I’ve been reluctant to join the fun of the Prop 1 debate up here on the front page, but I’ve gotta respond to Josh Feit here. He has a valid point that building massive parking lots around light rail stations will allow more people to drive to them. That’s obvious. But I think he misses the bigger point:
Because, like I said yesterday, ill-conceived light rail lines don’t create density, they create outpost park and rides that fuel exurban development and more roads. (Check out towns like New Market, Maryland “along” the Red Line—or some 40 miles away from DC.)
New Market, Maryland isn’t some new town created by expanded rail. It’s a rest stop town that was established over 200 years ago. It makes sense to build along established trafficways to accomodate the kinds of travel that people normally do. The development of the Philadelphia suburbs was very much shaped by where rail lines existed and along the main travel lanes, from the old Main Line to the newer SEPTA lines.
But while rail lines can concentrate development in certain areas, some people simply don’t like living in dense areas. No amount of urban planning will ever change how they think. One of the main problems I see undermining the development of better transportation solutions in this city is the belief that our transportation solutions should be used in a way to change people’s behavior. You can’t do that – it won’t work. You can only build systems that cater to people’s existing travel patterns and give them better options. Eventually, if you build a system that caters to what people want and need, they will use it to its fullest potential.
Sprawl will still happen no matter how effective your transit system is and how much effort you put into urban planning. New York City has a massive amount of trains going into the city from all over the region, yet people still live in far-off places, drive to train stations, and commute there. You’ll never stop people from choosing to live far from where they work in order to live more cheaply or to be far from others.
The solution isn’t to only build rail to places where people won’t (or can’t) drive to the station to ride it. The solution is to build rail so that larger numbers of people only have to drive their cars a short distance every day, rather than clogging the streets going into the major downtown centers (Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue) where most people work.
Josh’s argument is completely irrelevant. Does he even know if park and rides will be built at the stations?
That post is proof Josh Feit wouldn’t vote yes on even an transit only prop 1.
Josh’s real point seems to be that anything you build in the suburbs is bad. Bad Bad Bad. Those people are evil. Right Josh?
Dammit, Lee, stop being so logical.
Yo, it must be something about the Philadelphia background.
Lee,
I think you are wrong .. Josh aside. Light Rail will NOT affect where people live IF nothing happens to change how we use cars. It seems to me the latter is a bad bet. The era of free transportation by dead dinosaur degradate is coming to an end. One way or another, people who live at a distance will be at a competitive disadvanatge and the inevitable outcome of that is a change in where and how we choose to live.
I can give you a small local example of this. I live on Cap Hill in House that was built in 1908. Why was it built? It was built because the street car came to Capital Hill two blocks away just before our hose and the local Catholic Church were built.
I think you can see the same thing around Boston. While the ‘burbs began to grow with the return of the vets after WWII and the advent of cheap cars, there was a huge change ion where people chose to live with rt. 128 was built as a circumferential road.
frankly, I am voting for Prop. 1 with my thumb and forefinger firmly implanted about my nose. I think the lack of support by the local pols and the opposition by Sims seay this is badly written legislation. I feel blackmailed.
OTOH, It seems to me that what Goldie has said is clear. We can already see the beginnings of a new era along the Ranier rout and all that is happening in a far more tasteful way than the gawdawful stuff Vulcan is creating at SLU. If I has $$ I would buy property along the line as a long term investment.
I do agree wiht one thing .. the parking issue and the local transportation issues are neglected by Prop 1. and ..seming ly in general by our local planners. As one personal example, the Cap. Hill station is going to surface where 2nd Hand Books is now. (Sad loss!) There is already a parking problem there and there are noplans for a parking structure.
I go to SeaTac often. I live about 20 blocks from the station .. too far to walk with luggage. How am I going to get there if I want to use this to get to/from the Airport?
I think the answer, as with a lot of the rest of Prop 1. is in blackmail. If Prop 1 passes, it will CAUSE the need for other investments! The station on Cap Hill ain’t going to be useful unless we have much better bus service. Even then, how many folks want to trundle a vactionload of suitcases on Metro, unload them on B’way and then trundle them to the train. etc? Unless the planners are blind, they know this and assume that someone, perhaps a private party, will decide to create a parking structure or increase local taxi density to capitalize on this opportunity.
@5
I think you are wrong .. Josh aside. Light Rail will NOT affect where people live IF nothing happens to change how we use cars.
You clearly didn’t understand my post because I’m saying the exact same thing.
@2: Bingo. I think with this inane argument, we can now conclude that Feit is inherently anti-rail. At least Erica claims to like rail, even if she is deeply misinformed about the rest of the situation.
As to your argument, Lee, it misses a key point. Sprawl is not the product of market choice. It’s structured by government, and always has been. Here in Washington we have the Growth Management Act which has backed King County’s strong anti-sprawl rules. Could we do better? Surely. But sprawl is not a product of natural forces. It is by no means inevitable.
Why do people live in sprawl? Because that’s what’s available. When there is enough density, served by reliable mass transit – and as we continue to limit the production of new sprawl – it will become more economical to live in dense areas. Especially as the cost of gas continues to rise.
For those who doubt this, ask yourself: who is buying these Seattle condos? A large number have been suburban empty-nesters. These are folks who embraced sprawl in the ’60s, ’70s, and ’80s, who now decide they are perfectly happy living in a dense place.
All of this should suggest that sprawl is easily prevented through effective regulation and density-friendly infrastructure. I mean, really, how many of these light rail lines are going to places that aren’t already developed? None.
@5: That’s an excellent point you make there at the end. Prop 1 opponents like to point to induced demand on new roads and freeway lanes (though they never point out that only works if the price of gas remains constantly low). However, there is also induced demand around mass transit. Not only the line itself, but service TO the stations. Already there is talk of a First Hill streetcar. With more light rail lines along the heavily used corridors, that frees up buses and drivers being used in those corridors (520, 99, I-5) to be redirected to helping get people to the light rail stations.
Already there is talk of a First Hill streetcar. With more light rail lines along the heavily used corridors, that frees up buses and drivers being used in those corridors (520, 99, I-5) to be redirected to helping get people to the light rail stations.
—————-
And what do the RTID studies say about the impact of this on congestion reduction?
@ 9
What are you talking about? Transit doesn’t reduce congestion, it mitigates it, giving people options other than the car.
“One of the main problems I see undermining the development of better transportation solutions in this city is the belief that our transportation solutions should be used in a way to change people’s behavior. You can’t do that – it won’t work. You can only build systems that cater to people’s existing travel patterns and give them better options. Eventually, if you build a system that caters to what people want and need, they will use it to its fullest potential.”
I agree with you, Lee.
@5 Cars have never been free, SJ. Cars have always been expensive to own and operate. Even when gas was cheap.
I’m pretty sure EVERYONE would take a job close to home if possible.
People don’t want to live in Seattle why?
Transit systems ARE needed.
It really isn’t light rail that being rejected…it’s the way $$$ is being misspent to built it.
The geography of the area doesn’t help much either.
One high horse certain people need to get off is the notion that the 2% who eschew cars can order the 98% who own cars to get ditch their cars and walk or ride a bike. Ain’t gonna happen, and they sound loony making the suggestion.
What are you talking about? Transit doesn’t reduce congestion, it mitigates it, giving people options other than the car.
——————–
Really? So congestion will actually be worse in 2028? I think most people are looking for congestion relief with Prop 1, relief from today’s congestion that is. Looking at this slightly differently, what percent of drivers does RTID project will leave their cars for light rail during the peak commute hours in 2028 along key corridors? That is to say, what percent does RTID project will take the rail alternative?
Lee makes a great point here, and this just happens to be right next door to my hometown of Frederick, MD. New Market is a beautiful old town. My grandfather and I would take Sunday drives down to the farmers market when I was a kid.
Many of the folks who live out there commute into Washington, DC on a daily basis, spending 2 – 4 hours each day in their cars fighting traffic. It’s just a fact of life people deal with. Trust me, they don’t like it too much. But for some reason they complain about it way less than people in this part of the country. Bless their hearts!
When I go back to visit, the discussion about rail is: “When is the Metro finally going to make it to Frederick?” People ask because it has literally become a 50+ mile mess into DC. The traffic gets really bad just about when you hit New Market. They’ve been promising Metro expansion for many years now.
The point here is that we have to build the infrastructure and when it exists for these suburban communities it will be useful and easier than their current commute. So they will use it. It’s ridiculous to suggest people should just move. It’s just not feasible.
That’s why park and rides are a great solution. Sure cars will fill up parking garages, but isn’t it better that they drive 5 or 10 miles to the park and ride vs. driving 30 – 50 miles for a traffic laden commute to work?
Apparently, the issue of political palatability is not one that the yahoos at The Stranger would support. What they seem to forget is that even the residents of Seattle were hesitant to support public transit in the form of the Monorail. Getting this through wrapped up in a regional, multimodal package was really the only way to do it… otherwise, we’d be living on the Moon before we’d be getting to Bellevue and back on light rail.
@ 15
A million people are going to move here in that amount of time. Of course congestion will get worse.
14 Nah….what’s going to make people give up cars is that it’s going to continue to become more expensive and unpleasant to use them.
This is going to happen whether or not we build more roads, whether or not we build more transit, or whether or not the iron-and-asphalt afficionados and the spandex-and-granola crowd keep screaming at each other.
What they seem to forget is that even the residents of Seattle were hesitant to support public transit in the form of the Monorail.
——————-
The residents of Seattle were “hesitant” to support Monorail only after it became apparent that Monorail was a financial albatross of the first magnitude. Unfortunately, the evangelists for Monorail ignored the critics, much to the economic chagrin of many. So, let’s not think of Monorail as a good public transit idea that Seattle just couldn’t get behind.
@18
A million people are going to move here in that amount of time. Of course congestion will get worse.
***********************
Or it could be 1.5 million. (These projections are about as reliable as a Merrill Lynch forecast, for what it’s worth). But back to my original question:
What percent of drivers does RTID project will leave their cars for light rail during the peak commute hours in 2028 along key corridors? That is to say, what percent does RTID project will take the rail alternative?
@ 21
RTID is the “roads” part, so they wouldn’t been the ones doing the prognosticating, would they?
If you want numbers, go to soundtransit.org and look them up yourself.
I’m watching the whole Prop 1 debate from Eastern Washington and I’m wondering when it will stop being about density and urban vs. suburban planning and just be about transportation alternatives. You need more (and better) roads over there even with rail. The benevolent reasoning you are fighting over are meaningless when they the whole thing is standing still.
@22
RTID is the “roads” part, so they wouldn’t been the ones doing the prognosticating, would they?
If you want numbers, go to soundtransit.org and look them up yourself.
****************
The data should all be under one umbrella at RTID, http://www.rtid.org (and that’s another issue altogether, incidentally, the difficulty of finding not just reliable data, but any data). The point is, you can’t make arguments about Prop 1 being a good investment if you can’t project how effective it will be in getting people out of their cars. If the number for key corridors is a mere 1 or 2 percent, that’s a key element of the evaluation. It can’t be ignored.
Back to you, have you ever seen these numbers?
21 “What percent of drivers does RTID project will leave their cars for light rail during the peak commute hours in 2028”
In 2028? What cars?
20 It might be argued that the proponents of the Monorail paid far too much attention to the critics, and abandoned the simple idea of extending the technology we already possessed and understood into an all-too-elaborate redesign from the ground up. With all the thrashing and debate and the ridiculous numbers of conceptual sketches of supposedly more esthetically pleasing columns and rails, the property owners kept on whining because nobody had the guts to tell them to STFU…and there was no indication that any of these more supposedly “advanced” designs would be appreciably faster, more efficient or really any better looking than what Alweg was making 45 years ago.
Combine that with our esteemed civic leadership who viewed it as competition to Sound Transit and as a result were determined to crush it into the dust.
Lee
Here is what I disagree with:
… No amount of urban planning will ever change how they think. One of the main problems I see undermining the development of better transportation solutions in this city is the belief that our transportation solutions should be used in a way to change people’s behavior. You can’t do that – it won’t work. You can only build systems that cater to people’s existing travel patterns and give them better options. Eventually, if you build a system that caters to what people want and need, they will use it to its fullest potential.
…….
The solution isn’t to only build rail to places where people won’t (or can’t) drive to the station to ride it. The solution is to build rail so that larger numbers of people only have to drive their cars a short distance every day, rather than clogging the streets going into the major downtown centers (Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, Bellevue) where most people work.
Maybe I misunderstood but these para seem contradictory. I agree wiht the second but not the first.
Another example of how I believe we can change commuting habits is by facilitating transit in high density areas. I am, however, not convinced there is enough planning in Seattle to let this happen. The debacle of the monorail is a sad lesson. The proponents saw it as mass transit BUT the route chosen was intended not for maximum transport of folks but to encourage high density real estate development in W Seattle and Ballard.
Similarly, unlike the mess in SLU, I believe that building neighborhoods, rather than overpriced high rise condoes, could work. But, the plans I see so far look more like dorms for the too rich.
@12 Roger Rabbit
@5 Cars have never been free, SJ. Cars have always been expensive to own and operate. Even when gas was cheap.
BS. Cars in the USA have been heavily subsidized since WWII. The Eisenhower admin was intended to build up Detroit!
It would be interesting to see a real accounting of the total cost per mile of driving your own car w/ and w/o fuel.
Josh says:
“Because, like I said yesterday, ill-conceived light rail lines don’t create density, they create outpost park and rides that fuel exurban development and more roads”
Josh–did you even bother to look at the light rail plan? Do you even understand what communities it goes to? Do you even understand that the Sound Transit boundaries are within the urban growth boundary called for in the Growth Management Act?
Nothing is “exurban”. Apparently journalistic ethics are in short shrift these days. Light rail goes to Roosevelt, Northgate, Shoreline/N. Seattle/Mountlake Terrace/Lynnwood in the north. It goes to the Rainier Valley/Mercer Island/Bellevue (several stops)/Bel-Red Road/Overlake (Microsoft)/Redmond in the east. It goes to SeaTac/Des Moines/Federal Way/Fife/Tacoma in the south.
This list includes the #1 most populated city in the state, #3, #5, #7, #13, #15, #26, #36, #40, and #49. Each has over 20,000 people in it today. Those above #13 have over 50,000. Those above #5 over 100,000. These are urban areas. There are at least ten other cities in the top 50 largest communities in our state that get Sounder or bus improvements in the Roads and Transit plan. Each city desires tax revenue to fund worthy programs in our difficult state tax environment and messed up world. They want developers to invest in their cities. They would welcome development of housing and retail. They will upzone around transit centers and rail stations.
Since Erica, Josh and Sierra Club board members rarely leave Capitol Hill and Seattle to experience the rest of the region they don’t really know what the communities that rail will touch are like. The Stranger only leaves Capitol Hill, Belltown and North Seattle to make fun of the rubes. Half the staff probably believes West Seattle isn’t part of the city and is a suburb. Never mind that many people, especially working families, have to move out of the city to be able to afford a place to live.
So–if you have been to any of these exotic places listed above I would welcome you to post. And here is a simple exercise for undecided voters who haven’t been to these cities. Why don’t you use Google Maps or Google Earth and take a look at the satellite photos? It will only take a few minutes and you will see that these towns are plenty urban already and offer great opportunities for infill.
27 I don’t have occasion to go to West Seattle very often, but I feel qualified to point out that “high density real estate development” is happening in Ballard anyway.
@30
ArtFart
I know … I know! AND the monorail would have amplified something that is going to happen anyway.
I reluctantly supported the monorail because i believe in always compromising my virtue with practicality when I vote.
BUT, all the discussions about the monorail; CLAIMED it was a way of mitigating I5 or somehow improving transit for existing populations. That argument made no sense to me. Moreover, like Prop 1, there were obviously folks who would profit hugely by the taxes the rest of us paid.
Same issues seem to me to pertain to Prop 1. In a sensible system, Vulcan would be chipping in because SLU will get a huge boost from the Redmond to SLU choo choo (hmmm is SLUT II, Bill’s toy the way SLUT 1 was out gift to Paul?).
BTW, how hard would it be to get as ballot initative in Seattle insisting that SLUT be the official name for the SLUT? Is a SLUT by any other name less of a SLUT? Or is it incorrect in our PC town to call a trolley a derogatory female name? WE coulda called it POT .. Paul’s Own Trolley or my favorite the Seattle Choo Chooo.
All Aboooooarrrdd!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If my financial advisor lost the amount of money that the King County idiots have spent and basically lost, on a scheme such as this – he/she would be fired in a hot second.
All of your ideas about roads and cars dont amount to much when the crooks that run this city cant seem to figure out a budget and we spend billions on a big fat NOTHING.
I dont know of a single person voting in favor of Prop 1… thank God.
Lee claim: “You’ll never stop people from choosing to live far from where they work in order to live more cheaply or to be far from others.”
$200/gallon gas will change that behavior.
More Lee: “Sprawl will still happen no matter how effective your transit system is and how much effort you put into urban planning. New York City has a massive amount of trains going into the city from all over the region, yet people still live in far-off places, drive to train stations, and commute there.”
True. But the greater metropolitan area of New York City has nearly 20 MILLION PEOPLE LIVING THERE!
Sprawl is an product of poor land use planning, not of building light-rail or BRT with parking in the ‘burbs. King County has fairly good land use planning and will do well under Prop. 1. Pierce County (where I live) has shitty land use planning and Prop 1 will increase sprawl in the county.
The state land use appeals board just ruled against Pierce County, yet again.
http://www.thenewstribune.com/.....91876.html
The Pierce County Council must redraw the boundaries for commercial development in Graham after a state appeals board ruled the area is too big to comply with growth management laws.
@18
Prop. 1 is being sold as we need to build because 1.2 million people are coming. The truth of the matter is that it is more a matter of us building this so that the 1.2 million may come. Washington’s GMA contains infrastructure development concurrency with housing development.
If you pin John Ladenburg down on Prop. 1 and the GMA he freely admits this.
@ 36
Well, ok, but that’s sort of a distinction without a difference. Seattle isn’t Buffalo, by that I mean the city (and by a larger percentage, the region) is growing, adding more jobs and more residents. Perhaps it is more accurate to say that the region is adding more jobs, thus more residents, thus we are growing.
People are moving here for lots of reasons, and they sure aren’t taking their cues from our retarded transportation planning process.
I’ll tell you what, if I had a wife and kids and a good job located in near downtown seattle or downtown tacoma, light rail would play a huge part in my decision on where to live. Probably Federal Way, or maybe Auburn (love that Sounder!).
I imagine that John Ladenburg will say a lot of things if you pin him down, like, “why are you pinning me down” and “ok, ok, Dwight! I’ll run for AG, just stop pinning me down!”
36.
You clearly don’t understand how concurrency works. There are lots of “grades” that a council can select in order to declare development “concurrent”. Any community that wants development without spending the money to accommodate the resultant traffic can just opt to downgrade the standard of congestion they will accept and–voila!–they’ve achieved concurrency without spending a dime. Yeah, there’s a limit to which they can play this shell game under the GMA; but the limit still allows for pretty serious congestion.
When people think they’re waiting longer at traffic lights than they used to, they are. And that is why.
If you live on the eastside. Prop 1 is a no brainer…Vote yes because Seattle is subsidizing you.
If you live on the westside. Prop. 1 should be a no brainer..Vote No. What is Seattle getting? Light rail that was supposed to be built last time ST asked for money, but since they have(supposedly) got their shit together, they will really do it now?
If you have a clue about global warming, and pollution, how can you pretend to be true to yourself, and vote for all this freeway construction? More sprawl, more Californication.
@33
It’ll change the kinds of cars we drive, but it won’t change the desire of people to live in sparsely populated areas. The latter desire is what will likely eventually lead to cars that don’t rely on gas. It can be done, but GM, Ford, and others don’t want it to happen too quickly because then they’ll lose their competitive advantage overnight.
@27
I definitely could’ve explained it better, but the main point I wanted to make isn’t contradictory. It’s true that someone might change their commuting behavior if light rail is built near them, but you’ll never convince people who don’t want to live in a high density region to live in one. There are always going to be people who choose to isolate themselves or to live remotely out of cost. Trying to eliminate sprawl by building a transit system that makes it impossible to live far from it is a fool’s errand.
@37
“Well, ok, but that’s sort of a distinction without a difference.”
LOL… No it’s not. The GMA can be used to control both where new growth goes and how much new growth takes place.
Lets hope John Ladenburg decides on a golf filled retirement rather than running for AG.
Lee: “The latter desire is what will likely eventually lead to cars that don’t rely on gas.”
The idea of “cars that don’t run on gas” is an illusion based on the autocentric living and development model. As long as you continue to hold that bedrock assumption, you will continue to go down blind alleys.
You overlook the basic fact that the very industrial infrastructure necessary to BUILD cars depends on oil. The same infrastructure that grows and delivers our food, our industrial materials (asphalt), our toys….you name it.
@42
What I’m saying is that if oil becomes unaffordable, the market will quickly re-form around a different resource, so that people will still maintain their lifestyles.
Stop bitching about Vulcan and SLU. You people could have had an amazing park where Vulcan now is. It was called The Commons. You voted it down. “Well The Commons would have displaced low-income housing!” Yeah, so did the building of the Seattle Center, I-5, and Greenlake Park. Do you boycott using them? Didn’t think so.
Let me say what no one else has the balls or brains to say. The light rail line from Seattle to Seatac is idiotic. It’s a political route. It’s going through largely transit-dependent neighborhoods who already have the best bus service in the county. It will do nothing more than get people out of buses and onto trains. It will acually take longer to get from downtown to Seatac than it currently takes a bus. Look it up. ST chose that route to guarantee “success.” Success meaning high ridership. (They will cut back on bus service to assure this). And they also didn’t want to be charged with racism and classism by buiding a line that makes more sense, like Seattle, to Bellevue, to Redmond. Can anyone remember the last time they heard on the radio MLK Way was bumper to bumper? I can’t. Not at 7:30 PM, not at noon.
Let me bottom line it for you. You selfish assholes need to step up and do something for future generations. Vote Prop 1. Have a nice day.
@43 Lee: Currently there is no other resource on the horizon that will enable such a market, or even non-market response, especially a ‘rapid’ one. The whole stand alone housing suburban big box development pattern may well be doomed to utter failure.
In this regard, I am hesitant to share your optimism.
@43
Yeah, that’s not going to happen.
This whole thread is somewhat irrelevant. The roads and transit measure will be defeated by a huge margin on Tuesday.
the faulty Feit argument aside, the 12K park-and-ride spaces in ST2 show auto-dependency and poor cost-effectiveness. Some of the spaces were on the commuter rail lines. Two garages were in Renton and Bothell. Most were on the Link LRT extensions; many stations were costed with 500 space garages. in those areas, park-and-ride will attract peak-period traffic to arterials that are already congested and upon which buses will have to run to feed the LRT stations. the capital cost of the spaces could have been devoted to a stream of service and attracted more riders. before scarce transit funds are used for garages, joint uses should be established so that the spaces are used twice each day. park-and-ride is really only needed where the street grid is insufficient to allow walk or bus access to rail. nowhere along the LRT alignment is this the case.