4 ms·

It seems absurd to me that they'd judge the success of public transit as when the property values go up, rather than whether people are riding it and using it.

It seems absurd to me that they'd judge the success of public transit as when the property values go up, rather than whether people are riding it and using it. We should build public transit because it's an improvement on quality of life for the community, not because people who don't live there will see a return on investment. Housing prices will always be a bubble, as long as they're so detached and distant from the communities they're trying to build.

zdragnar 4y ago
The people who ride the lines were already getting from point A to point B using other means (cars, busses, taxis), so ridership isn't really a useful metric. Pretty much all of the lines that are being built are being sold as ways to improve the economy along the line, as people are pulled out of cars and off the freeway (i.e. greater visibility of local stores and housing options to commuters).
- bobthepanda 4y ago
  There is a way to look at it and that is time saved. Seattle traffic is so horrendous it does legitimately save time (or, if not saving time, take a consistent amount of time.)
  - zdragnar 4y ago
    OP here. In this particular case, for this particular line, traveling by car is roughly between a third and half the time it takes by light rail. Most of the other lines that I know of are similar or slightly better, but there's a bit of a spread. I don't know of any that are actually faster. This is a metro that wishes it was a coastal style metro, but is not on the west or northeast coasts.
    - bobthepanda 4y ago
      I-5 craps the bed on a fairly regular basis, particularly on game day at the SODO or UW stadiums (and all bets are off if there are multiple games scheduled for one day). It may be 45 minutes to SeaTac on light rail, but it is always 45 minutes on light rail, whereas travel times on I-5 can vary widely depending on congestion, accidents, etc. Some trips are much faster. The Capitol Hill extension was wildly popular, because pre-opening the surface traffic could easily take 20-40 minutes from Capitol Hill to either downtown or UW. Now, it's five minutes to either, and the surface traffic has also adjusted accordingly somewhat since less people are congesting the roads with cars and rideshares. In general the highway network in the area is super fragile because there are only 4 major highways in the area (I-5, 520, I-405, I-90) and few parallel arterials. I suspect that East Link will also become wildly popular, as will the northern and southern extensions, because of predictable travel times. Already many people take the buses that get stuck in traffic that these light rail lines will replace. And it will also help alleviate the issues with the commuter buses, such as there not being enough bus drivers to operate the scheduled services. The light rail isn't perfect, but few things are. Modern metro construction in the US has mostly gone sideways worse than light rail systems.
- red_trumpet 4y ago
  If you want to pull people out of cars, comparing metro ridership to previous non-car riderships seems a pretty good metric?

zdragnar 4y ago

The people who ride the lines were already getting from point A to point B using other means (cars, busses, taxis), so ridership isn't really a useful metric. Pretty much all of the lines that are being built are being sold as ways to improve the economy along the line, as people are pulled out of cars and off the freeway (i.e. greater visibility of local stores and housing options to commuters).

bobthepanda 4y ago
There is a way to look at it and that is time saved. Seattle traffic is so horrendous it does legitimately save time (or, if not saving time, take a consistent amount of time.)
- zdragnar 4y ago
  OP here. In this particular case, for this particular line, traveling by car is roughly between a third and half the time it takes by light rail. Most of the other lines that I know of are similar or slightly better, but there's a bit of a spread. I don't know of any that are actually faster. This is a metro that wishes it was a coastal style metro, but is not on the west or northeast coasts.
  - bobthepanda 4y ago
    I-5 craps the bed on a fairly regular basis, particularly on game day at the SODO or UW stadiums (and all bets are off if there are multiple games scheduled for one day). It may be 45 minutes to SeaTac on light rail, but it is always 45 minutes on light rail, whereas travel times on I-5 can vary widely depending on congestion, accidents, etc. Some trips are much faster. The Capitol Hill extension was wildly popular, because pre-opening the surface traffic could easily take 20-40 minutes from Capitol Hill to either downtown or UW. Now, it's five minutes to either, and the surface traffic has also adjusted accordingly somewhat since less people are congesting the roads with cars and rideshares. In general the highway network in the area is super fragile because there are only 4 major highways in the area (I-5, 520, I-405, I-90) and few parallel arterials. I suspect that East Link will also become wildly popular, as will the northern and southern extensions, because of predictable travel times. Already many people take the buses that get stuck in traffic that these light rail lines will replace. And it will also help alleviate the issues with the commuter buses, such as there not being enough bus drivers to operate the scheduled services. The light rail isn't perfect, but few things are. Modern metro construction in the US has mostly gone sideways worse than light rail systems.
red_trumpet 4y ago
If you want to pull people out of cars, comparing metro ridership to previous non-car riderships seems a pretty good metric?