Seattle Times Wonders Why Light Rail Isn't Full Yet

Nice thoughts have been jot down.. needs no further addition..!!!!!!

Eileen..

======================



foreclosed homes

Eileen..

============================



foreclosed homes

10 people on an outbound reverse-peak train? What's the problem? The more interesting question would be, what was the outbound ridership during the PM rush hour?

I don't know if Seattle has some unique scenario going on, but usually people go into downtown in the morning and leave it in the early evening.

So, the Times reporter went out and did some actual reporting, and wrote what he observed. You know, as opposed to just sitting around reading stuff on the web and making snarky comments.

Nothing negative in the story -- it's really quite evenhanded. It doesn't try to answer why ridership is light.

Perhaps the author of this item should question his own biases.

Biases like defending the Times when you work for them? Pot, meet bigyaz.

Audrey, your friends already looked up my domain many posts ago; not like I'm trying to hide it -- which I could easily do through a proxy if I really cared. (For what it's worth I don't work in the news department and have no input there.)

Try this: Find someone who knows nothing about light rail in Seattle, have them read the Times story, and ask them whether they think it's anti-transit and pro-sprawl, as the original post and subsequent comments assert. That I would find interesting.

bigyaz, my post asserts no such thing. It looks askance at trying to hang a ridership angle on one morning's results, and using end-of-year ridership projections to call the first day's usage "light." I wrote only that the commenters are willing to tear up the tracks, not the Times. And yes, we have been going out and covering the light rail opening in person, too.

It's a failure! Quick- back to the buggies!

I rode the light rail yesterday and I saw big crowds at Tukwila and Westlake - and nowhere else. At the rest of the stations there were only a handful of passengers. Now, what do Westlake and Tukwila stations have in common? Oh, right - parking. You don't think that Mayor Nickles hamstrung the light rail from the start by insisting that people will just have to walk or bike to stations?

Parking's not the issue. People will adapt.

I mean have you visited NY or Boston or DC?

How far have you walked to get a train there?

I walked 15 mins to the T station in Boston for my commute and thought nothing of it.

Now, the issue of whether that takes longer or costs more than if you were to just drive yourself is a legit one. In Boston, yes. In Seattle, no.

That's what's really gonna sink this thing...

It's still easier, faster and cheaper for people to drive themselves than it would be to drive and park.

Tod, I think you're assuming some static conditions that might not be true. First, Metro will apparently be adjusting some routes, and presumably timetables, to better integrate with rail. More importantly, with time, a good number of people will migrate to areas near rail, thereby rendering the lack of parking thing less relevant.

Frank, interesting last point. I know quite a number of people won't have their drive pried even from their cold, dead hands. On the other hand, depending on the day or time of day of their commute, I don't think it's cheaper or faster to drive for a number of other people--figuring traffic, hunting and paying for parking, hassle of dragging the car along, etc.

I know I don't speak just for myself when I say that most of the time I would rather gouge my eyes out with a fork than drive, though admittedly this is largely for downtown as the destination that I speak of.

That's because the Seattle Times is anti urbanism, anti transit, anti progress, and well... anti anything that doesn't take us back to "the good ole days."

There were too many hilarious lines from that article to mention here, but one of my favorites was when the author complained that the train rocked side to side on some of the curves. (this is what trains do... it's ok.)

I can't wait until that rag goes out of business.

I really love the anti-democratic, shitting-upon-the-media-that-gives-you-these-stories-to-begin-with attitude that you guys take.

And given this weekend's "nothing but light-rail" coverage on the times website, I'd say the Times is hardly anti.

A lot of people are ticked off at a really expensive project that doesn't directly benefit them (i.e. commuters from the North and East). You can't just dismiss them.

Damn Times, always the pessimist. Who needs that energy in our city any way? I vote that readership isn't what you would expect after the PI closing! What's up with that?