the West we treat travel as a public good, but it's really only an American thing that we tilt so much funding in favor of just the car. > the only public transportation which will ever serve my home and my neighborhood is likely to be a bus (this is not too dissimilar to the reason why Beacon Hill will also not benefit). There's nothing wrong with buses. The major problem is that Seattle has relied too much on buses; pre-COVID, public transit funds were being unspent because the ability to allocate money to transit has exceeded the capability to actually spend it for such a purpose. They literally could not find enough drivers to run the service already being funded because of how tight the employment market was. One major reason why light rail is being pushed so heavily is because it is both more labor efficient in general (a driver can either operate a 40/60 foot bus or a 380 foot train), and because the major speed and reliability increases of the rail system will allow less vehicles to serve the same frequency. The long-term plan (at least before COVID took a sledgehammer to public finances) was to redirect bus resources from long, infrequent commuter routes to short, frequent feeder routes to Link. Also your comment about Beacon Hill is strange, because Beacon Hill does have a light rail stop, today. Even if you're not next to it, the 36 bus runs straight through Beacon Ave every ten minutes throughout the day.

bobthepanda 6y ago

> They should get the same scrutiny. One proposed system getting this scrutiny isn't an argument that neither should get the same scrutiny. It is a statement about the bias of the linked piece though, which is quite clearly right-wing. > One thing I would love to see adopted in the US is a public transportation tolling system like they have in Japan where you pay for distance traveled and the cost of your commute in general. Roads also work like this in Japan. But I wouldn't call the Japanese system much better; Japan allows companies to subsidize 1000USD per month for each employee, in a manner similar to how American employers subsidize healthcare. This has the effect of making travel relatively pricey in general (because people with subsidy can afford to pay more), and also the effect of concentrating employment in major urban areas, because if you live in a small city with low transportation costs you are essentially leaving most of that 1000USD off the table. In the West we treat travel as a public good, but it's really only an American thing that we tilt so much funding in favor of just the car. > the only public transportation which will ever serve my home and my neighborhood is likely to be a bus (this is not too dissimilar to the reason why Beacon Hill will also not benefit). There's nothing wrong with buses. The major problem is that Seattle has relied too much on buses; pre-COVID, public transit funds were being unspent because the ability to allocate money to transit has exceeded the capability to actually spend it for such a purpose. They literally could not find enough drivers to run the service already being funded because of how tight the employment market was. One major reason why light rail is being pushed so heavily is because it is both more labor efficient in general (a driver can either operate a 40/60 foot bus or a 380 foot train), and because the major speed and reliability increases of the rail system will allow less vehicles to serve the same frequency. The long-term plan (at least before COVID took a sledgehammer to public finances) was to redirect bus resources from long, infrequent commuter routes to short, frequent feeder routes to Link. Also your comment about Beacon Hill is strange, because Beacon Hill does have a light rail stop, today. Even if you're not next to it, the 36 bus runs straight through Beacon Ave every ten minutes throughout the day.