You know how when you're at the bus stop and the Local shows up and it's packed and obviously only has room for you if you stand in the aisle and clutch at a post and you think, "I'm better than that. I'm waiting for the Express," the Express--which is scheduled to come only minutes later--never shows, late or ever? Then, thirty-five minutes later you're presented with the same dilemma, only this time the Local is even more packed and traffic has really picked up by this point so it's sure to be a week and a half before you can finally sling your shoulder bag on the floor inside your own front door if you take the Local, but the Express could be tantalizingly close--just down the street maybe... Or it could be up on blocks at base somewhere, who knows? You know how that is?
The Sierra Club should have a pretty good idea what we're talking about here. They're the people that thought it would be a good idea to wait on light rail until 2008 when surely it would be on a ballot without all that stinky road crap alongside it, so they tried to help torpedo Prop 1 in November. The Times' David Postman is reporting that state Democratic leadership doesn't want transit on the ballot in 2008, though. Duh.
[House Transportation Chairwoman Judy] Clibborn said that the state should not prevent Sound Transit from trying again now. But, she said, “I think cooler heads will prevail” and she doubts there will be another attempt before 2010.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
It's not really fair to blame the Sierra Club from trying to stop people wasting our money on projects that largely don't address the traffic and commute problems. Prop 1 was an exercise in brinksmanship, trying to force everyone to swallow a lot of what they don't want to get unpopular projects funded. Yes, the voters and the government have kept this morass in place for a long time, and seem schizoidal on everything, but that doesn't change the fact that really, Prop 1 was a bad idea and anyway was doomed to fail by its collossal overreach (when was the last time the voters voted for an expensive mass transportation project? The monorail, which was sent to the ballot four times after endless efforts of a solid minority to kill it?), neither of which the Sierra Club can be held responsible for.
What Jeremy said. Also, who gives a fuck what that state Democratic leadership says they want or don't want? Miserable rabble. If they can't figure out that transit is the hot issue, they won't be around that long.
How can they not hear that we want RTS? I just don't understand this at all.
Bus service can be made a lot better (faster, more frequent, less crowded) across the greater Seattle region years sooner and for billions of dollars less money than required for the light rail lines of Sound Transit.
Buses should have high priority along some Seattle arterials, like what has been done along Third Avenue in downtown Seattle. Pike and Pine between Seattle downtown and Capitol Hill are already scheduled to be rebuilt for faster bus service.
What is unreasonable about waiting for Sound Transit to build and operate the Beacon Hill subway before turning the agency loose to build the longest, deepest light rail subway tunnel in the world, from Pine Street to 75th Street, over 6 miles?
Even with 125 miles of two-way light rail, the Puget Sound Regional Council computer models of 2040 traffic show that 75% of all transit trips will still require a bus ride. WE MUST MAKE THE BUSES WORK BETTER. I'm personally seeing more standing room only buses at 10 in the morning, and that's wrong. Funding light rail and the Seattle Streetcar will not make buses work better.
Not to repeat myself too many times, but buses are not the answer. Or rather, they can't be the only answer. Yes, buses seem increasingly crowded and irritating, but the result of that will be a pissed off enough public who gets more bus funds to expand slightly. But buses will always suck, and they're never going to expand them as much as riders want, because riders want more empty seats and policy-makers--particularly those who rely on votes to stay in office--want fewer empty seats, because empty seats cost money.
Then there's trains and SLUTs and light rail. Will this solve our problems? No. We could have solved them a century ago, back when building things like subways (real subway systems, not just light rail tunnels) were more affordable because of lower safety standards, lower relative wages, and less government oversight.
So the question we face is: do we do the most we can with the future in mind, or serve only short-sighted ends? Buses are short-sighted. We'll never escape them altogether, no, but we can improve and diversify, crucial for future development, by creating real alternatives for longer distance travel or for crucial routes.
I should have added to the second paragraph: will streetcars and light rail and trains solve our problems? No, there is no solution. But there's a better and a worse, and all of those are better than more or bigger buses.
@Jeremy
Seconded.